krisa9977 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Uh.... That's a dumb argument. I don't think there is a race class in the world where you can leave some on the table from the rule book and be competitive. Me and Jimmy were competitive enough last year, putting five track records between us and finishing at first and second place at Nationals. We both used our daily driver cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varkwso Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Uh.... That's a dumb argument. I don't think there is a race class in the world where you can leave some on the table from the rule book and be competitive. Me and Jimmy were competitive enough last year, putting five track records between us and finishing at first and second place at Nationals. We both used our daily driver cars. Nice driving by both of you - with significant contingency on the table the stakes have ratcheted up in 2009. Dennis it was good to see you at Road Atlanta last month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slammed_93_hatch Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Trying to "control costs" wont work. Actually trying to set any standards on shocks wont work. The $$$ rule worked for a while, and by worked i mean no one really pushed the issue, or exploited it, or brought light to the issue. Every one was, as a whole fairly happy with it. It wouldn't be fair/correct to even try and class it on "mono tube +X points Twin Tube +X point Remote reservoir +X points" Every type of shock has its ups and downs, and ALL are can be very good. All can be very crappy too. Some one could have/might have been easily skirting around the $$ rules before. Search around for the bilstein DIY re-valve, with a little research and some time you can have a very very good shock for less then $500 MSRP.. (for most applications) It is a very tricky thing to try and control, and to try and determine what is "better". It's not like there is a definitive answer as to what is the "best/ultimate" shock. Sorry i didn't read through all 8 pages of the thread.. but i am interested in hearing what Greg comes up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slammed_93_hatch Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 You are totally missing my point. My point is that there is no advantage to run high dollar single or double adjustable shocks that has no remote reservoirs if you are running soft springs. For some cars or some race tracks it is better to run softer springs, but 3000$ JRZ would perform the same way as 1500$ Koni. This is why there is no need to add extra points for shocks that cost more then 3000$. You are getting most of the advantage out of 3000$ JRZ over 1500$ Koni only if you use stiff springs. JRZ would still perform better with soft springs, but not significant difference to add extra points. Motons or Penske have remote reservoirs. Increasing pressure in remote reservoir, does the same thing as if you put stiffer springs. Really?? Then why are the Touring guys in SCCA, and the stock class Auto-Cross cars Running Koni 2812/Moton/JRZ/penske. These cars are allowed alternate shocks but MUST use OEM springs. You can, when forced to by the rules. Use the shock LIKE a spring. IE have a crap ton of low speed compression Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Uh.... That's a dumb argument. I don't think there is a race class in the world where you can leave some on the table from the rule book and be competitive. Our cars used up all the points available for our class and as Dennis mentioned we were still very competitive and they are still daily drivers. My two cents on this is that people put too much emphasis on the car and not enough on their driving skills. Most would gain more from getting some top notch instruction than upgrading their shocks. But then again we all think we are Schumacher’s don’t we? Who said anything about racing, my point is that TT is a bridge to WTW if one wants to cross it. Personally, and I am sure this holds true for a lot of people out there, I don’t have the funds to dedicate a “race car”, certainly not for TT, if I did I would be in WTW, and if I chose to run TT, it would probably be in a more prestigious venue such as time attack or something where there is some serious monetary gains. I think building a dedicated race car for TT simply does not make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMINI Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Well said. Another thing to consider is: Can you do enough to keep the driver safe in a daily driver/TT scenario? That's one we all have to answer. When I look in the mirror, I'm not comfortable chasing that last tenth of a second without some serious driver saftey stuff in place. The kind of stuff that makes me feel safe doesn't make sense for a daily driver. There are plausible alternatives: Roll bar instead of full cage, nets instead of full containment seat, etc. Anyway this is probably a topic for another thread, so... back to your regularly scheduled shock $$$ debate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Well said. Another thing to consider is: Can you do enough to keep the driver safe in a daily driver/TT scenario? That's one we all have to answer. When I look in the mirror, I'm not comfortable chasing that last tenth of a second without some serious driver saftey stuff in place. The kind of stuff that makes me feel safe doesn't make sense for a daily driver. There are plausible alternatives: Roll bar instead of full cage, nets instead of full containment seat, etc. Anyway this is probably a topic for another thread, so... back to your regularly scheduled shock $$$ debate... You are absolutely correct the safety issue is a big one that does concern me all the time that is why I don’t push as much as I can. And yes back to shocks, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Uh.... That's a dumb argument. I don't think there is a race class in the world where you can leave some on the table from the rule book and be competitive. Our cars used up all the points available for our class and as Dennis mentioned we were still very competitive and they are still daily drivers. My two cents on this is that people put too much emphasis on the car and not enough on their driving skills. Most would gain more from getting some top notch instruction than upgrading their shocks. But then again we all think we are Schumacher’s don’t we? Who said anything about racing, my point is that TT is a bridge to WTW if one wants to cross it. Personally, and I am sure this holds true for a lot of people out there, I don’t have the funds to dedicate a “race car”, certainly not for TT, if I did I would be in WTW, and if I chose to run TT, it would probably be in a more prestigious venue such as time attack or something where there is some serious monetary gains. I think building a dedicated race car for TT simply does not make sense. Not everybody views TT as the minor leagues. I don't see how building any kind of racing car really makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkGt3 Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 My One Lap E46M3 runs 700/750#springs on Moton Club Sports and is OK on the street. Over 4000 mile in the 07 One Lap and ride quality was not an issue. The fact it was gutted and has 4:10 gears made it a little Noisey As others have said if you aren't building to the rules and using ALL your points then you are not at the top of the game. Yes the driver plays a part, but when you get a Driver, Not Me, and a Prepped to the max allowed car then times are going to drop and leave the casual TT in the Dust. Sort of like being the local AutoX Champ, going to Nationals and not even being close to the trophies. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisa9977 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Use the shock LIKE a spring. IE have a crap ton of low speed compression If you have remote reservoirs you can use shock like a spring. Autocross suspension setup is completely different from high speed race track setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Uh.... That's a dumb argument. I don't think there is a race class in the world where you can leave some on the table from the rule book and be competitive. Me and Jimmy were competitive enough last year, putting five track records between us and finishing at first and second place at Nationals. We both used our daily driver cars. Then let me ask you this..... Could you have done more to your car legally and made it not street able and you yourself had gone faster? ie: had someone not left some on the table and showed up that was an equal driver to you. They would have beat you, hence you would not have been competitive. And I don't find TT minor leagues at all. Let see. Less cost upfront (no cage) , Less risk of damage to the car (no contact) , less wear and tear on the car (don't have to finish a race just run a couple laps). And more Contingency then any race I've competed in yet (and I've raced at the runoffs). Why would you do anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisa9977 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Then let me ask you this..... Could you have done more to your car legally and made it not street able and you yourself had gone faster? To be completely honest with you no... But I didn't know about suspension setup last year as much as I know right now, doing professional racing and working with top suspension engineers. I wanted to get AST 5100 last year, but unfortunately they didn't make it for my car at that time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Then let me ask you this..... Could you have done more to your car legally and made it not street able and you yourself had gone faster? To be completely honest with you no... But I didn't know about suspension setup last year as much as I know right now, doing professional racing and working with top suspension engineers. I wanted to get AST 5100 last year, but unfortunately they didn't make it for my car at that time No as in you couldn't have gone quicker with more parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisa9977 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If I brought my TTB M3 to RA this year, I would be somewhere between 1:35 to 1:36. The only one difference I made this year, I put new suspension. I tested the same car that I used at RA last year in TT at Nurburgring GP course (not Nordschlife) with old and new suspension and lap time difference was about 3 seconds (1:33 vs. 1:30). I even have traqmate data if you are interested. That suspension can not be used on streets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 One idea might be to penalize based on ride height. For a slammed car to work well it must have other supporting modifications such as shortened shock bodies, stiff springs, relocated suspension points, etc. Slammed cars are also pretty unstreetable. If I brought my TTB M3 to RA this year, I would be somewhere between 1:35 to 1:36. The only one difference I made this year, I put new suspension. I tested the same car that I used at RA last year in TT at Nurburgring GP course (not Nordschlife) with old and new suspension and lap time difference was about 3 seconds (1:33 vs. 1:30). I even have traqmate data if you are interested. That suspension can not be used on streets I am interested ([email protected]). What was the before/after suspension? No other changes were made? I'd expect that sort of change going from a stock setup to good racing springs, bars and dampers, but I take it you went from a track-oriented suspension to a racing one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I am all for that. Have you ever seen a low mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZELISE Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 One idea might be to penalize based on ride height. For a slammed car to work well it must have other supporting modifications such as shortened shock bodies, stiff springs, relocated suspension points, etc. Slammed cars are also pretty unstreetable. Sounds good...... except how is it measured? Does this include lowering by using smaller tires and/or wheels? This does not keep someone from buying $5000 shocks for a car that is delivered low (BMW, Vette, etc.) and improving a car without taking points or doing the same for a car that sits higher. I thought the idea of the points system was to take points for modifications that improve a car's lap times. Shocks undeniably reduce lap times. And the better the shocks, the lower the lap times in general. It is fairly easy to spot aftermarket shocks so this should not be to hard to police for the ones that take points, it is just hard to figure out how many points. I do not believe that TT rules need to try to keep an even playing field between daily drivers and dedicated TT cars. To do this would mean that TT would become just like SCCA. Every year there is one car in every class that has a distinct advantage over all of the other cars (and many cars in the "stock class" in SCCA are not streetable). It is much more expensive to buy a new car every year to keep up than to have a fairly stable rule set like I have experienced in NASA TT the last 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisa9977 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 One idea might be to penalize based on ride height. For a slammed car to work well it must have other supporting modifications such as shortened shock bodies, stiff springs, relocated suspension points, etc. Slammed cars are also pretty unstreetable. If I brought my TTB M3 to RA this year, I would be somewhere between 1:35 to 1:36. The only one difference I made this year, I put new suspension. I tested the same car that I used at RA last year in TT at Nurburgring GP course (not Nordschlife) with old and new suspension and lap time difference was about 3 seconds (1:33 vs. 1:30). I even have traqmate data if you are interested. That suspension can not be used on streets I am interested ([email protected]). What was the before/after suspension? No other changes were made? I'd expect that sort of change going from a stock setup to good racing springs, bars and dampers, but I take it you went from a track-oriented suspension to a racing one? Time gap/distance: same car, same tires, same driver. suspension: TCK DA with aftermarket sway bars (slow lap) vs. Bilstein B16 (revalved) with stock sway bars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Was the data gathered on the same day? If it wasn't, that would be considered a variable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisa9977 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Next day, same track conditions. Those are two best laps that I put with old and with new suspension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Ok, lets see it. Bring it to Road Atlanta and run a 35 in TTB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RACER-X Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I still think this is the best idea so far. Point value can be modified to what NASA deems necessary to try to level the field. All the features are easily seen on a visual inspection and there would be no question about price. +0 OEM +4 non adjustable +8 single adj +12 double adj +16 triple adj In addition to the above, if your shock/strut/damper has any of these additional features you must take points for each..... remote reservior +5 inverted +5 custom valved +5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrsideways Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Thats massive points, for something that is considered "STOCK" legal for autocross. Triple adjustibles, custom valved , with remote canisters, and inverted would be 31 points. Now someone building a car for PT/TT would never do the above. But someone running a Car with the SCCA in one of the touring classes (which shocks are open, yet the cars run stock everything else) thinking about coming over and trying out nasa (like the person who started this thread), this would completely exclude them from showing up. Seems counter productive to punish someone with 31 points on a shock package which at best is worth a couple 10ths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 LOL So we should adjust points for people that don't run with NASA, just in case they show up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 That the SCCA calls that "stock" is ridiculous on their part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.