JesseWhite Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Single adjustable, relatively economical... Curious if this is forced into the +7 class or falling in the +4 class. Part 3013-1023 Front and 3013-1024 Rear. Externally adjustable, monotube, gas shock. http://www.soloperformance.com/images/2004ApplGuideKoni.pdf , page 3 for the feature grid against the double and non adjustable shocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAFTRACER Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 5) It's not that we don't like performance shocks, it's just that we don't want TT to be a "money race", and you need to remember that these mod assessments are for $60,000+ Z06's and $4000 Hondas. We started getting guys with Penskes (without ext. reservoirs), and DMS 50's, and other high performance shocks/struts/dampers that were putting a hurt on the competition by their much better suspension setup (especially in the classes lower than TTU). So, the bottom line is that in '06, those Konis that you mention would all be +12 for the aluminum body versions. The steel body versions would be +4 for your car (without coilovers), but you still take another +2 for the aftermarket leaf springs. Above directly from an e-mail I had with Greg G. about shocks. So let me get this straight. regardless if the adjustment is through the shock, if the construction difference between aluminum and steel is 8 pts.????? I could have a non-adjustable shock built for my car ( with my current valving) and only take +2. Or I could have steel bodied shock ( double adjustable through shaft ) and take +4, but if they are otherwise identical made of aluminum I take +12 ?????? Like I said , NASA is scared of shocks........Shame when the shock manufactureres could come in and provide contigency or something. I know I take +2 for springs obviously. But if I had aluminum shocks already and decided to go coil-overs (and really spend money) I wouldn't take any additional points. What about QA1 shocks, made of aluminum,dirt cheap still +12........WOW. maybe it should read only with resevoirs+12. Above my reply............. Hopefully this helps you Jesse, PM me if I can help you with shocks.....I can get your Koni SA's for you , they may even be able to be "special" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Im taking +4 for my off-the-shelf Konis that were used and given to me by a friend. the best things in life are free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseWhite Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Thanks guys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 5) It's not that we don't like performance shocks, it's just that we don't want TT to be a "money race", and you need to remember that these mod assessments are for $60,000+ Z06's and $4000 Hondas. We started getting guys with Penskes (without ext. reservoirs), and DMS 50's, and other high performance shocks/struts/dampers that were putting a hurt on the competition by their much better suspension setup (especially in the classes lower than TTU). So, the bottom line is that in '06, those Konis that you mention would all be +12 for the aluminum body versions. The steel body versions would be +4 for your car (without coilovers), but you still take another +2 for the aftermarket leaf springs. Above directly from an e-mail I had with Greg G. about shocks. So let me get this straight. regardless if the adjustment is through the shock, if the construction difference between aluminum and steel is 8 pts.????? I could have a non-adjustable shock built for my car ( with my current valving) and only take +2. Or I could have steel bodied shock ( double adjustable through shaft ) and take +4, but if they are otherwise identical made of aluminum I take +12 ?????? Like I said , NASA is scared of shocks........Shame when the shock manufactureres could come in and provide contigency or something. I know I take +2 for springs obviously. But if I had aluminum shocks already and decided to go coil-overs (and really spend money) I wouldn't take any additional points. What about QA1 shocks, made of aluminum,dirt cheap still +12........WOW. maybe it should read only with resevoirs+12. Above my reply............. Hopefully this helps you Jesse, PM me if I can help you with shocks.....I can get your Koni SA's for you , they may even be able to be "special" The rule is written to remove any possible loophole. So say a competitor was going to skirt the rule by running a non-adjustable Penske 7100 (steel body)... that person would still have to take 12 points because it is rebuildable (threaded body cap) and of a gas-charged monotube design. Displacement shocks (non gas-charged) aluminum or steel, should not be awarded the same points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAFTRACER Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 5) It's not that we don't like performance shocks, it's just that we don't want TT to be a "money race", and you need to remember that these mod assessments are for $60,000+ Z06's and $4000 Hondas. We started getting guys with Penskes (without ext. reservoirs), and DMS 50's, and other high performance shocks/struts/dampers that were putting a hurt on the competition by their much better suspension setup (especially in the classes lower than TTU). So, the bottom line is that in '06, those Konis that you mention would all be +12 for the aluminum body versions. The steel body versions would be +4 for your car (without coilovers), but you still take another +2 for the aftermarket leaf springs. Above directly from an e-mail I had with Greg G. about shocks. So let me get this straight. regardless if the adjustment is through the shock, if the construction difference between aluminum and steel is 8 pts.????? I could have a non-adjustable shock built for my car ( with my current valving) and only take +2. Or I could have steel bodied shock ( double adjustable through shaft ) and take +4, but if they are otherwise identical made of aluminum I take +12 ?????? Like I said , NASA is scared of shocks........Shame when the shock manufactureres could come in and provide contigency or something. I know I take +2 for springs obviously. But if I had aluminum shocks already and decided to go coil-overs (and really spend money) I wouldn't take any additional points. What about QA1 shocks, made of aluminum,dirt cheap still +12........WOW. maybe it should read only with resevoirs+12. Above my reply............. Hopefully this helps you Jesse, PM me if I can help you with shocks.....I can get your Koni SA's for you , they may even be able to be "special" The rule is written to remove any possible loophole. So say a competitor was going to skirt the rule by running a non-adjustable Penske 7100 (steel body)... that person would still have to take 12 points because it is rebuildable (threaded body cap) and of a gas-charged monotube design. Displacement shocks (non gas-charged) aluminum or steel, should not be awarded the same points. Thats not what Greg said in his e-mail to me. I inquired about all of this specifically. The above is a direct quote from Greg himself, not something that I have fabricated. Steel Bilstiens (oem) have a "threaded" removeable cap. This shock rule stuff is bizzare......thats why I was so critical of all of the shock rules and asked the questions from the man himself........then I additionally saved all of the e-mail for documentation. I asked him specifically about the shocks I had in question and gave part#'s. Glad I am not a TT director , September is going to be UGLY. I think that NASA believes this TT stuff is a stepping stone into roadracing , where I believe this is going to (and already has) grown into something unintended with people fielding purpose built cars to compete in TT specifically. We'll see if this PT stuff takes off as fast as TT, I dont think it will. I firmly believe that TT is a great outlet for people wnating to compete on roadcourses, without the danger of wheel to wheel and will just stay there and be happy. We'll see just how badly everyone is scrutinized for their modifications, this is a National championship for christs sake. I am sure there will be multiple blood baths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Well Greg's decision is final and whatever conclusion he came to is now scripture; we both agree on that. To clear the air: I had a helping hand in creating this particular rule, probably because I was put under the spotlight as having "cheating bastard shocks", I was just trying to give an underlying explanation as to why some lesser hardware still receives the big point award. There are certain characteristics of a damper which allow it to perform above your run-of-the-mill koni and those characteristics are mentioned in the specific rule. More universal qualifiers are things like remote reservoirs and a big price tag. Big Question - Why +12 points for a damper that shares in one or two of those characteristics? Simple, it can be made to perform as well as a damper with all those bells and whistles mentioned. An internal reservoir damper with one adjustment can be just as badass as a damper which utilizes remote reservoirs and multiple adjustment ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 BTW, I understand your shocks don't warrant the big point assesment because they are a displacement shock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAFTRACER Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I understand the reasoning on why NASA is "scared" of shock technology, however, on a car that is already taking points for springs,bushings,and bars, shocks are no longer being used to "fool" the ultra-soft suspension. I have spent many,many years in SCCA National Autocross competition and am fully aware of how these big $$ shocks are advantagous with otherwise stock suspensions. The real problem is that the +12 pt shcok rule damn near excludes all aftermarket shocks that are made these days.......standard retail chain Bilsteins have threaded body cap ends, every adjustable shock except for maybe the QA1 are through the shaft, there are even very inexpensive aftermarket shocks being made with aluminum housings. Not really on a rant here, this wouldn't even be an issue for me if the C5 Corvette rules were not as screwed up as they are............... I really hope the e-mails that Greg and I exchanged hold true through Nationals ,, otherwise there are goign to be some very hard feelings ( and a bad taste in the mouth ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I'm still minorly peeved about the camber-bolt ruling for my car (since I'm using factory specified equipment and I've got the TSBs to prove it). but the way the rule is worded I understand the intent, even if the intent is kinda silly. let people align their cars the way they want to, the factory is stupid. bottom line, I just want my 2 points back 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.