718 as an Autocross Tool
01-05-2019, 10:34 AM
#196
But according to fastrack it's still legal in SS for this season... So it will be interesting to see who invests that amount of coin for what could be one season and how it worked out for them. I know of at least one nationally competitive GT4 th at has already bought one.
From BOD member:
"... It was submitted by the SEB and we did not approve it. I'll give you some reasons, but someone will undoubtedly want to argue about it and I won't do that. The proposal was to allow a product by one manufacturer. We dont do that. The product doesnt cover all the cars in the class. Thats a problem. We dont propose modifications with a built in sunset. The $1100 figure is a ruse. How many retunes will be needed by the incredibly few people who know how to do this and at what expense? This is something that should be allowed in tuner classes before happening in Street. I may have missed a few..."
01-22-2019, 06:20 PM
#197
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t believe that is the case. Those recommendations still have to be approved by the BOD and they shot it down.
From BOD member:
"... It was submitted by the SEB and we did not approve it. I'll give you some reasons, but someone will undoubtedly want to argue about it and I won't do that. The proposal was to allow a product by one manufacturer. We dont do that. The product doesnt cover all the cars in the class. Thats a problem. We dont propose modifications with a built in sunset. The $1100 figure is a ruse. How many retunes will be needed by the incredibly few people who know how to do this and at what expense? This is something that should be allowed in tuner classes before happening in Street. I may have missed a few..."
Got this today... seems that although you were correct, at the request of many members the BOD has reconsidered the topic and is now going to allow this language in this years rule book
#22772 #20102 Replacing Electronic Shocks
Per the SAC, add the following to Section 13 in the rulebook:
"13.5.A.8 Vehicles in Super Street originally equipped with an adaptive ride control system (MSRC, MRC, PASM, AMS, etc.) the calibration may be altered using an OEM provided re-flash or the entire controller may be replaced. The calibration or replacement controller may not perform any function not present in the OE controller. OEM Shock bodies and internals must remain unaltered. Additional sensors are not allowed. No modifications to the wiring harness is allowed.
01-22-2019, 06:24 PM
#198
Got this today... seems that although you were correct, at the request of many members the BOD has reconsidered the topic and is now going to allow this language in this years rule book
#22772 #20102 Replacing Electronic Shocks
Per the SAC, add the following to Section 13 in the rulebook:
"13.5.A.8 Vehicles in Super Street originally equipped with an adaptive ride control system (MSRC, MRC, PASM, AMS, etc.) the calibration may be altered using an OEM provided re-flash or the entire controller may be replaced. The calibration or replacement controller may not perform any function not present in the OE controller. OEM Shock bodies and internals must remain unaltered. Additional sensors are not allowed. No modifications to the wiring harness is allowed.
01-22-2019, 08:47 PM
#200
Rennlist Member
01-22-2019, 09:19 PM
#201
Drifting
I agree, this has no place in Street. The SAC and SEB read a lot of these forums and know how we feel, but what really matters is letters. I wrote my letter, has everyone else?
01-23-2019, 02:17 AM
#202
01-23-2019, 08:47 AM
#203
While I agree, do you think maybe one reason they did it is because it'd be hard to police? F1 had to go to a spec ECU to keep people from cheating... I imagine there is not enough manpower or the required equipment to check the ecu flashes on every car. Well, just throwing that out there.
"Law enforcement in the US currently solves about 60% of murder cases. Since we obviously can't effectively police it, we should just make murder legal."
Autocross is self-policing. There's no sanctioned technical inspection. Even at the highest level, competition cars sit in an impound for maybe 20 minutes with the hoods up, and fellow competitors can take a look. That's it. Only in extreme cases do we resort to the protest mechanism. This is grassroots, amateur motorsports. Since there's no six figure purses on the line, there's little incentive to cheat.
01-23-2019, 10:03 AM
#204
Rennlist Member
The more I think about this the more frustrated I get. This was the BOD's one opportunity to reset Street class and eventually undo the mistake of allowing custom high-dollar aftermarket shocks in the first place. As more and more manufacturers are offering adaptive damping, the stock classes would have naturally phased out the need for aftermarket shocks. Now Pandora's box has been opened and there is no doubt that the top drivers will spend tons of time and money getting custom tunes to maximize performance for every type of course, driving style, setup, etc. I know it's probably too late, but I am going to write a letter anyway.
01-23-2019, 11:28 AM
#206
The more I think about this the more frustrated I get. This was the BOD's one opportunity to reset Street class and eventually undo the mistake of allowing custom high-dollar aftermarket shocks in the first place. As more and more manufacturers are offering adaptive damping, the stock classes would have naturally phased out the need for aftermarket shocks. Now Pandora's box has been opened and there is no doubt that the top drivers will spend tons of time and money getting custom tunes to maximize performance for every type of course, driving style, setup, etc. I know it's probably too late, but I am going to write a letter anyway.
I've written a lot of letters in the past year on various ambiguities and loopholes in the wording of the rules governing electronic controls of other components (stability control, engine management), and every single one has gotten "thank you for your input". It seems to me that the current SAC and SEB aren't particularly concerned about allowances for electronic control systems being lax.
By all means write a letter, but I've given up.
Edit: Oh, and I wrote a letter suggesting sunsetting the shock allowance too. Thank you for your input.
Last edited by PedalFaster; 01-23-2019 at 11:44 AM.
01-23-2019, 01:34 PM
#207
My stock response to that logic is:
"Law enforcement in the US currently solves about 60% of murder cases. Since we obviously can't effectively police it, we should just make murder legal."
Autocross is self-policing. There's no sanctioned technical inspection. Even at the highest level, competition cars sit in an impound for maybe 20 minutes with the hoods up, and fellow competitors can take a look. That's it. Only in extreme cases do we resort to the protest mechanism. This is grassroots, amateur motorsports. Since there's no six figure purses on the line, there's little incentive to cheat.
"Law enforcement in the US currently solves about 60% of murder cases. Since we obviously can't effectively police it, we should just make murder legal."
Autocross is self-policing. There's no sanctioned technical inspection. Even at the highest level, competition cars sit in an impound for maybe 20 minutes with the hoods up, and fellow competitors can take a look. That's it. Only in extreme cases do we resort to the protest mechanism. This is grassroots, amateur motorsports. Since there's no six figure purses on the line, there's little incentive to cheat.
01-24-2019, 01:45 AM
#208
Thorough mass inspections aren't really feasible within the financial and time constraints of both the SCCA and the typical autocrosser.
Also, a philosophical question -- is it worth writing a rule that essentially mandates a $1k+ modification (shock tunes) in order to prevent the (hopefully vanishingly small) minority of people who would install those tunes anyway from gaining an advantage? I'm inclined to say no.
As an aside, how does an amateur with an amateur's resources (i.e. no access to blood transfusion equipment or EPO) cheat in cycling?
Also, a philosophical question -- is it worth writing a rule that essentially mandates a $1k+ modification (shock tunes) in order to prevent the (hopefully vanishingly small) minority of people who would install those tunes anyway from gaining an advantage? I'm inclined to say no.
As an aside, how does an amateur with an amateur's resources (i.e. no access to blood transfusion equipment or EPO) cheat in cycling?
01-24-2019, 03:07 AM
#209
Thorough mass inspections aren't really feasible within the financial and time constraints of both the SCCA and the typical autocrosser.
Also, a philosophical question -- is it worth writing a rule that essentially mandates a $1k+ modification (shock tunes) in order to prevent the (hopefully vanishingly small) minority of people who would install those tunes anyway from gaining an advantage? I'm inclined to say no.
As an aside, how does an amateur with an amateur's resources (i.e. no access to blood transfusion equipment or EPO) cheat in cycling?
Also, a philosophical question -- is it worth writing a rule that essentially mandates a $1k+ modification (shock tunes) in order to prevent the (hopefully vanishingly small) minority of people who would install those tunes anyway from gaining an advantage? I'm inclined to say no.
As an aside, how does an amateur with an amateur's resources (i.e. no access to blood transfusion equipment or EPO) cheat in cycling?
Here's a link to amateur cyclists doping taken in the UK. 20% of amateur cyclists doped. The other interesting part is the number of non-competitive cyclists who doped.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...-doping-328512
01-24-2019, 12:28 PM
#210
Here's a link to amateur cyclists doping taken in the UK. 20% of amateur cyclists doped. The other interesting part is the number of non-competitive cyclists who doped.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...-doping-328512
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...-doping-328512