View Poll Results: Allow Remote Res Shox in Stock classes AS IS
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
07-19-2015, 11:39 PM
#31
Racer
Agreed. When this all started "stock" probably meant stock plus safety equipment, but we are way past that point. I think the real hang-up is the word "stock." Perhaps it should be changed to base or class I or something to eliminate the whole preconception around a stock car. Or the rules should be changed and written to say a stock car is a car as delivered from the factory plus safety equipment. Anything else progresses up the class structure.
My guess is someone did not understand how to make improvements with shock changes, so they proposed the rule change so that those that understand how to tune a car would not benefit.
Greg
07-20-2015, 01:36 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
I wonder how many in stock have RR shocks that would be affected? I'm thinking >60% in F and above.
IMO, should have never been allowed but too much time and $$$ invested now for those who have them to change the rule.
Sucks for those that are new to PCA stock but as mentioned you can still be fast, win and set records w/o them.
Also like and have liked the idea of be able to go back 1 class with only safety, brake pads and fluid. No exhaust, suspension or any other changes allowed. Relatively economical and good to get feet wet for those new.
Also like the idea of changing the name "stock" to something else.
Personally I'm happy with the way the rules and classing are. Not perfect of course but no such thing.
IMO, should have never been allowed but too much time and $$$ invested now for those who have them to change the rule.
Sucks for those that are new to PCA stock but as mentioned you can still be fast, win and set records w/o them.
Also like and have liked the idea of be able to go back 1 class with only safety, brake pads and fluid. No exhaust, suspension or any other changes allowed. Relatively economical and good to get feet wet for those new.
Also like the idea of changing the name "stock" to something else.
Personally I'm happy with the way the rules and classing are. Not perfect of course but no such thing.
07-20-2015, 02:55 PM
#33
Three Wheelin'
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
Originally Posted by coryf
Sachs makes a 4 way adjustable through rod shock that doesn't have a remote reservoir. They cost a lot more than 5K a set and would still be legal because they aren't remote reservoir. PCA would have to disallow all adjustable shocks. Teams would then just have multiple sets of shocks with different valving. Someone will all ways find a way to spend money on what they feel would be an advantage. In the end it would end up costing people more.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
07-20-2015, 03:01 PM
#34
Three Wheelin'
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
Originally Posted by gregturek
Based on the above simplistic argument we should also run stock seats and seat belts, tires, brakes, etc.
Back in the early (earlier?) days of of PCA racing "Stock" meant shocks and sway bars were free. Meaning if you could bolt it to the stock mounting pointing points anything was allowed.
Then someone decided they didn't like driver adjustable sway bars. So I put a lock on my cockpit adjustable sway bars when I was on the track so they were not adjustable by the driver.
Then that was deemed insufficient and I had to move the sway bar adjusters so that the driver could not reach the bars from the driver seat.
So $1K+ later I was compliant and it didn't change sh*t. Once the bars were set for the weekend, they were never changed and my lap times were the same as they were with driver adjustable sway bars.
Now I need to take out my 2-year old Motons for even more expensive adjustable, but non-external reservoir shocks? This is just another example of a rule change that just adds expense with no (little?) effect on lap times.
There are bigger issues with Weight to Power ratios that determine if a car is competitive is class. But the rules committee was not interested in addressing that issue this year.
YADRCP (Yet Another Dumb Rule Change Proposal)
Greg
Back in the early (earlier?) days of of PCA racing "Stock" meant shocks and sway bars were free. Meaning if you could bolt it to the stock mounting pointing points anything was allowed.
Then someone decided they didn't like driver adjustable sway bars. So I put a lock on my cockpit adjustable sway bars when I was on the track so they were not adjustable by the driver.
Then that was deemed insufficient and I had to move the sway bar adjusters so that the driver could not reach the bars from the driver seat.
So $1K+ later I was compliant and it didn't change sh*t. Once the bars were set for the weekend, they were never changed and my lap times were the same as they were with driver adjustable sway bars.
Now I need to take out my 2-year old Motons for even more expensive adjustable, but non-external reservoir shocks? This is just another example of a rule change that just adds expense with no (little?) effect on lap times.
There are bigger issues with Weight to Power ratios that determine if a car is competitive is class. But the rules committee was not interested in addressing that issue this year.
YADRCP (Yet Another Dumb Rule Change Proposal)
Greg
07-20-2015, 03:27 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
I always understood that the performance advantage of “Remote Reservoir” was cooling. In amateur racing, is this really an issue? Do people really boil their shock oil?
We want to have a class where racing is fun. The new cars may be fun and capable “out of the box”, but driving an older 911 around on stock springs and r-comp tires isn’t much fun… So we need springs.. New springs lead to new shocks.
I don’t think anyone would disagree up to this point… So to say “stock means stock” is just not realistic, you DO have to allow a few changes.
Now the discussion…
What kind of shocks can be allowed?
- Remote Reservoir – There just isn’t a performance advantage… Quit using it as a euphemism for “expensive”.
- Adjustable Shocks – I believe there is truly an advantage to having shocks tuned to the car (and to the track as well)… So to think non-adjustable shocks means people would not “tune” them is again short sighted.. What it really means is: Developing a car will take years instead of days. So now the long time racers will have a real advantage over the newbies, and the newbies have a long, expensive learning curve.
As expensive as they are, adjustable shock are the cheapest way to develop a car with a non-standard suspension.
In this case I think what you are really trying to say is “no package should be bigger than mine”…
We want to have a class where racing is fun. The new cars may be fun and capable “out of the box”, but driving an older 911 around on stock springs and r-comp tires isn’t much fun… So we need springs.. New springs lead to new shocks.
I don’t think anyone would disagree up to this point… So to say “stock means stock” is just not realistic, you DO have to allow a few changes.
Now the discussion…
What kind of shocks can be allowed?
- Remote Reservoir – There just isn’t a performance advantage… Quit using it as a euphemism for “expensive”.
- Adjustable Shocks – I believe there is truly an advantage to having shocks tuned to the car (and to the track as well)… So to think non-adjustable shocks means people would not “tune” them is again short sighted.. What it really means is: Developing a car will take years instead of days. So now the long time racers will have a real advantage over the newbies, and the newbies have a long, expensive learning curve.
As expensive as they are, adjustable shock are the cheapest way to develop a car with a non-standard suspension.
In this case I think what you are really trying to say is “no package should be bigger than mine”…
07-20-2015, 03:45 PM
#36
Burning Brakes
I think Gary said it best in the other thread
" they have NOT been "free", people have been cheating and someone at some point let it go. After that it was the "genie out of the bottle" BS but the rules have not been changed to allow a non-stock type shock.
From the 2015 Rulebook -
"2. Suspension
C. Shock absorbers are free providing they are of the same type, using the same pick-up points, as supplied by the factory."
Porsche did not supply external reservoir double/triple adjustable "type" shocks. Period. Either it's a rule or it isn't. Pick one."
I think rules committee is putting this up there to finally ammend the rules to allow them....not to get rid of them
Has nothing to do with the word stock or blah blah blah street cars ....that's just what some people have picked up on as an arguement since they already have remote resivoir on their car to make the arguement against them sound stupif
it's wrong they have been allowed for so long
yes they are an advantage when set up right...key words here being set up right.... as they allow you giant tortion bars and enough adjustment to handle them
But
They need to be set up to work and don't necessarily mean you will be faster.....
Should it bump up a class....no.....should it be a weight penalty. ..YES!!!!!...since I don't have em
but really I don't want to have all my competition move up a class and make me change something....guess I could put huge brakes and aero on hehe
If it doesn't pass will I care....no....I'll still complain just because its a good excuse...just makes me try harder with my ancient technology and extra funds for tires
So in the end im glad its getting clarifled and am fine either way...but do feel its not right to have allowed them in the first place....
Don't bump just add weight for having them...like 25 or 50 lbs....cept 968s since the 3 people with them are so vocal of needing help
" they have NOT been "free", people have been cheating and someone at some point let it go. After that it was the "genie out of the bottle" BS but the rules have not been changed to allow a non-stock type shock.
From the 2015 Rulebook -
"2. Suspension
C. Shock absorbers are free providing they are of the same type, using the same pick-up points, as supplied by the factory."
Porsche did not supply external reservoir double/triple adjustable "type" shocks. Period. Either it's a rule or it isn't. Pick one."
I think rules committee is putting this up there to finally ammend the rules to allow them....not to get rid of them
Has nothing to do with the word stock or blah blah blah street cars ....that's just what some people have picked up on as an arguement since they already have remote resivoir on their car to make the arguement against them sound stupif
it's wrong they have been allowed for so long
yes they are an advantage when set up right...key words here being set up right.... as they allow you giant tortion bars and enough adjustment to handle them
But
They need to be set up to work and don't necessarily mean you will be faster.....
Should it bump up a class....no.....should it be a weight penalty. ..YES!!!!!...since I don't have em
but really I don't want to have all my competition move up a class and make me change something....guess I could put huge brakes and aero on hehe
If it doesn't pass will I care....no....I'll still complain just because its a good excuse...just makes me try harder with my ancient technology and extra funds for tires
So in the end im glad its getting clarifled and am fine either way...but do feel its not right to have allowed them in the first place....
Don't bump just add weight for having them...like 25 or 50 lbs....cept 968s since the 3 people with them are so vocal of needing help
07-20-2015, 05:21 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
From the 2003 CRN, vol. 6 pages 8&9: "Interpretation of the current 2003 rules" -----then --- "Stock Classes":
"Suspension 2.B. Remote reservoir and double/triple
adjustable shocks are legal in the stock classes. These are
deemed the same type as supplied by the factory as long as
the pick-up points are not changed. This does not mean that
the shock housing can be machined to adapt the shock to the
housing. Machining in the stock classes is illegal."
This was addressed at least as far back as 2003 in CRN and RRs were (and are) legal in stock class although never added to the rulebook. https://www.pca.org/club-racing-news
"Suspension 2.B. Remote reservoir and double/triple
adjustable shocks are legal in the stock classes. These are
deemed the same type as supplied by the factory as long as
the pick-up points are not changed. This does not mean that
the shock housing can be machined to adapt the shock to the
housing. Machining in the stock classes is illegal."
This was addressed at least as far back as 2003 in CRN and RRs were (and are) legal in stock class although never added to the rulebook. https://www.pca.org/club-racing-news
07-20-2015, 08:25 PM
#39
Rennlist Member
Exactly, who cares what someone wrote in the 2003 Club Racing News magazine? If it isn't specifically allowed by the CR rules then it is NOT allowed, isn't that the mandate? Either change the PCA CR Rulebook to spell it out as legal or spell it out as the prepared change it obviously is. The factory did not supply adjustable shocks with internal or external reservoirs (doesn't matter)... Dan Jacob's stock class cars used Bilstein Sports since before my start in 2005 because they were legal. You think he knew there were better shocks and that we would drop the $$? Of course he did, but he also knew it was wrong to use them.
Last edited by Gary R.; 07-21-2015 at 11:44 AM.
07-20-2015, 08:45 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
I fully agree this should be specified in the rulebook.
That said, why would it be wrong to use them if they were legal in 2005(?), even if not in the rule book if the rule chair says it is legal, it is allowed. DA/RR shocks are not the only example of things allowed outside the rulebook - which does say "Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T." But- as most of us know if you want clarity you can email the rules coordinator for further guidance since the rulebook doesn't address everything / lack of detail. I have an email from Donna from late 2005 or early 2006 somewhere saying they were legal then which makes them legal no matter how flawed the interpretation is.
Drivers running RR shocks have not been cheating because they have been legal in stock class even if not in the rule book specifically. Again I agree it should have been in the rule book but it hasn't been. And this wasn't the only thing mentioned but not brought into the rule book, there were a few more in that CRN.
That said, why would it be wrong to use them if they were legal in 2005(?), even if not in the rule book if the rule chair says it is legal, it is allowed. DA/RR shocks are not the only example of things allowed outside the rulebook - which does say "Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T." But- as most of us know if you want clarity you can email the rules coordinator for further guidance since the rulebook doesn't address everything / lack of detail. I have an email from Donna from late 2005 or early 2006 somewhere saying they were legal then which makes them legal no matter how flawed the interpretation is.
Drivers running RR shocks have not been cheating because they have been legal in stock class even if not in the rule book specifically. Again I agree it should have been in the rule book but it hasn't been. And this wasn't the only thing mentioned but not brought into the rule book, there were a few more in that CRN.
07-20-2015, 09:09 PM
#41
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Remember they rules were retroactively amended to get rid of the loophole that allowed cars where PCCBs were an option, to put those on a car where the option was available, then allowed the rotors to be changed over to non ceramic rotors. A few guys did, those who didn't or couldn't complained, and the rules were amended. It will be interesting to see if the this one passes.
07-20-2015, 10:08 PM
#42
Burning Brakes
Difference is this affects alot of people since it'd been going on so long....there would be alot of people affected by this....alot in many different classes
and the email from Donna may have counted back then but may not stand true now....the old crn concerning the wings and pccbs was quoted and shot down before this past ammendment i believe
Regardless.....put it in the rule book one way or the other rather than Sam really old newsletter no one will have at the track to point to when they get dq'd
When I want to see if my car is compliant I go to the rules not crn....maybe I'm wrong in doing that....but they do call it the rule book for a reason
and the email from Donna may have counted back then but may not stand true now....the old crn concerning the wings and pccbs was quoted and shot down before this past ammendment i believe
Regardless.....put it in the rule book one way or the other rather than Sam really old newsletter no one will have at the track to point to when they get dq'd
When I want to see if my car is compliant I go to the rules not crn....maybe I'm wrong in doing that....but they do call it the rule book for a reason
07-20-2015, 10:46 PM
#43
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
I don't care if adjustable shocks are allowed or not. I have not commented either way to the committee. Will I ever buy adjustable remote shocks for the next race car? Nope. I'd rather spend the money on tires since I don't have unlimited funds to race. Do I care that other cars I may race against have them? Nope.
Since man started racing, there have always been some with a little advantage. Whether it was a faster horse, or a better prepared car. Club racing is just that, club racing. I'm not getting paid to race, asked to drive at Le Mans or Daytona, not getting interviewed on SportsCenter, or getting asked to endorse subs, soda, or clothes. I just want simple consistent rules and a car that is legal and not a cheater car. I want be reasonably competitive, have fun, trash talk a little in the paddock, stay out of the tire wall and drink beer at the end of the day.
All that said, looking forward to the Summit Point race and hope a bunch of the Yankees come join us.
Since man started racing, there have always been some with a little advantage. Whether it was a faster horse, or a better prepared car. Club racing is just that, club racing. I'm not getting paid to race, asked to drive at Le Mans or Daytona, not getting interviewed on SportsCenter, or getting asked to endorse subs, soda, or clothes. I just want simple consistent rules and a car that is legal and not a cheater car. I want be reasonably competitive, have fun, trash talk a little in the paddock, stay out of the tire wall and drink beer at the end of the day.
All that said, looking forward to the Summit Point race and hope a bunch of the Yankees come join us.
07-20-2015, 11:30 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
You aren't entirely wrong
Originally Posted by good hands
This is why I bought a Cup car. Clear solid rules that keep cars equal and racing affordable