morsini

You be delusional. And I mean that in the nicest way!

944Cup

This rule in question does not effect the SP 944 classes, so the change is of not specific concern to me, so I don't have a horse in the race. But for comparison sake, this is how we went about the rules for the 944 Cup (aka SP2 and SP 3) when it comes to shocks and it has worked out well. From day one of the 944 SP classes, 14 years ago, we have allowed remote reservoir shocks and for the shocks to be adjustable. This copied exactly the PCA Stock rules. This has how PCA defined its shock rule by practice for Stock since day 1. Why doesnt really matter or what the webster definition of "stock" means. This is how it has always been defined by PCA. And I think this is the way it needs to stay, the same as it has always been.

When shocks really began to evolve in club racing beyond double adjustable, we did limit the Stock classification to double adjustable for SP2 and Prepared for anything more. This was done just for perception that money for more expensive shocks was the difference maker.

As far as remotes, this only makes shock adjustment easier, not better, at least not for the length of racing done in PCA, unless you are doing a real endurance race, like 6 hours plus in the summer heat.

Year after year we have seen in the series and these classes that remotes have no correlation to who wins races. The same between double and triple adjustable. Year after year we see our National champion do it with single adjustable shocks like Koni Sports.

Drivers who win races using shocks with remotes will win races with no remotes. Maybe if anything, remotes help the guy who shows up at the track by himself because he can't afford to pay a race shop and crew to show up with him at the track to remove his shocks to adjust them.

Gary R.

Maybe true if you bought a MIATA Cup!

The adjustable shock thing just needs to be clarified once and for all. PCA wants to spell out in the CR Rulebook that they are allowed in Stock class, then they need to do so. They want to say it's a prepared change with a weight increase and/or bump up in class, then do so. Is it a "competitive advantage"? Of course it is. Have I even been beaten solely because someone had adjustable shocks? I highly doubt it... but they were most likely cheating in some other area!

forklift

Putting my horse to bed on this - but again I agree that it should be specified if they are legal but the CR official back in 2003 said that they consider DA/RR "the same type as supplied by the factory". To me that says that they are included in that even though not specified. So in a sense (and I realize this is murky water here) they have been in the rule book as they were deemed "same type by the factory" -- as flawed as that might be. Has that interpretation changed since then (?), apparently not since the rule up for debate mentions it.

Either way I take issue with the insinuation (or is it direct?) that those running these are or even were cheating when they are/were not (or that scruits have been turning a blind eye). If that were the case then the rule change up for debate would be whether or not these should be legal in stock class, and not a prepared change. The proposed rule change even says "Allowing these shocks in Stock was based on an unfortunate misinterpretation of the rules long ago."

Maybe part of the rule change is that the rule book needs to have more detail everywhere. Another quote, this from the current rule chair last year for more insight:

"Each year it seems the
rules increase and get more
detailed; this is inevitable.
Rules inherently start out a
bit broad. The rules writers
assume a certain amount of
common understanding. But
not all share that understanding,
and questions arise as to
where the line might be
between compliance and infraction. Where there
reasonably is some ambiguity, as questions get
answered, the answers usually find a way into the
rules. But sometimes questions of ambiguity are
resolved by publicizing interpretation."

IMO the wording for "if it doesn't allow don't do it" should have "unless you get permission from the rule chair and carry it in your log book" added somewhere.

Gary R.

I fully believe that the first users of adjustable shocks in Stock class installed them to gain what they perceived to be a performance advantage over the stock non-adjustable shocks. They didn't do it because they wanted to spend 2-5x more $$ or for looks! To say they are the same "type" opens the door to bigger brake calipers (they certainly are the same "type" as what came on the car), and other non-stock modifications. Brakes components are spelled out in the rules as a prepared change as they are a performance advantage, so should the shocks be.

Again, if they are deemed legal it needs to be in the rules, but to me they have no place in Stock class and belong in Prepared, and that will always be my opinion.