It looks like you are in Washington State running in Street Mod... do you run against Ryan Carag out there?

Just wondering because against all odds I actually know somebody who runs SM out in your state...

 

When you start really competing and get really into this, Hoosiers won't last you even one year. That's my top reason for racing in the ST classes.

 

Jesus, 240 competitors! We have from 40-60. Fortunately this allows for long courses. Their talking about making it even longer now! Currently at 70+ seconds.

I'm looking for an event on the fourth.

And I contacted SELGP about setting up JICs, I saw your name on their website for 1st place, so they have to be good right.

 

Yes I do, he's a very good driver, hell of a nice guy too! I haven't been able to beat him in his very well prepared M3, but trying!!

 

I've been doing some suspension investigation and it seems like many of the top national-level SM drivers are using the 3-way adjustable, external reservoir coilovers like Moton/Penske/etc. Bob Tunnel's web site lists Motons on his car and the AWD Talon (www.farnorthracing.com) uses custom 3-way Bilsteins. The things are outrageously expensive (~$5-6,000 per set) and I'm sure take a lot of setup. I have a friend with contacts in the racing applications department at one of the major suspension companies who have prepared European racing EVOs for everything from rally to slalom. I exchanged a couple of emails with them to enquire about their double-adjustables, which have separate bump/rebound adjustments, and the custom-made full race units with external reservoirs. They told me the valving on the race units is designed to handle higher spring rates that are normally required when using wide sticky tires on a grippy asphalt surface, and that their double adjustables would not be near as good in these circumstances. Race units also provide individual high speed bump, low speed bump and rebound adjustment. Bob Tunnel's website says that he has won 12 national titles and used double adjustable Koni's in 1997/1998, then switched to 3-way adjustable external reservoir units in 1999 and has used them ever since. It would be interesting to know if any of the top five SM National guys are using single or double adjustables anymore. If we could ever hope to drive as well as Bob, would we have the suspension capable of winning? I think the world of RRE and their JIC setup, but from what I understand, JICs have one adjustment that controls both Bump and Rebound. Can these units really hope to win at the elite level against a properly dialed-in set of 3-way units at the SCCA Solo 2 National Championships? I think it would be tough. I guess the guy with the biggest wallet will always have an advantage once you get into a class that permits more modifications, such as ESP and SM.

 

Well, you have a good point. To truly win at the national level, multiple times with the same base car; I think 3-way adjustable shocks are a must IMHO. The primary reason is that National events are performed on so many different types and shape of surfaces that single adjustable shocks are just not enough.

Double adjustable units are a hard one. I do not think that they offer twice the benefit compared to single adjustables to demand twice the price. Not all units are twice the price, but my point is that if the price difference is more than $1500 between single- and double-adjustables, it is worth a serious look into the triple-adjustables.

It is of increadable benefit to be able to adjust high and low speed bump and be able to match rebound accordingly. That is truly a winning package - of course if you know what you are doing

Frankly, if we could find a good short-length triple-adj. damper for around $4K, I'd grab it The units we have been looking into very closely for ourselves and some select customers are $14 to 16K. But they are one of the top three marquees.

JIC, Tein, Cusco, etc. are what I would consider lower end of the scale. Their experience in shock development is relatively new compared to Koni, Ohlin, JRZ, Penske, Bilstein; and the knowledge and experience just does not come to people, it happens overtime with countless hours of competition.

In short, I agree, if you will go seriously after multiple National Solo 2 and ProSolo titles, the better way is to go with triple-adj. shocks.

 

Without directly disagreeing with anything you said, I don't think that Bob Tunnell's 12 national titles are any "proof" that single adjustable shocks can't be competitive. Ask any of the people who compete against Bob whether they think that Bob could win a National championship on single adjustables... I'd be surprised if you could find even one who would say that Bob needs double or triple adjustable shocks.

Bob uses the best equipment because he can. And there is a certain follow-the-leader syndrome that happens in autoX. If the winner did X, Y, and Z, maybe I should do X, Y, and Z. Bob's livelihood is actually based on this. He wins, and other autoXers pay Bimmerhaus to prep their BMWs "Tunnell-style". Bob's SM car is a rolling advertisement for Bimmerhaus, and he's not going to build up that car "on the cheap" -- if he wants to show how to make a competitive autoX car on a smaller budget, he'll do that in DS or DSP.

I've read about some tests done that indicated that going from OEM shocks to double adjustables (for Stock class) led to perhaps an improvement of about 1 second on a 50 second course. My wild guess (without any basis in actual experience) would be that the improvement available by going from single adjustables to triple adjustables would be a lot smaller than that, probably less than 0.5 seconds; the separation of high speed bump from low speed bump is nowhere near the impact of that first damping adjustment.

So by my guess, a car on single adjustable shocks could win a National championship over cars on triple adjustable shocks -- all you have to do is outdrive everybody else by 0.5 seconds each day. That can be done -- it has been done. In 2003, the following classes were won by over 1.0 seconds: AS, CS, ES, ASP, and STX. I only looked at classes run on DOT tires, there were other such classes. But SM will be a very tough class to win as long as Bob continues to compete there -- not because he has triple adjustable shocks, but because his driving talent makes it damn near impossible to outdrive him by 0.5 seconds.

But hey, that's just my opinion. And if you can hook me up with some triple adjustable remote reservoir shocks that won't require taking out a second mortgage on my house, please let me know.

 

Bob and Jeff Reitmeier are such good drivers that I would just like to try and level the playing field as much as possible. It would be nice to have a chance to win without needing the competition to mess-up to make that happen. I started autocrossing about 30 years ago, but have always focused on local events because of the time and money needed to compete nationally. With the Evo in the garage and most of the kids off to college, I think I'd like to prepare a car that can compete with the big guys and spend a year refining myself and the car before shooting for the Nationals. I've finished above national champions before at a Grassroots Motorsports Regional event many years ago, everyone driving the same car, and I was the overall event winner, so I know I can drive. Now I just need to get my car setup to compete and get back into the swing of things.

I posted this somewhere else, but thought everyone could benefit from some research I did on the rear trunk bar and front strut bar. I went to the top (Doug Gill- SCCA Solo Tech Mgr) to get the official word on a couple of mods.

1. Only the factory Evo RS trunk bar (not Cusco or other) is legal for the ESP or SM classes. Even if it uses the same mounting points, the Cusco or homemade bar is illegal for SCCA Solo 2.

2. The factory triangulated front strut bar cannot be replaced with an aftermarket bar, even if the factory mounting points are used. This was debated and decided by SCCA Solo on the Mustang Cobra triangulated strut bar previously and also applies to the Evo.

3. The Cusco Type2 (box) lower arm bar is not legal for the ESP or SM classes. You can add individual 2-point-attachment bars, but nothing with more than 2 attachment points. And the 2 points have to be opposing.

I'll let you know how things go with trying to get a set of 3-ways. I can't afford $6k for them, but I'm trying to work out some sponsorship.

- Mark

 

Evo8RA: Thanks! I would have purchased the Cusco trunk bar had you not said that!

 

Mark,

I am not sure that you have the right information frankly.

1- Rule 15.2.C (SP): "Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration is permitted... Only bolt-on attachment is permitted."

Rule 16.1.E (SM): "Suspension components are unrestricted as long as they use the original attachment points."

Based on these, in SP, you can either choose to use the OE strut tower bars, or if you have to get aftermarket, they cannot be 3-point strut bars, but have to be 2-point. It does not mean you cannot use aftermarket bar.

You can also update/backdate Evo and Evo RS components if they the parts are standard parts from the donor model.

2- same as # 1

3- Yes, that is quite clear

 

FT,

I agree with Mark (and Doug Gill). According to a careful reading of the rules as written, there is no rule which allows the removal of the Evo's front strut bar. And the general principle in SP is that if there is no rule allowing it, then you can't do it.

As for SM -- the front strut bar is not a suspension piece according to the definition of "suspension" in the SM rules; suspension pieces are designed to move when the wheel deflects vertically. Quite to the contrary, the front strut bar is designed not to move (or at least to resist movement) when the wheel deflects vertically. Furthermore, the SP rule which permits strut bars is included under BODYWORK, not under SUSPENSION -- strut bars are considered bolt-in chassis components rather than suspension pieces.

Edit: I do agree that if either the Evo RS or the Evo MR (when it comes out, assuming that it's listed on the same line as the other Evos) have an alternative front strut bar arrangement, that update/backdate to that arrangement would be legal.

 

I think it is a little bit of gray area wheather strut tower bars is part of suspension or not. IMO, it is, just like the anti-roll bars; but you are right that it does not fit into the SM class' definition of moving parts. On the other hand in 15.2.C it states "strut bars are premitted with all types of suspension." So...

Regardless if it is part of suspension or not, the SP rule clearly says strut bars are permitted. And SM rules state, 16.1.A "All Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared modifications are authorized." Then 16.1.B states "competitors may pick and choose between all Stock, Street Touring, Street Prepared, and Street Modified allowances when preparing an SM car. Apparent conflicts between inherited rule sets from 18.1.A [Modified class body frame modifications, not relevant to discussion] shall not prohibit any specific inherited allowance."

To me the combination of the above clearly states any strut bar (2-point) are clearly allowed in SM.

 

I agree entirely. What I don't see is where the removal of the 3-point strut bar is permitted. (And to replace it, you need to remove it.) It's a subtle but important point...

 

Hell, if you want to read the rule word for word, it would require you to remove the stock strut bar! It says strut bars are permitted as long as they only have 2 points of attachment, so the stock strut bar is not permitted. Now doesn't THAT sound silly?

I would say that the words "strut bars are permitted" would allow the removal of a stock unit in order to put an aftermarket one on. There are other cars with stock strut bars that replace them in SP classes.

 

And once again, I agree with the logic, but not the conclusion. The rules do seem to at least imply that a legal strut bar may be replaced with another legal strut bar.

The problem is that the Evo's front strut bar is not a legal strut bar by SCCA Solo II rules. Because it attaches in the middle as well as the ends, it's not a "strut bar" at all according to the Solo rules -- it's a chassis brace which is only legal at all because it's a stock piece. So you would not be replacing a legal strut bar with a legal strut bar -- you would be removing a bolt-in chassis brace and replacing it with a legal strut bar. There is no provision in the SP rules for adding a brace which is configured like the Evo's front strut bar; I can't see how you can construe an implied provision for removing such a brace.