Autocrossing & Roadracing Suspension Setup for Track Corvettes, Camber/Caster Adjustments, R-Compound Tires, Race Slicks, Tips on Driving Technique, Events, Results
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Interesting SCCA possible rule update for 2019

 
Old 02-25-2019, 12:59 AM
  #1  
itch808
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Jan 2018
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 168
Thanked 35 Times in 19 Posts
Default Interesting SCCA possible rule update for 2019

https://www.scca.com/downloads/43731...-2019/download

It looks modules like DSC may become legal for street classes. It only mentions super street, but it's still in the works.
itch808 is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 10:11 AM
  #2  
BigMonkey73
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Oct 2013
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 865
Thanked 83 Times in 73 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
Default

Link broken
BigMonkey73 is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:17 PM
  #3  
froggy47
CF Senior Member
 
froggy47's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 10,198
Thanked 130 Times in 113 Posts
Default

From the Solo Events Board (SEB) - Update from Convention Replacing Electronic Shock/Strut Controller As published in the December 2018 Fastrack the SEB rules recommendations was submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. During the review process the BOD wanted to further discuss the rule and the language proposed. Rather than delay the entire rules package the BOD withheld the rule until the details on that proposal could be further discussed. The SEB revised the proposal using language from the July Fastrack. The BOD approved the language below effective upon publication in the Fastrack expected February 20, 2019. #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. The SEB will be evaluating this rule on regular basis and conduct a yearly review. The SEB is proceeding cautiously by adding this allowance to just one class. This allowance may change as the membership gains experience and can provide feedback as it applies to Solo. Based on that feedback the allowance may be expanded or rescinde
froggy47 is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:59 PM
  #4  
mattastick
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2016
Posts: 350
Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts
Default

It's been a bad idea since they started the proposal, and it's still a bad idea as currently proposed. Having worked in the shock industry, and currently working on controls/calibration of chassis controls, this is a bad idea. DSC seems to have sold a lot of snake oil around here though, so I'll probably be in the minority with this thinking.
mattastick is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 01:54 PM
  #5  
froggy47
CF Senior Member
 
froggy47's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 10,198
Thanked 130 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mattastick View Post
It's been a bad idea since they started the proposal, and it's still a bad idea as currently proposed. Having worked in the shock industry, and currently working on controls/calibration of chassis controls, this is a bad idea. DSC seems to have sold a lot of snake oil around here though, so I'll probably be in the minority with this thinking.
I am not sure of the attraction of dsc for autox/track guys, except for those who can't or don't want to learn da shocks. More $$, more to break, less adjust-ability?
froggy47 is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 01:59 PM
  #6  
mattastick
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2016
Posts: 350
Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by froggy47 View Post
I am not sure of the attraction of dsc for autox/track guys, except for those who can't or don't want to learn da shocks. More $$, more to break, less adjust-ability?
Electronic tuning has way more potential than simple DA shocks. I've tried to explain that to multiple members of both the SAC and SEB, and neither seem interested in listening. Think carbs vs. fuel injection. It's roughly that level of technological jump, but in terms of handling, rather than horsepower/fuel economy (someone will say "you can make just as much if not more power with carbs than FI, hence my comment about fuel economy).
mattastick is offline  
Old 02-25-2019, 11:23 PM
  #7  
itch808
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Jan 2018
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 168
Thanked 35 Times in 19 Posts
Default

It seems like this is already approved actually and published in Fastrack 2/20/19. I hope they roll this out to other classes in the final rulebook for 2019. I think the appeal comes for the people with magride stock. Why go with expensive DAs when you can have full adjustable potential out of the box with an electronic controller? Plus there's the headache of simulators to use in order to fake out the ECU so it doesn't throw a CEL and cause other potential problems with PTM/TC/ESC.
itch808 is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 09:35 AM
  #8  
mattastick
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2016
Posts: 350
Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by itch808 View Post
It seems like this is already approved actually and published in Fastrack 2/20/19. I hope they roll this out to other classes in the final rulebook for 2019. I think the appeal comes for the people with magride stock. Why go with expensive DAs when you can have full adjustable potential out of the box with an electronic controller? Plus there's the headache of simulators to use in order to fake out the ECU so it doesn't throw a CEL and cause other potential problems with PTM/TC/ESC.
Correct, it's happening in SS in 2019. What happens after that, it's anyone's guess.

The way every proposal (and the current rule) has been written is a complete pandoras box for software/coding war IN STREET CLASS. These systems are already open in Street Prepared and Street Mod, which is where they need to stay, IMO. If the SAC wants to allow the GM Performance reflash/controller, that's an easy thing to allow as a line item for the Corvettes/Camaros, but the way they've done it opens up the ruleset to people that will test for hundreds of hours to find the last little bit of speed from their electronic shocks.
mattastick is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 01:00 PM
  #9  
froggy47
CF Senior Member
 
froggy47's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 10,198
Thanked 130 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mattastick View Post
Electronic tuning has way more potential than simple DA shocks. I've tried to explain that to multiple members of both the SAC and SEB, and neither seem interested in listening. Think carbs vs. fuel injection. It's roughly that level of technological jump, but in terms of handling, rather than horsepower/fuel economy (someone will say "you can make just as much if not more power with carbs than FI, hence my comment about fuel economy).
Not to start an argument, but it was many,many years before fuel injection worked right. I am old enough to know.

You are ASSUMING some genius will develop a black box, reasonably priced, that will do RELIABLY what you want.

Good luck with that, oh every electronic device I have on my car works perfectly every time for me , must just be lucky (sarcasm).


Last edited by froggy47; 02-26-2019 at 01:01 PM.
froggy47 is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 01:28 PM
  #10  
mattastick
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2016
Posts: 350
Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by froggy47 View Post
Not to start an argument, but it was many,many years before fuel injection worked right. I am old enough to know.

You are ASSUMING some genius will develop a black box, reasonably priced, that will do RELIABLY what you want.

Good luck with that, oh every electronic device I have on my car works perfectly every time for me , must just be lucky (sarcasm).

Nah. Everyone only sees the DSC box for $1200. But what happens when Bosch Motorsport comes out with a box that's 1 second faster than DSC, but costs $8k? Haves vs. have nots gets wider, which is the problem I have with opening this.

<- is one of those "geniuses" (though, I'm far from that smart, I just get paid to do this stuff every day) that could take advantage of this rule, if someone wanted to offer up a car. Though, given how terrible the DSC understanding of the stock system is, the box will probably break due to heat from using the full range of the shock (not what they advertise), at which point all of your MR shocks are full soft, which is bad.
mattastick is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 01:36 PM
  #11  
froggy47
CF Senior Member
 
froggy47's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 10,198
Thanked 130 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mattastick View Post
Nah. Everyone only sees the DSC box for $1200. But what happens when Bosch Motorsport comes out with a box that's 1 second faster than DSC, but costs $8k? Haves vs. have nots gets wider, which is the problem I have with opening this.

<- is one of those "geniuses" (though, I'm far from that smart, I just get paid to do this stuff every day) that could take advantage of this rule, if someone wanted to offer up a car. Though, given how terrible the DSC understanding of the stock system is, the box will probably break due to heat from using the full range of the shock (not what they advertise), at which point all of your MR shocks are full soft, which is bad.
We agree, this is not appropriate for Street, but who knows what info will filter thru to SCCA? Ivory tower & all that.
froggy47 is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 03:17 PM
  #12  
Bill Dearborn
Tech Contributor
 
Bill Dearborn's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte (formerly Endicott, NY) NC
Posts: 32,833
Thanked 3,344 Times in 2,237 Posts
Default

Seems like a good idea to permit replacement controllers. How are they going to enforce rules that prohibit a replacement controller? The C7 controller is behind the driver's side front fender and the only way it can be accessed is by removing the front wheel well liner. Not something that is going to happen at a local event or even a regional event, especially with the general lack of knowledge of what to look for.

As for the new rule stating a replacement controller can't provide any function not available in the stock controller that is a big whiff. What does that even mean? They are both computers and can any function that can be programmed into them that will work with the shocks on the car. From a C7 standpoint all the DSC controller does is permit an owner to change settings Vs GM changing the stock settings through various offered updates, the difference is in how easy it is to make an update not in whether it can be done. Neither controller can make the shocks do something they physically aren't capable of doing.

Bill
Bill Dearborn is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 09:53 PM
  #13  
[email protected]
Supporting Vendor
 
strano@stranoparts.com's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Brookville PA
Posts: 714
Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
Default

I won't get into the politics of the whole thing. But here's where we are at this point in time. They are legal for Super Street in the "street" category, They are legal in any higher category, period. They are investigating (though I'm sure it'll get rubber stamped) for allowing it in other classes later, like SSR, AS, BS, FS, etc.

I am a DSC dealer. I sell a fair number of them. And we have one on a car that is otherwise setup exactly like my car (which is on my own spec/built by Penske, Penske 8300's) so we can do testing and comparisons next year. http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetai...337&ModelID=47



strano@stranoparts.com is offline  
Old 02-26-2019, 10:21 PM
  #14  
MatthewMiller
CF Senior Member
 
MatthewMiller's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2015
Location: St. Charles MO
Posts: 2,048
Thanked 293 Times in 246 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mattastick View Post
Nah. Everyone only sees the DSC box for $1200. But what happens when Bosch Motorsport comes out with a box that's 1 second faster than DSC, but costs $8k? Haves vs. have nots gets wider, which is the problem I have with opening this.
I understand the concern here. However, we already have the "best" shocks that cost upwards of $4k for a set. As it is, the magride option on a C7 plus the cost of the DSC box combine for less than the cost of a set of truly premium shocks. Also, I strongly doubt anyone is going to bring an $8k controller to the market. There aren't enough people autocrossing magride cars at the top levels to ever make money on something like that. You'd have to have a product you can sell to more than just elite autocrossers with MR dampers in their cars, which means DSC probably sets the market pricing for this product. Typically, the cost of anything electronic tends to come down, not go up, as time and technology advance.

Originally Posted by Bill Dearborn
As for the new rule stating a replacement controller can't provide any function not available in the stock controller that is a big whiff. What does that even mean? They are both computers and can any function that can be programmed into them that will work with the shocks on the car.

I would assume they mean that the shock cannot perform the function of an active spring. It must be limited to damping functions only. Those are two very different functions, but I think at least theoretically an MR damper could be programmed to act like a spring, since its fluid can become viscous enough to effectively lock the damper. I don't know if a current MR damper and controller could every really be programmed to act like that, but I would guess that's what the SAC is trying to prevent. Based on that, you can't break that rule with the DSC unit.
MatthewMiller is offline  
Old 02-27-2019, 08:48 AM
  #15  
Sox-Fan
CF Senior Member
 
Sox-Fan's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: Mt. Pleasant S.C.
Posts: 2,367
Thanked 135 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Isn't this just them essentially saying that they can't police it, so make it legal? I feel like the same thing happened with ECM tuning.
Sox-Fan is offline  
Old 02-27-2019, 06:54 PM
  #16  
[email protected]
Supporting Vendor
 
strano@stranoparts.com's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Brookville PA
Posts: 714
Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sox-Fan View Post
Isn't this just them essentially saying that they can't police it, so make it legal? I feel like the same thing happened with ECM tuning.
Eh... sort of. They can't but the reason here is someone(s) think this is something that will help them. Ironically the last move was to want the ability to disable that stuff and move to a Penske. And now this. And with the ***** to claim it's for cost containment (on big $$$ cars and AFTER not caring about that when they wanted the big $$ shocks).

And in Street, ECM's are not legal to tune. That's not policeable either, not really. I was deeply involved in that mess having caught someone with some keen observation, not backing down to the chest puffing, and boxing them in to where they had to admit they tuned or lose their engine warranty when GM found it.
strano@stranoparts.com is offline  
Old 02-27-2019, 10:25 PM
  #17  
itch808
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Jan 2018
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 168
Thanked 35 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Somewhat related video of adjustable mag shock dynos adjustability:

Not a C7, then again I haven't seen any shock dynos of any. But the black box ability would be nice for us AS C7s. The C6 z06s are practically impossible to beat in street class.
itch808 is offline  
Old 02-28-2019, 02:32 AM
  #18  
wtb-z
CF Senior Member
 
wtb-z's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2011
Location: TO ON
Posts: 488
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

It has been an obviously exciting discussion. Seems like the right decision would be much easier to reach if dampers were not otherwise an open part.
wtb-z is offline  
Old 02-28-2019, 02:42 AM
  #19  
itch808
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Jan 2018
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 168
Thanked 35 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wtb-z View Post
It has been an obviously exciting discussion. Seems like the right decision would be much easier to reach if dampers were not otherwise an open part.
That's something I never see changing since dampers are a wearable item. It would be like saying you need stock brake pads.
itch808 is offline  
Old 03-05-2019, 01:10 PM
  #20  
froggy47
CF Senior Member
 
froggy47's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 10,198
Thanked 130 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by itch808 View Post
Somewhat related video of adjustable mag shock dynos adjustability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1PyK32j3nw

Not a C7, then again I haven't seen any shock dynos of any. But the black box ability would be nice for us AS C7s. The C6 z06s are practically impossible to beat in street class.
43mm tube, holy chit.
froggy47 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Interesting SCCA possible rule update for 2019


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: