Yes Steven, is such a great system Ferrari is working on a rubber puck system for the 07 season.. You're talking apples and oranges, I'm sure a rubber puck system can be "tuned" but only to a certain degree, and being that everybody is on the same platform, the front runners are doing a better job of it, that doesn't mean it's good, just better than the others. And the ones that don't have it right, are probably pretty scary.. CR
Steven Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CR wrote-"it's just common sense that a oil dampened shock is safer than a elastic only shock." I disagree! This assumes that dampening, both compression and rebound can not be tuned on modern F5s. If you have yet to discover "How To" dampen suspension travel, spend some time talking with some front runners in a non confrontational manner. They just may share some secrets. Steven Dodd Red Devil Texas From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: F500 Digest, Vol 43, Issue 62 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:05:12 -0700 >Send F500 mailing list submissions to >[email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of F500 digest..." >=============================================== >You may change your F500 digest format and options or unsubscribe by >visiting: >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 >=============================================== >________________________________ >FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 >The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing >Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 >_________________________________ > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Pucks? (Chris Reinhardt) > 2. Re: Pucks? (Joe Palmer) > 3. Realistic attitude on shocks (Chuck Voboril) From: Chris Reinhardt Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [F500] Pucks? Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) > Then we get back to buying 100 sets of shocks and cherry picking the >best. > We had a guy that every time there was a big kart race like the Laguna >superkart race, he would buy all Bridgestones up from all the importers. >Well you could still buy Dunlops, but Bridges were good for 1/2 second. > You don't think that a shock can be cut open, reworked and welded back? > What about keeping the shocks fresh? What if you find that brand new >shocks are a 1/10 faster than old ones? Now those $75 shocks are $300 a >weekend. > I agree with what's been said, if you can spec out several brands that >are in the $150 price range, rebuildable, and I'd like to see open valving >and springs, or even a spec valving and springs, it would be a better >alternative than adding rubber to what's already there. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/25/2006 5:41:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ><<< I saw a aluminum bodied shock for the same application that was less >than 2x that price, around $125 or so..>>> > > >I'm sure you did. What was the laptime difference? > >Has anyone who is proposing going to shocks ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNED a >shock-equipped formula car? I have, and the price of shocks is part of why >I came to >F500! I can show you Club Fords in the PacNW where the shocks are worth >more >than the chassis or the engine. The idea that you can control this cost >with >anything other than a sealed, spec shock is just not reasonable within a >club racing format. If it ain't sealed, you can't prove anything about >what's >inside, and that spells $$$. If it's sealed and spec, then it WILL be >optimized for one particular car. > >MM > > > >--------------------------------- >Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates >starting at 1¢/min. > From: "Joe Palmer" Reply-To: [email protected] To: Subject: Re: [F500] Pucks? Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:47:12 -0500 >Chris, > >I've read it . . . I was the one that asked the question of Jay that began >that conversation. I was only responding to your statement that John W. >was "talking about a rubber shock that doesn't exist right now". Point >being it exists no less than an inexpensive coil-damper piece for our cars >and would take no more for the update. > >And once again . . . one need not interfere with the other . . . 3" pucks & >coil+dampers are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. > >I'm pretty sure we agree on all the below points, but I'm happy to discuss >or even argue about them anyway, if you like. > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reinhardt" > >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:38 PM >Subject: [F500] Pucks? > > >>Joe, read Jay's response, it's more than stuffing a 3" hunk of rubber into >>the canister. At the very least a new "shock" body with a different >>plunger would need to be designed and most likley a new bellcrank ratio. I >>just don't see that being any cheaper than a $150 or a $200 shock. You >>can tune a shock to a lever ratio with different spring rates and >>different dampening. >> Jay has said that he has data on the subject, I would ask him to supply >>that for the CRB, and it's just common sense that a oil dampened shock is >>safer than a elastic only shock. The only issue would cost. Lets put a >>list of these cheaper shocks together decide if they will indeed work for >>our purposes. I think we can limit the spending by stating that shocks >>have to be readily availible for $XXX or less, or making the shocks part >>of a claiming for $XXX. The last thing you want is to have to police >>shocks and have the SCCA dyno each one. Keep it simple.. >> >> CR >> >> >> >> Chris, >> >>I was told that the BOD "may have made a mistake", by a BOD member. >>There >>was a procedural breakdown and they did not have all the facts before >>making >>there decision. They're reviewing it now. >> >>That being said, the 3" pucks is a completely separate issue from the >>"cheap >>shocks" . . . there is no reason we can't introduce that request to the >>CRB/BOD whenever the class is ready. The CRB/BOD evaluates each >>proposal on >>its own merits, regardless of any decision made prior. >> >>What shocks are you running on your FS car? Are they candidates for >>F5, >>meaning "cheap"? Your test data, costs, design, and experience/results >>will >>be the best data for the class on this subject. >> >>On a separate note regarding the non-existing 3" pucks . . . you can >>simply >>stack three 1" pucks and greatly improve the linearity for our >>application. >>However, several folks in our class have been making their own pucks >>now for >>years and have agreed to produce solid 3 inchers at cost for anybody >>that >>wants them. Everyone would agree its not as good as "real" shocks, but >>it >>is certainly better than 1" rubber. >> >> >> >>--------------------------------- >>Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com > From: "Chuck Voboril" Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [F500] Realistic attitude on shocks Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:52:39 -0700 >Sure, people can outspend you-that can happen no matter what the rules are. > >Pucks or shocks. > >Even if the parts are free- > >100's of hours can be spent in testing them to get it right. > >However, that said, I'd be willing in ANY class to take my chances with >competing with those who go to those excessive lengths. > >I just don't believe it can make much difference once you get past a >certain point. > >Just to have decent control of my own car instead of being slammed around >like a rag doll is good enough for me. > >Don't care if someone else spent $6,000 for a set of shocks instead of >$600. > >It just doesnt matter. > > >Just limit the shocks to steel bodies like those Alco Dwarf car shocks. >Easy to check with a magnet. >one or 2 external adjustments max and no external reservoirs. > >Any spring-but no hydraulic Hyperco platforms or thrust washers. > >That saves some more money-about $1200 in the case >of 4 hyperco seats and there is absolutely no way to hide them. > > > > > > > > > >Chuck > > > > > >>From: "Chris Eckles" >>Reply-To: [email protected] >>To: >>Subject: RE: [F500] Joe, it is time to start a new poll >>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:15:37 -0400 >> >>Well, now, I have no doubt that nearly all of us would like to drive >>around >>on "decent" shocks AND SPRINGS than on various increasingly complicated >>forms of rubber dampers. But which shocks shall we choose? Road racing, >>smooth? Road racing rough? Autocrossing smooth, rough, wet, dry? And >>some >>shocks will better suit certain chassis, and certain driving styles. . . >>So >>this isn't a "one size fits all" proposition. Or is it? >> >>A free shock/spring rule would instantly escalate into multi-thousand >>dollar >>shocks (even with a claim rule, I will say). But then so is the initial >>cost of three inch pucks, IMHO. >> >>Certainly, all trophy winners' shocks would have to be tested on a shock >>dyno. And springs. . . I know how quickly clutch springs change force - >>what about suspension springs? Shocks can easily be re-valved, pressure >>changed, fluid changed, and modified back to look precisely stock. A >>claim >>rule would be absolutely impractical for both road racers and >>autocrossers. >> >>"Adequate" shocks would be about the same cost for me as 3 inch pucks, and >>give a better drive, so I'm rather open. Easier to install on my car, >>too, >>I think. Bellcrank changes would not be a very good way of varying the >>shocks (varying motion ratio does not really change dampening >>characteristics much, I would think). >> >>As others have said, this will not happen now (for the 2008 season), and I >>think not in the next few years, regardless of whether we ALL agree to do >>it. Our class is being "held back", for relatively justifiable reasons, >>like it or not. >> >>And John just gave me ideas for another three options of puck dampers, so >>another grand or so there (internals). . . >> >>Chris Eckles >>Atlanta >> >> >> Joe, >>I have been reading with great interest all the postings about 3" pucks >>and >>spec coil over shocks for our class. The BOD's decision to turn down the >>3" puck may have been a blessing in disguise. Earlier I was in favor of >>3" >>pucks but as I have learned more about the need for dampening as the main >>method of reducing the shock to the chassis I am now in favor of ONE cost >>controlled, spec'ed, sealed coil over shock that has a supplier's >>"promise" >>not to discontinue it in the near future. The spec's should be compiled. >>A >>thorough search of the market must be done to ensure that all possible >>candidates have been uncovered and properly considered. A track test of >>the >>top three or four candidates should then be done to provide a comparative >>analysis. Once the choice is made and approved by SCCA we can then >>publisize the dickens out of this improvement in hopes of attracting more >>drivers. >>When can we start to poll the drivers? >> >>Jim << --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
