let's define "remote reservoir" dampers...

[77ITA]

*edited*

To start with, a refresher on the rules (taken from '08 GCR):


b. Springs and Shock Absorbers

1. Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to
the original mounting points. The number and type (e.g.,
tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers shall be the same
as stock. The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock
absorbers is permitted. Remote reservoir shock absorbers
are prohibited. External adjustments of shock control shall
be limited to two (2). No shock absorber may be capable
of adjustment while the car is in motion.
2. MacPherson strut equipped cars may substitute struts, and
/or may use alternate inserts. Spring seat ride height location
may be altered from stock. Remote reservoir struts
and/or inserts are prohibited.

Remote Reservoir Shock Absorber - Any shock absorber or dampening device which uses an externally mounted (connected either by hose or “piggy back” design) fluid and/or gas reservoir.


...and the question:

I'm building a Honda S2000 for ITR. The OEM rear shocks have what I consider to be an external reservoir due to space confinement. Subsequently, the aftermarket rear shocks I've found utilize the same design.

Here is a picture for reference.
http://www.nitron.co.uk/shop/images/Honda_S2000_RR.jpg

The OEM shocks look just the same, save for the aluminum housing and threaded perch.

What do you guys think?

[Knestis]

From the GCR Glossary...

Remote Reservoir Shock Absorber - Any shock absorber or dampening device which uses an externally mounted (connected either by hose or “piggy back” design) fluid and/or gas reservoir.

[77ITA]

thanks, I updated my original post to include that.

So where exactly does that leave me if even the OE dampers are not legal? Does the simple fact that the car is classed in IT overrule the dis-allowance of external / remote reservoirs for the rear on this car in specific? Also, If I am able to find rear dampers that do not utilize external / remote reservoirs, would that constitute an illegal change in damper "type"?

Maybe I have to run the car without rear dampers! :p

[Greg Amy]

I think it's time to write a letter to the CRB...

Just about every shock has a reservoir of some kind, so it's not the existence of one that makes shocks illegal, it's the location. The Koni strut inserts I run, for example, have a co-axial reservoir, around the outside of the working cylinder. My reservoir is "remote" to the working cylinder but still legal, as it's not "external" (to what, I cannot explain).

Where the reservoir is located is a design issue of packaging, being able to fit as large a reservoir as possible within the space constraints allowed. Historically, shocks built with external reservoirs (external to the visible cylinder, i.e., you can actually see them as a separate part) were high-dollar, high-performance items; they were banned from IT due to being seen as far and above the spirit of the "low cost" rules. However, these days that's not the case; I can buy clearly-IT-legal struts from Koni for $1500 per corner that far and away exceed the performance of the ones I have now. That distinction of reservoir shocks being expensive and non-reservoir not is not only blurred, it's pretty much gone (I can buy cheap remote reservoir shocks off the IntarWeb that are total pieces of crap, and as described above I can buy non-reservoir shocks that are neat stuff).

What I'm trying to say here is the old boogity-boo about remote reservoir shocks - one that I personally supported ten years ago - is moot. Time to let that old prejudice die.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Greg, however most will cite 'rules creep' as an opposition. Plenty of good shock choices out there now without allowing RR units.

I do think a letter is in order however. The addition of "unless equipped as original equipment" would solve the issue.

[Gary L]

I'm firmly in the anti-creep camp, so I agree with Andy: "...unless originally equipped." is the way to handle this, IMO.

[Grumpy]

The key words here are "may be replaced". Therefore the OEM shocks are legal.

I thought direct replacement of OEM parts was OK in IT, but checking it, none of the references apply to IT. I withdraw my prior statement.

My interpretation for external reservoir shoks would be==> OEM - OK, direct replacement of OEM - NO, any non reservoir - OK. All else NO.

Just one opinion. I don't do SCCA tech anymore, but if I had to rule on a protest, just one opinon.

[JimLill]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??

[Grumpy]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??

But the GCR already says that. It says keeping OEM is OK, if you change the shock it must be.......

It says you MAY change it, not MUST change it.

[Z3_GoCar]

As much as every one hates it, I'd suggest a spec line allowance. Something like: " Stock dampers with a piggy back reservoir may be used or replaced with Shocks with a piggy back reservoir no larger than stock." This makes the most sense since it is the minimal change needed, but allow aftermarket tunning options.

James

[tnord]

that reeks of "in the stock box" to me.

if it came with them from the factory, keep em, otherwise....no dice.

[Rabbit07]

I find it ironic that Improved Touring banned remote reservoir shocks stating that they were too expensive and Touring allowed them stating that they were less expensive!? Hmm.............:dead_horse:



The saga of the SCCA

[Knestis]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K

[tnord]

don't devalue symbolism kirk.

look at SM.

[dickita15]

But the GCR already says that. It says keeping OEM is OK, if you change the shock it must be.......

It says you MAY change it, not MUST change it.

I disagree with that point of view, “Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited.,Is a standalone sentence. It bans them regardless of if they are stock. No different than wider wheels or ABS.
I would vote for a spec line exception if the ITAC finds a suitable shock complying with the rules is rare.

[dj10]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K
I wouldn't mind a set of RR Moton's,TRZ or KW for about 2.:D

[Bill Miller]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K


There's a new sheriff in town! :happy204::happy204:

[mlytle]

There's a new sheriff in town! :happy204::happy204:

naw...just one more new member of the police force.....:p

[rcc85]

We could use the example of dry sumps: "Dry sump systems are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment" (ITCS 9.1.3.h) and say that "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment".

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

P.S. Are there any IT legal cars that came with dry sump oiling systems?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob, that was my first take as well. However, is the intent for those with OEM RR shocks to keep the OEM units or to allow them to swap out to any RR unit that fits the other rules?

If its the latter, what is your suggestion on how to write it?

[JoshS]

I don't see any reason to change the rule. There are plenty of IT-legal shock systems for the S2000, even though the stock ones have external reservoirs ... for example: http://www.autoanything.com/suspension-systems/61A3342A0A0.aspx?kc=ff2155

[lateapex911]

yes, Porsche 911s come from the factory with essentially a dry sump system. A scavenge pump in the small crank sump, and a 12 quart tank, and a pressure pump, plus coolers and oil/air sperators make up the system. Stock on the 70s and 80s versions classed in ITS and ITR.

[lateapex911]

Regarding dampers on cars originally equipped with RR versions, it seems to me that the concept of the original rule was to allow cars to upgrade dampers, but originally, there were no RRs. I think allowing cars originally equipped with RRs to upgrade with other RRs is in line with original philosophy. I know i'll get $hit for this, LOL.

[JeffYoung]

I'd say to stay consistent:

1. Use the dry sump wording for RR shocks.

2. Make it clear this means OE/stock stuff ONLY. No OE equivalents. Isn't this what we do with dry sumps and crank fire? Those guys who have that stock can run it, but have to stay with the stock parts.

Flip is to do what Kirk says and what I agree with. One facet of what defines IT is essentially open suspension within the parameters of the stock suspension mounting points. I see no reason why remote reservoir, or triple adjustable, shocks are illegal. You can spend the same amount on double adjustable in body reservoir stuff.

Makes little sense to me banning those when one of the premises of the class is tune all you want on the suspension just don't move things.

[jlucas]

Well I was the one who wrote the request and provided some of the information to get the changed in Touring. From a $$$ standpoint, the old rule just doesn't hold water anymore.

As far as the S2000 goes, the stock rear shocks are really short. It's an "in wheel" suspension design so the geometry is really compact. For race spring rate amounts of shock travel I don't think it's that big of an issue other than fewer options but for the amount of travel needed for a street car spring rates that's where the problems start to come into play.

[seckerich]

I can tell you it was a lot cheaper to run the remote res shocks compared to the time and money to get the same results from a single. Cost is now such a wash it makes good sense to look at the rule again. I started to bring it up during the ITR creation but figured I would get shot. Count on one letter for!! I like the kinder, gentler Kirk.:023:

[GKR_17]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??

So by that logic ABS and traction control would be legal, on some but not all cars.

[77ITA]

So by that logic ABS and traction control would be legal, on some but not all cars.

:blink: uh, no... just no.


I don't see any reason to change the rule. There are plenty of IT-legal shock systems for the S2000, even though the stock ones have external reservoirs ... for example: http://www.autoanything.com/suspension-systems/61A3342A0A0.aspx?kc=ff2155

"Sample Image Shown (Actual Part May Differ)" :p

I'll agree that there appears to be a few aftermarket dampers that do not have an external reservoir for the rear, but that's pretty scary considering how short the dampers are. Honda didn't engineer the OE parts that way for no reason... it's what is necessary for the given space and travel.

I certainly don't agree with every-one's opinion here, but they are appreciated nonetheless. At worst, it gives me a better idea of how to word my request when I e-mail it in.

So to clearly reiterate;

The rear suspension design of the Honda S2000 is of that which requires and external or remote reservoir damper due to space constraints. This is proven by the use of such parts as original equipment on the rear of the car. It is not my goal to create rule creep, provide a competition advantage to (the rear) of my vehicle, or to argue semantics.

cheers,

[Tak]

A couple thoughts on the rules:
1) Add a sentance to existing rule: "Stock OEM remote reservoir dampers are allowed"
or
2) "Dampers are free provided they have no more than 2 external adjustments"

Or 3
Anyone who can really tune a chassis with 3 or 4 way adjustable dampers should not be driving in IT. It's an entry level class remember?!

Last time I checked, 1980's vintage Formula Fords are still faster than any IT car (including ITR). Plus you get slicks and a real racing transmission. And you can run nationals.
Not fast enough? Try a DSR. Same good stuff plus downforce AND you get to rev to 11,000+ RPM. And still less costly than ITR...

Anyone who wants to learn to tune a chassis with multi-adjustable shocks should not do it in IT. The cars are too compromised by their street car origin and DOT race tires.

Tak

[JoshS]

WHAT??? In what world is DSR cheaper than ITR? At least to be competitive, not a chance. It would be at least double what I have spent thus far to be as competitive in DSR.

I also don't really quite buy that IT classes are always "entry level." Look at the number of people here on these forums for whom IT is a destination, not a stepping stone. Heck, as you know, I spent a lot of time in other classes before coming to IT.

[zchris]

Well when the rule was written to eliminate RR shocks, Ohlin and Koni had not produced there integral body shocks. With those now on the market, the rule is obsolete as you can buy double adjustable shocks from Koni, Ohlin and Afco that have the resevior built into the body. So now you would have to rewrite the rule to exclude any externally adjustable shocks. Its all so stupid, the guy with money will always be able to buy a better mousetrap. Short of a spec shock rule, shocks should be free.
Chris Howard

[kthomas]

Short of a spec shock rule, shocks should be free.
Chris Howard
:happy204:

[shwah]

I agree.

Suspension design and tuning is a key attribute of IT in my opinion. It is part of what makes it possible to go as fast as we do in underpowered (relative to current state of the art), limited preparation cars - and part of what makes IT so fun to me.

Allow any shock that mounts to stock pickup points.

[Matt Rowe]

Allow any shock that mounts to stock pickup points.

Hello active dampers:026:

Seriously, re-examining the remote reservoir rule is probably a good thing. But that wording really opens the door to technology and costs well beyond what is reasonable.

[77ITA]

letter sent :)

stay tuned to your fastracks

[shwah]

Hello active dampers:026:

Seriously, re-examining the remote reservoir rule is probably a good thing. But that wording really opens the door to technology and costs well beyond what is reasonable.
So what. That guy will spend 3x the rest of us no matter what the rules are. You can't stop him.

[Matt Rowe]

So what. That guy will spend 3x the rest of us no matter what the rules are. You can't stop him.

Because active dampers would be such a significant jump in performance everyone would have to have them. You can't prevent someone from spending money, but you can keep that money from giving such an advantage it becomes a requirement.

To put another way, say someone comes out with a new brake pad material that costs 10,000 dollars per set but is 5 seconds a lap faster. Sure almost no one can afford them, but those that can will pretty much win every race. So now everyone needs them to be competitive.

Its the same old argument, there is no need to open the door wider than you have to. Remote reservoirs are one thing, open shocks are whole different animal.

[shwah]

Aren't there fuels right now that cost $30 per gallon that rumors state give 5-7hp gains in SM trim?
Aren't brand new Hoosiers, or any other tire fastest the first one or two heat cycles?
Can't you spend several times what it takes to build an 'all out' IT motor to parts bin blueprint and find the best flowing stock manifold and find the best flowing stock head?
Can't you spend 4x what a decent set of raceworthy wheels cost to get some that weigh half of what most light wheels weigh?
Couldn't someone go rent a full size wind tunnel and develop a more effective air-dam/splitter for thier IT car.

Of course they can. Some see these as outrageous, but people we race against today do some of those things. I'm glad they are there to race against, even if they do it differently than I do.

You can't legislate cost controls - unless you are proposing a claimer rule.

That said, go find me some active damping systems for any IT classified car. Heck go find any being used on ANY SCCA road race car. The active suspension concern is a bit far-fetched IMO, but is a good enough example that people can spend what they want to try and beat me in my home built race car.

[Matt Rowe]

You're missing the point with your examples. Spending a couple hundred extra on wheels for a couple tenths advantage or same thing with the rest of your examples. But you open up shocks to anything that mounts to the stock points and it won't be a difference in tenths. The difference will be measured in a lot more than that.

Go find active dampers for IT? Under an anything goes rule all we have to do is wait a couple years and someone will have them. It's like going back in time 10 years and asking for a Motec in a stock ECU box. They didn't exist then but we are still dealing with the fallout from that particular rule change. No one anticipated that effect when the rule was changed and the change wasn't even as open as you propose.

Allowing remote reservoirs now is one thing, but anything that mounts to the stock points is asking for trouble that no one can even guess at.

[lateapex911]

Ok, up front, I Do think that smart rules writing can help entice folks to keep their money. In the end, if the class is popular enough, they'll spend some money, but, rules can help a little. Anyhoooo.....

Regarding active suspensions, in classes where active dampers are legal, (I haven't read all the rulesets, but, I think that includes GT, Prod, etc.) how many are actually in use?

[Matt Rowe]

My interpretation of Prod would be they aren't allowed, GT maybe.

More importantly I think you are getting to hung up on the active suspension example. The point is if the rules say shocks are unrestricted we have no real idea what people would come up.

[shwah]

You're missing the point with your examples. Spending a couple hundred extra on wheels for a couple tenths advantage or same thing with the rest of your examples. But you open up shocks to anything that mounts to the stock points and it won't be a difference in tenths. The difference will be measured in a lot more than that.

Go find active dampers for IT? Under an anything goes rule all we have to do is wait a couple years and someone will have them. It's like going back in time 10 years and asking for a Motec in a stock ECU box. They didn't exist then but we are still dealing with the fallout from that particular rule change. No one anticipated that effect when the rule was changed and the change wasn't even as open as you propose.

Allowing remote reservoirs now is one thing, but anything that mounts to the stock points is asking for trouble that no one can even guess at.

No I am not missing the point. The person that will spend that kind of money can spend it in dozens of other places, and the results may be more than tenths when they are added up (assuming he can drive).

You hung active suspensions out there as a worst case for any shock that mounts to stock points. There are, to my knowledge, no systems of this type that are currently offered for cars that are classified in IT. There are, to my knowledge, no systems of this type being used in any SCCA class, including those that allow any shock. To do this someone would have to go to Bose or someone similar that has developed and tested concept systems, and spend several times what a winning IT car costs to develop a system.

1. That is unlikely
2. If someone IS willing to do that, they will still outspend us all several times over and have a car capable of seconds more per lap than the average racer.

[shwah]

OK - I just saw what I was missing.

I keep thinking in terms of today, and today's technology. What is unknown, is what technology might develop in the future that cannot been forseen today.

So Matt is right.

'any passive damper that mounts to the stock locations' is my new suggestionl

[Tom Donnelly]

I can't believe this is coming back up and in the other direction. We had this discussion on RR shocks eight years ago. And it was pretty heated if I remember. Actually downright insulting at times. Where's George? He should be here for this!

Where's ShockTek gone to, Keith? I might need their number for next year.

:happy204:

[77ITA]

I can't believe this is coming back up and in the other direction. We had this discussion on RR shocks eight years ago. And it was pretty heated if I remember. Actually downright insulting at times. Where's George? He should be here for this!

Where's ShockTek gone to, Keith? I might need their number for next year.

:happy204:

Care to further explain what you mean for those that weren't around that long ago?

For everyone's info, my letter finally got in today. It appears that if you send something to the crb with a .gif as an attachment, it doesn't go through as was the case when I sent it in on the 15th.

For those following along, here is a picture of the OE damper from the Honda service manual. I had to convert it to a .jpeg and manually send it to John Bauer. I hope to see something in the April Fastrack.

[Tom Donnelly]

Jeff,
RR shocks were legal and voted out. We were all younger and used more colorful phrasology.
I think we had a thread locked at one time, I don't remember. You could probably look in the archives. There was a trend towards preventing really high-end shock setups coming into IT.
$3000+ a corner setups. There were some less costly setups but there was a real fear of making IT too costly for entry level. On the flip side, if you have the money and are willing to spend it, there is a real high development cost in purchasing and testing multiple shock setups for tracks and conditions. It was kind of like the pre-ECU mod era. No chips, nothing except modified sensors, trying to prevent high end motronic style ECU's. 'Till pandora's box got opened. It all gets worked around somehow anyhow, and then the rules change again.

Shocktek had a really nice, relatively reasonably priced setup for 240z's. Multiple adjustables with modified upside down Bilstein inserts (I think) and remote reservoirs. I believe Shocktek's owner moved on to other things years ago.

Tom

[jimmyc]

For the people who are so worried about price, you should really REALLY check out the current market.


For example, 2812 koni double adjustable shocks for most 88-00 honda and acura models are just over $4,000. Double adjustable moton shocks for the same car are $4,400.

The 3 way motons go for just under $7000, the 4 way motons are above right around $10,000. For a set of 2822s, konis 4 way adjustable, you are looking at $11,000.

Then there comes another issue. But let me say this first. I LOVE koni products, and 99% of people who race IT wont really know what to do or be able to get the advantages of anything above a double adjustable shock.

Moton, and JRZ (whos pricing is pretty much identical) are MUCH MUCH more willing to do custom apllications. Koni is very reluctant, and in strut applications REALLY reluctant, to do custom applications.

Greg Amy, and many other strut orphaned cars, wouldn't have to run inserts any more. Moton and JRZ will make you a complete strut body.

IMO it is time to get rid of the RR rule in IT racing.

[Greg Amy]

Koni is very reluctant, and in strut applications REALLY reluctant, to do custom applications...Greg Amy, and many other strut orphaned cars, wouldn't have to run inserts any more. Moton and JRZ will make you a complete strut body.
I agree with your sentiment. However, a minor correction: Koni will *ONLY* sell you 2817s if they do the fabrication on the struts/tabs. They will no longer sell the 2817 un-built; they were getting too many of them hacked up and done incorrectly.

Unfortunately, at $1400-1600 per corner they're WAY outside any reasonable probability of being on any car I own/race, regardless of the RR rule... - GA