Remote res.dampers...your opinion...

[lateapex911]

OK, we debated the legality and our thoughts on the RR damper thing...lets get some numbers. For the sake of compactness, I left out lots of words. Assume choices 1-5 are for the standard IT allowable 2 way passive design. Please indicate your choice, and heck, if you don't like the choices, post yours.

[Knestis]

The cost rationale doesn't hold water and if we're going to go down the claim road - which I don't believe the culture will EVER accept - we should apply it to cars rather than parts.

K

[JeffYoung]

No claim rule. This is not a spec class. We all spend too much time, effort, money and love on our cars to have some joker claim them for X dollars.

The RR rule was just an attempt to lower costs, and in our class, I don't see that as a valid reason for regulation. People can already spend an unlmited amount on areas where the rules are already free - wheels, new tires, exhaust (lots of dollars there), flow bench work on allowed head porting, etc. etc. etc. Why dampers got selected for "cost regulation" I do not understand.

[erlrich]

If the only reason for the rule outlawing RR dampers is the cost issue, there is no question in my opinion it should be changed. But IS that the only reason? Are there any performance advantages over the $10k custom made units that are legal? Will they give a distinct advantage to any one make? I don't think so, but I don't know for a fact.

[seckerich]

No claim rule. This is not a spec class. We all spend too much time, effort, money and love on our cars to have some joker claim them for X dollars.

The RR rule was just an attempt to lower costs, and in our class, I don't see that as a valid reason for regulation. People can already spend an unlmited amount on areas where the rules are already free - wheels, new tires, exhaust (lots of dollars there), flow bench work on allowed head porting, etc. etc. etc. Why dampers got selected for "cost regulation" I do not understand.

At the time they were disallowed there was a huge gap in price. High end shocks were almost exclusively RR. It contained cost for those that had not spent the money and doubled the cost for those that had. As with every rule we engineered an alternative and put the same damping inside the unit and heat dispersion was the only loss. No difference in a sprint and very little in an enduro. On average it cost $1000 per set more to do the custom units rather than a more generic RR unit anyone can purchase. Times change as do cost.

[77ITA]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

[1stGenBoy]

I have a question about answer #3.
What happens if a car has RR dampers in the rear as OE and non RR dampers in the front as OE?
Would the whole car be able to use RR or just the rear?
Jake, You know I'm going with this and what car I'm refering to.

[lateapex911]

Bob, for the sake of arguement, (I had little space up there) let's assume the term (in the original position) was part of the choice. In other words, if the car uses them in the front, but not the back, then it's non RRs at the back, but RRs are Ok in the front.

Sorry that wasn't clear earlier. if anyone wants to change their vote, contact me.

(Also, I'm trying to get a feel for the crowd on this...it's just me thinking out loud. No official action or poll is being taken! ;) )

[lateapex911]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

Jeff, I always like to toss in questions that land at the "extreme" end of the possibilities, and I'm often surprised that they actually get a vote or three! It gives you insight into people thoughts, however illogical you might consider that extreme to be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

The space issue is a red-herring. Didn't someone provide a part number for a non-RR shock for the rear of an S2000? They aren't REQUIRED, are they?

[/devils advocate mode]

As long as the "2 adjustment max" rule stays in place, going to RR won't improve short term perfromance IMHO.

But I have to come back to the age old question: What problem is allowing RR shocks into IT trying to solve?

[shwah]

I won't be running them, but I voted allow any damper.

[lateapex911]

Andy, the answer to your question could be:

"because of the ease of packaging, RR dampers will allow the same performance as a high and non RR damper, but at a reduced price."

So, in summation, the answer could be, "more choices and lower price points"

Devils advocate hat OFf. ;)

[spnkzss]

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

[/devils advocate mode]



Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?
I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

[lateapex911]

The philosophy in IT regarding dampers has been to allow upgrades from factory. In the case of the car equipped with RR dampers, they are essentially getting a line item exception that says they must either run stock, or...? (assuming there are no applications other than RR).

(Keep in mind that we need to think about these policies while considering all assumptions, such as the one above)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Koni has a Sport Yellow 8041-1279 application for the S2000. No RR.

Probably the same type of shock 90% of IT cars run with custom valving?

[GKR_17]

I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

Interesting, you can read it that way since it's included in the part about replacing shocks. The line "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." may not apply to OEM parts, however it is usually followed by "unless fitted as stock". Logically, class intent would allow the OEM shocks, but I also thought the same thing about ABS several years ago.

[erlrich]

Did something come out of the S2000 thread that I missed? (admittedly I didn't keep up with that one) As I read the rule now, it says "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." Was it decided that the rule only applies if you choose to replace the shocks?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is an interesting excesize in interpretation.

[GKR_17]

I retract my earlier statement, in the current rule RR shocks are not legal even if stock.

Here are a few examples:

"Air cleaner assemblies may be modified, removed or replaced. Velocity stacks, ram air or cowl induction are not permitted unless fitted as original equipment..."

"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted. Internal distributor components and distributor cap may be substituted. Crankfire ignition systems are prohibited unless fitted as original equipment..."

"Cars originally equipped with plastic/phenolic timing gears may substitute metal gears, provided that the design, dimensions, and cam timing remain as stock. Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock."

For OEM RR shocks to be legal, the rule should include the line "unless fitted as original equipment", which it does not. It would be an easy fix to add if the ITAC wanted it included though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I like your research!!!!

[Knestis]

Ick - I don't.

The "unless original equipment" thing is an extension of the rules stipulating what we can't do, rather than what we can. Every one of the clauses cited as examples should be deleted.

When the rules say "may" be replaced, they presume - IIDSYCYC - that the stock parts may be left. There's no question in my mind that the RR rear shocks on the Honda in question are perfectly legal.

And with respect to the ABS/traction control question, I've long believed it should be allowed to stay. It is NOT a no-cost thing to disable and every year those systems get more integrated into OE cars' ECUs. My wife is shopping for a new street ride and Consumer Reports won't rate something a "best buy" unless it's got active stability control - even econoshitboxes.

K

[JeffYoung]

Grafton and Kirk are both right - that language should be cleared up one way or the other, and probably as Kirk suggests. Grafton is right that the "unless fitted" language leads one to conclude that if that language is absent, then a prohibition in the ITCS covers even stock equipment. That shouldn't be that way, and the language he cites is problematic and should be removed.

Andy, you asked, what is the problem that removing the RR shock ban is designed to solve? I think it is this. A long time ago, we decided shocks were "free." Just like "exhaust" is free, or "brake pads" are free or "ECU" is free. Within those areas, we decided to allow innovation and development.

The RR shock ban changed that for an area that had been free for a long time, and cost competitors a lot of time and money. And, it was enacted for the wrong reason -- cost control. So, I guess it is more a fixing of a wrong than a solving of a problem. Or rather, reaffirming a long held IT principle that was deviated from for the wrong reasons.

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

[lateapex911]

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

But Jeff, you're all set with your Lee specials, why would you? :kool: ;)

(:kool: is supposed to be the Koolaide pitcher smiley, but I don't have teh source code... :(

[ohno50]

It seems that what is not resolved is the issue that 1 car has OEM RR dampers. (covers shocks and struts).

1st deal with that issue.

As far the a general rule change for dampers, what is the purpose of the change?

Availability, Cost, Better Performance. Where is the data to support these factors or any factors that should be evaluated to call for any changes?

How about real numbers except stating that costs drop for one or anther reason!

[JeffYoung]

busted! LOL.....


But Jeff, you're all set with your Lee specials, why would you? :kool: ;)

(:kool: is supposed to be the Koolaide pitcher smiley, but I don't have teh source code... :(

[lateapex911]

It seems that what is not resolved is the issue that 1 car has OEM RR dampers. (covers shocks and struts).

1st deal with that issue.

As far the a general rule change for dampers, what is the purpose of the change?

Availability, Cost, Better Performance. Where is the data to support these factors or any factors that should be evaluated to call for any changes?

How about real numbers except stating that costs drop for one or anther reason!

That's why it's a poll....to get your input, and maybe your ideas and logic.
While there IS one car that could be an issue, try to think of the bigger picture. What if this? or what if that?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you asked, what is the problem that removing the RR shock ban is designed to solve? I think it is this. A long time ago, we decided shocks were "free." Just like "exhaust" is free, or "brake pads" are free or "ECU" is free. Within those areas, we decided to allow innovation and development.

The RR shock ban changed that for an area that had been free for a long time, and cost competitors a lot of time and money. And, it was enacted for the wrong reason -- cost control. So, I guess it is more a fixing of a wrong than a solving of a problem. Or rather, reaffirming a long held IT principle that was deviated from for the wrong reasons.

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

I am not sure you are on the right track here Jeff. The exhaust rule has it's paramters, brake pads have their parameters, even the new ECU rule has it's parameters. Shocks also have their parameters.

To say shocks are 'free' opens you up to units that can perform better than what we have today (if one has the resources to get to that level of tune) by going to multi-adjustment units (way more than 2). You have to draw the line somewhere on everything.

Why move the line when there is no problem here to be addressed for the masses?

And why won't anyone acknowledge that the S2000 has 2-way mono tube options that aren't RR for the rear? It can meet the rules with ease. Nobody runs stock shocks anyway.

[JeffYoung]

True, I agree. But when have we ever changed an exhaust or brake pad or ECU rule to LIMIT what people were doing legally under the previous rule set?


I am not sure you are on the right track here Jeff. The exhaust rule has it's paramters, brake pads have their parameters, even the new ECU rule has it's parameters. Shocks also have their parameters.

To say shocks are 'free' opens you up to units that can perform better than what we have today (if one has the resources to get to that level of tune) by going to multi-adjustment units (way more than 2). You have to draw the line somewhere on everything.

Why move the line when there is no problem here to be addressed for the masses?

And why won't anyone acknowledge that the S2000 has 2-way mono tube options that aren't RR for the rear? It can meet the rules with ease. Nobody runs stock shocks anyway.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk makes an excellent point about the 'unless fitted as original equipment' language. There's no need for it to be there. The way I read the rules, anything that comes on the car stock, is legal (w/ a few special exceptions, like glass T-tops/sunroofs, etc.).

I am surprised that 6 people have voted to ban RR shocks, even if they were fitted as stock. What's up w/ that???

We saw how well the "no threaded body..." rule worked, people went out and had the threads turned off the bodies of Penske shocks and put sleeves over them. Spirt of the rule? No. Letter of the rule? Absolutely.

As far as the ABS/TC argument goes, once you opened up the ECU rule, you created an unpoliceable situation for TC. The ABS thing should be allowed, and should be just another 'adder' in the classification process. Car comes w/ ABS? That's worth 100#/5%/???.

And Kirk, it doesn't matter how intertwined the ABS/TC is w/ the stock ECU, you're free to toss that out the window now, and use one that could care less if the ABS or TC is there or not.

[lateapex911]

Kirk makes an excellent point about the 'unless fitted as original equipment' language. There's no need for it to be there. The way I read the rules, anything that comes on the car stock, is legal (w/ a few special exceptions, like glass T-tops/sunroofs, etc.).

I am surprised that 6 people have voted to ban RR shocks, even if they were fitted as stock. What's up w/ that???

yea. me too! I tossed that in there, just for giggles...but lo and behold, it's getting some action! AND, just as surprising, some out there think it'd be cool to develop active suspensions or metorlogical (I butchered THAT one, spelling-wise) shocks!


As far as the ABS/TC argument goes, once you opened up the ECU rule, you created an unpoliceable situation for TC. Agreed, and one that was rather discriminating. Of course, ignition boxes have had the capability too, and they are allowed category wide.

[tnord]

prod racing here we come!

[Knestis]

I'm the biggest anti-creeper around and I don't buy the "prod here we come" wolf-crying. There are all kinds of technologies in shock absorbers. Why do we arbitrarily ban one physical configuration, that accomplishes essentially the same thing - damping spring action - as ALL of the other options?

Any of you anti-RR folks think that it's OK that the Isaac is left out in the SFI cold because it uses a different design to do essentially the same physics as a Hans?

The rationale ALL goes back to fears about cost. I could spent $50,000 on struts if I wanted to. It MIGHT make me faster. You can't make a rule preventing me from spending money. If you make me buy cheaper shocks, I might spend the same dough on a coach or more new tires, and actually gain MORE time on you. If you seriously think that simply bolting on a pair of Motons is going to make mid-pack Mort a front-runner overnight, you're deluded.

HOWEVER, that's all academic. There are costs associated with change - most of which are not monetary - so I tend to think that new rule at this time is unlikely to realize any net benefit to the category as a whole.

If I were starting from scratch - why not. Knock yourself out with four adjustments and other parts to break or fall off. As it is, eh...

K

[tnord]

anytime there's a debate about what to do with a rule it seems like the answer comes out as....."open it up!" won't take long for us to get to prod that way.

i certainly hope the majority of your post wasn't directed at me kirk.

PS - no i don't think it's OK the Isaac is left out.

[dj10]

There legal........there not legal........there legal.......there not legal........WTF OVER! :~)
Is there something broken with the rule as it is now? You already screwed some people big time when you abolished the RR rule the 1st time.
If you worried about new cars coming into IT with RR as factory OEM, have it read, "Cars with RR as OEM must run them as they came from the factory with no changes allowed." Let's see how many people keep their factory OEM RR.

[Rabbit07]

Should we start sending letters to the CRB? Is there a proposal in place? Just my two cents, but I would prefere that they be opened up, but remain two way adjustable.

[Knestis]

...i certainly hope the majority of your post wasn't directed at me kirk.

PS - no i don't think it's OK the Isaac is left out.

Sorry - that was "you" as in "one," not as in Travis.

K

[lateapex911]

There legal........there not legal........there legal.......there not legal........WTF OVER! :~)
Is there something broken with the rule as it is now? You already screwed some people big time when you abolished the RR rule the 1st time.
If you worried about new cars coming into IT with RR as factory OEM, have it read, "Cars with RR as OEM must run them as they came from the factory with no changes allowed." Let's see how many people keep their factory OEM RR.

Which is why that was one of the options of the poll, Dan.

[dj10]

Which is why that was one of the options of the poll, Dan.
My option is not on your poll.:D
It figures you guys would change the damn rule now that I am installing a new KW Suspension. ;~)

[lateapex911]

Dan, it is on the poll:


RR dampers allowed, but only the ones fitted as orig. equip....the next option allows upgrading the RR dampers but only on cars so equipped from the factory.

Or are you saying they MUST run the stock dampers? Cute... ;)

Remember, don't freak out...I'm just asking an opinion!

[77ITA]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now. :p

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now. :p

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

Actually, not how I read it. A RR shock is still a 'tube' shock, no?

Why is it Koni makes a non-RR for the S2000? How can that one fit? Why the reluctance to run custom-valved Koni Yellows?

Again, just playing Devil's advocate. I am all for 'unless fitted as OE'. Of course 'matching' your front and rear shocks might be hard...

[vr6guy]

After reading this post, one question came to mind. Exactly how many cars come from the factory with RR shocks that would be eligible for IT racing. Maybe in this case class expansion is not the answer. If these cars that have RR shocks as OE equiptment were'nt classified, we wouldnt be discussing this issue.

Who's gonna be the first to want some hybrids classified?!

Go to any short track in the country, and every week they have racing. Maybe NASCAR is onto something. Lets keep it simple, and stop classifying some of these cars that cause nothing but discussion after discussion. :eek:

Marc Rider
NER

[lateapex911]

After reading this post, one question came to mind. Exactly how many cars come from the factory with RR shocks that would be eligible for IT racing. Maybe in this case class expansion is not the answer. If these cars that have RR shocks as OE equiptment were'nt classified, we wouldnt be discussing this issue.

Who's gonna be the first to want some hybrids classified?!

Go to any short track in the country, and every week they have racing. Maybe NASCAR is onto something. Lets keep it simple, and stop classifying some of these cars that cause nothing but discussion after discussion. :eek:

Marc Rider
NER

yea, cuz the S200 is soooo unpopular...
Marc, think bigger picture...discussion is OK. That's how problems are sorted out. The guys who do road racing aren't for the most part, interested in driving a bashed up Nova in circles with the doors chained shut. Eliminating cars isn't the answer...thinking proactively is.

[vr6guy]

Your idea of thinking proactively is, and probably always will be different than mine. The more things to argue about means less time for people to race. You are the same person that gave me a load of crap about allowing me to run a 15"x6.5" on my ITB gti.

[lateapex911]

Sigh, Marc....you can't race 24/7...there's more to racing than driving on the track, and formatting the competition is part of that...otherwise it's not racing. And having a set of rules that treats everyone fairly means that when you CAN race, it's meaningful, and globally fair.

And yes, i did object to your request for running a wheel larger than allowed for the class (which if I recall correctly was borne of your desire to save money because you had a cheap source of wheels that fit your car, which I guess is a somewhat difficult car to find cheap wheels for). If you got your way, the result would have been:

-A better wheel for you (a line item exception for your car) than anyone else, or....
-Everyone else having to switch wheels to be on the same level playing ground as you.

I found the concept shortsighted or, at worst, selfish. Sorry.

If you consider that a load of crap, so be it.

[vr6guy]

Sigh? wow..... you really have a hard time reading between the lines
I somewhat expected something like this from you

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITAC fan club continues to grow!

:p

[tnord]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now. :p

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.


i'm against RR jeff.

the exception should not make the rule, and of everything i've read, there's no good reason to change it and risk unintended consequences when there really isn't a problem in the first place. i don't know about this "change in damper type" issue, but whatever language change might be needed, it shouldn't include verbage to specifically allow RR shocks.

what is it you really want, to be able to run RR shocks, or do you want the language changed to make it legal for you to run the standard single tube stuff (assuming it isn't legal now)?

[lateapex911]

To me, the most interesting part is the votes given to the last option, one I threw in as a "extreme", that I thought would get no votes. I'm interested to hear the mechanics and logic behind the votes. anyone care to discuss?

[GKR_17]

...if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

If that were true there would have been no reason to ban RR's in the first place.

[77ITA]

what is it you really want

I'm glad you asked.

The only thing I am trying to acheive here is to allow a car that was designed with RR rear dampers from the factory to compete using the same type of equipment, be it stock dampers or performance replacement.

The car was designed with RR rear dampers and that is what I intend to use. This is the best picture I could come up with for referance, but the rear dampers are significantly shorter than the fronts, thus the OE RR design.

http://www.modacar.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/ss_dampers.jpg

All of that being said, the car never should have been classified in IT if it wasn't intended to be raced on OE design type suspension.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,

Let me ask you this: What is wrong with the non RR solution Koni sells? Why do you feel you HAVE to have RR's?

Just curious at this point. It might be principle at this point, and that is ok...

How would you write the rule if you were the singular decision maker?

[IPRESS]

From what I have read, the idea of excluding the RR shocks back when they were excluded was based on the costs and perceived competition advantage they would give the user.
I also read that there are monotube shocks that are equal if not better.
According to above posts, RR shocks are now in line pricewise and in some cases cheaper. Since they are being used in several series that have cars like IT cars, the chances of finding a deal on some used shock packages are high. Therefore going with RR shocks as a legal option may be the cost saving route for a top performance shock.
Rules creep is what everybody fears. But as the ITAC has shown by being proactive at looking at rules tweeks, IT has to at least bend a little to stay up with the changing tech part of the auto industry. If we are not willing to make a change when it probably will be cheaper in sourcing shocks, then we might as well change IT to IT Vintage.
I have no idea if RRs or Monos are better, I do know that for certain $$$$ amount one company ( and a good one it is) can give you a top shock package within the rules now. Other companies use RRs to get the same (what I have been told) performance in a shock. Pricewise about the same. I see no reason to limit our choices if the technology & price are close to the same.
I voted to allow them and don't really see why there is a reason not to allow them.
Other then people hate change around here...... And I can live with that too.:blink:

[77ITA]

Jeff,

Let me ask you this: What is wrong with the non RR solution Koni sells? Why do you feel you HAVE to have RR's?

Just curious at this point. It might be principle at this point, and that is ok...

How would you write the rule if you were the singular decision maker?

Thanks for asking, but I'm surprised that I even have to answer this.

Common knowledge of dampers tells us that utilizing a remote reservoir will allow a damper to be compact in construction while maintaining large travel distance, piston rod diameter, and fluid capacity. Given the compact design of the rear dampers on the S2000, it's obvious to me (and the engineers that made the car) that a remote reservoir is required. Anything less would be insufficient, especially when you consider the racing environment... lower ride height, full use of travel, greater stresses, and higher fluid temperature. I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.

Funny, I can picture a small department of Japanese suspension engineers having this same conversation with the cost-cutting folks at Honda during the development of the car. "NO, you fool, S2000 must have the remote reservoir!"

[JoshS]

I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.
I don't get it. Why did you start building a car with such conviction about shocks, when the current rules don't allow what you are looking for? Or were you planning to stick with the stock shocks until the rule changes, if it even does?

[JeffYoung]

A core principle of IT is if it was on the car stock you can run it. Ram air. Adjustable cam gears. Alum. hoods. Etc. etc. etc.

The RR rule is written screwed up because no one anticipated RR stock shocks. If someone thinks, and I agree there may be an argument that this is the case, that the S2000 can't run its STOCK RR shocks, then this needs to be fixed as an intended consequence of a poorly written RR shock rule, in my humble opinion of course.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are correct Jeff - however NOBODY runs stock shocks so there should be no desire to keep them.

I guess I don't know what the hang up is with the 'do or die' attitude on running them because the factory put them on. There is a non-RR solution from one of the top shock companies in the world.

So let's say that you are allowed under a corrected 'unless fitted as OEM' clause. Is anyone expecting that the FRONT of the car gets to run RR (because it didn't come like that stock)? Any company make a 'matched but mismatched' set of shocks likethis? I think the only legal set of matched shocks would be the Koni's anyway...no?

[JeffYoung]

Good points, but for me anyway, just a simple philosophy issue. If fitted as stock, he should be allowed to replace them (the rears only, I agree) with replacement RR shocks.

[seckerich]

Good points, but for me anyway, just a simple philosophy issue. If fitted as stock, he should be allowed to replace them (the rears only, I agree) with replacement RR shocks.

With the same number of adjustments as stock--Zero. If RR is such a big deal for this car let it run a shock similar to stock. If you want the allowed adjustable shocks you have to meet the rest of the rule. If one gets them, we all do.

I still think at the least we should line item all ITR to allow RR shocks and ABS. (Ducking the flames):eek:

[IPRESS]

AHHHHHH........Just as I thought the world is flat and it will remain FLAT. Damn those that think otherwise!

Jeff, won't you join me in a VINTAGE IT race somewher in the Midwest this year. I will bring my black leather driving shoes, and my GULF Racing jacket so we will fit in with the retro IT crowd!:OLA:

[tnord]

i'm against the RR shocks, and it probably surprises no one that i was against the open ecu as well. but then again, i hate all the new driver aids, fancy creature comforts, and all the other electronic BS on new cars these days. i guess i'm just an old fuddy-duddy that isn't open to change. oh wait, i'm 27.

it's not like there aren't any traditional shocks available for the car, or the car won't work without them (as was the case with the BMW wheel speed sensor issue), so i really fail to see a problem with the current rule. change the rule to say you may run OEM RR's if you want.

jeff you realize that changing the fronts to RR would constitute a "change in damper type" also, right?

[dj10]

[quote=seckerich;262282I still think at the least we should line item all ITR to allow RR shocks and ABS. (Ducking the flames):eek:[/quote]

Steve, I respectfully disagree with you here. These should be left to production or world challange.
BTW, business is picking up here rather well, so I'm going to do everything in my power to make it to VIR in May. So, save me a spot.:eclipsee_steering:

[IPRESS]

We agree to disagree Mr. Fuddy-Duddy. :p

[lateapex911]

Devils advocate hat ON



Common knowledge of dampers tells us that utilizing a remote reservoir will allow a damper to be compact in construction while maintaining large travel distance, piston rod diameter, and fluid capacity.

Ahhhhhh...."common" knowledge.....never wrong that common knowledge, is it? My research into this matter has shown opinions vary widely on the advantages and disadvantages of the different shock designs. The net net is that it's is very tough to make blanket statements.



Given the compact design of the rear dampers on the S2000, it's obvious to me (and the engineers that made the car)

Ahhhh, "obvious"....but while it's obvious to you, perhaps there are other reasons why this happened. Such as the company that hasan OEM contract felt it was cheaper and easier to make a RR shock than to work the magic with out the RR.


. I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.

Have you looked into the other options? Have you called the company and spoken to technicians regarding the application and asked them why their product is inferior to the stock RR?

If you're going to make such sweeping and black and white statements, you need to make sure your case is open and shut.

Devils advocate hat OFF....

[dj10]

Thanks for asking, but I'm surprised that I even have to answer this.

I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.
"
Jeff, would you run your OEM RR shocks as they came from the factory? If so then I'll agree to let you run them.:cool: If not then you should go to Production or T3, don't you think?:shrug:

[Parrish57]

Years ago when the RR debate was in full fury I was one of the Have-Nots that was strongly in favor of the ban. In a conversation with one of the Haves he correctly predicted that he would be able to simply spend the same money on new shocks that are compliant. I hate it when I'm wrong. The RR debate is a moot point due to the advancment of technology. I'm now in favor of lifting the ban. This is not rules creep, but tech evolution.

If you guys want to spend your $$s on RR shocks go for it. I prefer to spend my hard earned cash on a good motor, good brakes, dyno time, track time, and sticker tires. I don't care if you bolt on a $50,000 set of shocks custom made in Maranello and blessed by the Pope. I'm going out next weekend with my big right foot, my 60's technology, and my $150 per corner Bilsteins to kick the field in the collective nuggets!:eclipsee_steering:

[IPRESS]

Attaboy Steve, giv'em a kick for me.

I see this as SCCA at it's historical best, "can't do it that way cause we always do it this way."

[seckerich]

Steve, I respectfully disagree with you here. These should be left to production or world challange.
BTW, business is picking up here rather well, so I'm going to do everything in my power to make it to VIR in May. So, save me a spot.:eclipsee_steering:
Dan I still treat you like a unicorn--I have heard you exist but until I actually see you at a race I wont believe it!!

I think my ITR problem just got solved. The RX8 just got classed in E Production so I don't have to wait for the ITAC to finally get to it. They got a request and got it classed--go figure.:p

[JoshS]

I think my ITR problem just got solved. The RX8 just got classed in E Production so I don't have to wait for the ITAC to finally get to it. They got a request and got it classed--go figure.:p
There's no point in the ITAC classing it yet. Even if we'd already classed it, it couldn't be legal until 2009, because that's when 2004 models are eligible in IT.

[JeffYoung]

Have to disagree. You class it now, and guys get to start building for 09.

That's not the hold up on classing.....the upcoming knock down, drag down pissing match fight over weight is.........

[JoshS]

I think everyone can feel confident that it will be classed. We just can't tell you the weight yet (because we don't know.)

[JeffYoung]

You guys need to make the weighting process on that car as open as you possibly can. You've got a screwy situation with a car that needs to be in ITR, but with a complete fark up by the factory on what the stock hp "really" is. There's credible evidence to suggest 160whp and credible evidence to support quite a bit more. There's strong feeling on both sides (Mazda camp v. non-Mazda camp), and you've seen my position in the proposal for classing itself (although I'm done with the issue now).

But before the car is classed I would make the weighting process transparent and in fact perhaps put it out for comment before setting it. At least that way both sides can't say they didn't have input into the weight setting.

It is VERY important, as I am sure you know, to get this right. Not only objectively as "right" as possible on the weight itself, but also procedurally in how you go about setting it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The problem is that the ITR guys are going to yell because they think the weight is too low AND the RX-8 guys are going to yell because they think the weight is too high. It's a total lose-lose.

Add to that - that there will be 100% built, developed and well driven cars hit the track on day 1, they will start winning, furthering the perception that they were misclassed.

Can't wait. :blink:

[seckerich]

You just made the most important point in this whole discussion on the RX8. The ITAC is already considering the car weight based on full prep compared to some current less than full prep competitors. You are in a bad position from the start. I fully expect the car to get classed heavy to "cover your collective A#$#$ and none will get built.:023: Prod is a moving target but at least I know who has the gun. We would like to build some cars and help the class grow, but it looks like the deck is already stacked against us. Good luck guys, would not want to be in your shoes.:p

[Andy Bettencourt]

You just made the most important point in this whole discussion on the RX8. The ITAC is already considering the car weight based on full prep compared to some current less than full prep competitors. You are in a bad position from the start. I fully expect the car to get classed heavy to "cover your collective A#$#$ and none will get built.:023: Prod is a moving target but at least I know who has the gun. We would like to build some cars and help the class grow, but it looks like the deck is already stacked against us. Good luck guys, would not want to be in your shoes.:p

Well, all cars are classed at their estimated 'full prep' level. I am just predicting the outcome of the classification as all. No issues with it personally because I feel I know why people and cars win races - and it ain't about 75lbs here or there in IT.

I know the results - and we have just got to weather the storm - from both sides.

[JeffYoung]

I agree the weight classing will be a pissing match and the ITAC will be the loser, which stinks.

My only suggestion, and it is just that, is make the weighting process as OPEN as possible. Open it up to debate. Share the information you have. Get comment from the existing ITR drivers. Etc. It won't make people happy, but it will perhaps take some of the mystery out of the process and at least they won't be able to claim that they had no idea what was going on.

[lateapex911]

I agree the weight classing will be a pissing match and the ITAC will be the loser, which stinks.

My only suggestion, and it is just that, is make the weighting process as OPEN as possible. Open it up to debate. Share the information you have. Get comment from the existing ITR drivers. Etc. It won't make people happy, but it will perhaps take some of the mystery out of the process and at least they won't be able to claim that they had no idea what was going on.

Are you kidding Jeff? ;)

We published, TWICE, in Fastrack, AND we posted threads on this board, AND we posted threads on the RR/AX board, AND IIRC, something on the never visited SCCA IT board, a manifesto regarding the ECU rule, and complete explanations of options. We got better responses and more of them than ever, the membership was clearly in favor of one option, and the ITAC, and eventually the CRB agreed, yet we still have people sniping and acting all surprised!

Oh, they'll claim ignorance, you just wait! ;)

All- Andy's point is that the RX-8 has interest from known builders who will do top notch prep, and will have top notch drivers. THAT's what it takes to win races, and when the car hits that track, nearly fully developed and wins out of the box, the folks driving other cars (still being developed) will scream bloody murder.

Then theres the clusterfvck of the stock HP, AND the fact that they make the torque of a sick mouse pulling a dead raccoon back to base, AND the fact that there is NO* other engine like it racing in IT, (the ITAC bases its process on the "genre" of the engine) and you can see the issues.

*I can see the responses..."But there are TWO rotaries already racing, just class it like them!". Not that easy.....the 1st gen is a carbed simple engine with two exhaust ports, and small rotors/disp. The 2nd gen is injected, larger rotors/disp. The 3rd gen has completely different porting, and uses a weird siamese exhaust arrangement, where the two rotors actually share an exhaust header pipe. The gains that the other versions see are largely due to exhaust work...and the arrangement of the exhaust on the 3rd gen precludes that. It's an entirely different animal... kind of like comparing a Nissan V6 DOHC to an American in the V cam V6.

[JeffYoung]

Agreed. I would just be sure to put out for debate, on the RX8, before it is classed:

1. The assumption you are using for stock hp and why.

2. The assumption you are using for IT gains and why.

3. Any other factors that go into weight for the car.

You've read my proposal. I agree that the factory hp situation is a mess and it looks highly likely to me the car makes no where near 230 crank hp stock. If you guys do agree, again I would humbly suggest you make it clear as to why clearly and expressly before the weight is set.

[lateapex911]

It's an interesting concept, we'll see what the CRB thinks of it....

[Ron Earp]

I thought this was about RR shocks? Heck, now about those V8s in ITR.........

[JeffYoung]

Looks to me like the chances of V8s in ITR are.....remote.

[lateapex911]

Looks to me like the chances of V8s in ITR are.....remote.

Bad pun. The fat lady hasn't sung....

[JeffYoung]

So the reservoir is .... half full?

[jimmyc]

for the rx8 can the ITAC work bacwards from information that exists currently?

GAC has them at 2650 DRY. Against a strut baised 220whp FF 145ft/lbs car coming in at 2500 dry. And a DWS baise 220whp FF 165ft/lbs car coming in at 2600 dry.

I have some incar of a TSX and a RX8 at homestead, they look pretty evently matched on track, and yes i know on track should be used to class cars, but it is a starting point.


I'd say that 160whp number is a complete load of crap

[GKR_17]

We already have a starting point. The same one used for every ITR car. The stock hp from the manufacturer. Period.

Since you pulled in comparisons to GAC, look at the GAC Rx-8 (2650lbs) vs. the GAC BMW 330i (2875lbs). In ITR the 330i is 3290lbs, where should that put the Rx-8?
Or what about SCCA T3? The T3 Rx-8 is 50lbs heavier than the T3 Honda S2000. In ITR the S2000 is 3005 lbs.

As for the original topic - per May fastrack OE (and only OE) RR's are legal.

[dj10]

for the rx8 can the ITAC work bacwards from information that exists currently?

I'd say that 160whp number is a complete load of crap
The more I think about this and I've seen RX8's running pretty much in IT trim, I seconded this 160rwhp # as a load of crap too. I don't believe they are 220 hp either, probably somewhere in the middle. I'd have to see 1st hand to believe the 160#.

[jimmyc]

We already have a starting point. The same one used for every ITR car. The stock hp from the manufacturer. Period.

Since you pulled in comparisons to GAC, look at the GAC Rx-8 (2650lbs) vs. the GAC BMW 330i (2875lbs). In ITR the 330i is 3290lbs, where should that put the Rx-8?
Or what about SCCA T3? The T3 Rx-8 is 50lbs heavier than the T3 Honda S2000. In ITR the S2000 is 3005 lbs.

As for the original topic - per May fastrack OE (and only OE) RR's are legal.

the BMW is a good comparison, but i'd have to look over the allowances for the BMW. I think they are restricted to the hilt. More so then they would be in IT.

[lateapex911]

Correct. comparing cars from different sanctioning bodies running different rules (esp pro series rules which can change mid season, or even week to week, is dangerous.

However,the point about the RX-8 and the S2000 having similar characteristics is quite valid.

[GKR_17]

Correct. comparing cars from different sanctioning bodies running different rules (esp pro series rules which can change mid season, or even week to week, is dangerous.

However,the point about the RX-8 and the S2000 having similar characteristics is quite valid.

Absolutely correct. Just don't forget that it's equally dangerous to use the dyno data from one of those pro teams (who will make more money if the car gets classed light).

[JeffYoung]

But what do you do when the manufacturer's horsepower data is widely recognized as wrong? I truly don't have a dog in the fight and could care less what the car is classed at so long as it is right.

There's a fair amount of data showing the car stock making 165 whp, some more. There's other data that shows this is correctable via the ECU, and even more than says it is not.

I'm lost on this one. The car needs to be in R, and it needs to be there at the right weight. So what do we do with such conflicting information?

[GKR_17]

Let's be clear, when the Rx-8 was introduced, Mazda claimed it had 247hp. Just before delivery, the ECU was remapped to meet new emissions regs. There was significant controversy over the actual power output and Mazda revised the rating to 238. It seems the vast majority of complaints died off at that point. In 2005 the SAE updated their requirements on how hp is certified (and now includes independent observation). Using the new standard, the published number was reduced to 232 for 2006 and later models (with no changes to the engine). I think any claim that the stock power is less than 232 is ludicrous. Every other ITR car was classed based on stock numbers, there is no reason to deviate from that now.

I've pointed this out before, but I'd like to reiterate that while the dyno data submitted did show low output, it also showed 14% gain with only intake and exhaust work. It is clear this car should see significant further gains from ECU mods since all the emissions work can be undone.

Here are a few numbers from the process (assume net zero adders - all attributes positive except torque, made up for by best in class transmission):

238hp with 25% gain -> 3350 lbs (this is the standard process)
238hp with 20% gain -> 3210 lbs
238hp with 15% gain -> 3080 lbs (this is the lowest gain multiplier used on any car)

Now to be extremely generous, use the 2006 rating at 232:

232hp with 20% gain - > 3130 lbs

While I agree that on track data should not be used for classification purposes, it is worth noting that an ITR Rx-8 should weigh around 3050 lbs after direct comparison with other ITR eligible cars also running in either T3 or Grand Am.

The Rx-8 proponents claim the car should weigh somewhere between 2700 and 2800 lbs.

Tell me, who is unreasonable here?

[Knestis]

Everyone...? :026:

Just kidding there. Mostly.

I've seen it first hand so can say with confidence that the ITAC members understand all too well who benefits from what decision. The first assumption is that everyone is looking out for their patch, and we do get some really interesting input from members willing to "help." It all gets considered but with the recognition of the interests behind those providing.

K