May fastrack is up

[77ITA]

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-may.pdf

this should be grounds for some fun discussion :happy204:

[77ITA]

Allow me to start with my discontent...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/quattrojeff/untitled.jpg


ARE YOU JOKING?! :rolleyes:

Quick! Run for your carburated Datsun! There's all sorts of scary newfangled technology out there these days!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/quattrojeff/images.jpg



Allow me to reiterate this new nonsensical ruling for you all.

If you intend to race a car that came from the factory with any sort of advanced technology in Improved Touring, please be ready get screwed over because the consensus of the ITAC and CRB is to run and hide from all that is new and/or different.

I am now left with two options for my ITR Honda S2000.

1) run stock remote reservoir rear dampers that are utilized from the factory due to space constraints

or

2) run aftermarket non-remote reservoir dampers that are complete junk, as they can not be of the remote reservoir design that is clearly required due to space constraints

great logic there, guys. This really makes it fun and easy to be involved in the SCCA. :)

[Greg Amy]

Damn, that's awkward. That's like packin' on 40 pounds of words into a 2-pound problem...

How about we just put in an exception on the Honda S2000 spec line, stating "OEM remote reservoir rear shocks are allowed"...?

[Doc Bro]

I guess I don't read it that way. To me it says RR's are bueno if the car came with them from the manufacturer (stock). If, however, you want to change them from the stock units to something else, then RR's no bueno, and normal IT rules apply. How else could it be implemented?

Si??

R

[lateapex911]

The ITAc decided that it didn't want to open the door to RRs at this time. But, it also knows that cars that come with RRs might not be limited to one car. It decided to make a categorical ruling, rather than a line item exception that would need repeating. One thing you can say, is that the ITAc is trying it's best to keep line items exceptions to a minimum.

I am sure some will like the ruling, some won't care, and some will hate it.

And if the ruling were different, we'd have the same acceptance/hate, except the roles would be reversed, LOL>

[77ITA]

The ITAc decided that it didn't want to open the door to RRs at this time.



Then why did cars with remote reservoir dampers get classed in the first place? :wacko:

[shwah]

Hopefully we will see more Porsches in ITB at the new weight.:happy204:

[Greg Amy]

It decided to make a categorical ruling, rather than a line item exception that would need repeating.
Repeated for...what other car? So you're planning on re-wording the rules for Miata hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and the Petty bar rules for small coupes with only two seats (a la Honda del Sol)? After all, those have more than one instance.

It's awkward. It's hard to read. It's wordy. And you know what happens with hard-to-read wordy rules...but, hey, it's your bed...

[dj10]

I guess I don't read it that way. To me it says RR's are bueno if the car came with them from the manufacturer (stock). If, however, you want to change them from the stock units to something else, then RR's no bueno, and normal IT rules apply. How else could it be implemented?

Si??

R
This sounds like exactly what I suggested!:D I like it.

[wdether]

I agree with Greg, it does seem better to put information on the spec line for each car that can use RR's. As an inspector how am I to know which car can use them and which can't? If the Honda is the exception, put it on the spec line.

[SPiFF]

w0w ... I have been trying to drink the S.Club Koolaid and not rant about the dumb rules, but you guys just keep churning them out!!

Has the dumb threaded body shock and ECU rules of the past not been enough? Why do we need to paint people into these corners that only cubic dollars will get them out of. Just write the rule as "of non-remote reservoir type (unless fitted as stock)" and be done with it!!!

We already limit adjustment to 2, so you ware not going to sneak in Formula1 dampers.

Maybe someone will list all the remote reservoir type dampers that are on the market which would meet the 2 adjustability max rule of IT. I am sure there is nothing in there that will cause the sky to fall.

[JeffYoung]

Have to agree with Zsolt. If fitted as stock, then the S2000 guys should be able to use any two adjustment damper, RR or otherwise. THis sheet be crazee man.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Have to agree with Zsolt. If fitted as stock, then the S2000 guys should be able to use any two adjustment damper, RR or otherwise. THis sheet be crazee man.

Some things to think about - not choosing sides:

The S2000 used RR in the rear only. Is your intention to allow only the rear aftermarket RR's or is it to allow the whole car RR's?

If you only allow the rear, people will write in for an allowable 'matched set'. If you allow the whole car, you have created an exception to the rule. Do you line item this car only?

Why not try and create a rule now (however seemingly cumbersome) that reflects current thinking but also covers any future models classed instead of making exceptions for each as they pop up?

[Knestis]

There are some big guiding principles that the ITAC seems to try to fall back on, particularly when the doo-doo is looking like it might get deep and sticky.

One is that we're trying like hell to avoid make/model specific exceptions to the general rules. The current philosophy is that the good of the entire category benefits from bigger thinking, more so than it would from a patchwork of little decisions - even if each might seem "right" to particular people who own a particular car. The point at which something is good for one car, it should be good for the entire category, seems like. And if a line-item allowance for RR shocks were made for one model, there'd be a hew and cry about "competitive advantage" and it'd be Katie bar the door. Right?

Setting aside the issue of whether there IS an advantage for the moment (an open question, about which reasonable people seem to differ), how do we equitably tell the Integra guys they don't get the cool toys when the S2000 guys do? Perceptions matter, and an allowance for one car would, in the real world, translate quickly into a de facto rule change across the board.

The wording is a little funky because we tried to put it in terms of what the rule would ALLOW, rather than what it might PROHIBIT. That's another big-picture principle, as part of an effort to head off wacky interpretations and loopholes, and anticipate new technology coming along. It might be a new emphasis so we've got some things to learn but I hope the concept is at least appreciated.

It was also our understanding that there are perfectly reasonable non-RR aftermarket parts for the car in question. While Jeff's interpretation (ITA77, not Young) is spot on - keep the stock bits or replace them with non-RR units - he's only limited to the same "junk" that everyone else has to run.

I will tell you that, while the change to the shock rule passed on to the board was something approaching a consensus decision, there was nothing like 100% agreement about any aspect of it. Your ITAC represents the same broad range of perspectives as does any handful of IT drivers. I don't believe we've heard the last of this issue but be sure that the ITAC thought this was the best answer at this time.

If you are pro or con RR shocks for the entire category, hone your case presentations. I gotta feeling we'll be hearing them in the coming months. :)

K

[JeffYoung]

Understand the ITACs thinking on this, but I am (hopefully politely suggesting) that "it" (as in the collective it, not any specific one of you) is missing something that is fundamental to IT racing:

If it is stock on the car, you can run it even if otherwise prohibited. Adjustable timing gears. Rear spoiler. Ram air. Etc.

For me, the S2000 came with stock RR rear shocks. So, S2000 guys should be able to replace the rears only with any RR shock.

Requests for "matched sets" should be denied like any other "special request."

[JoshS]

Understand the ITACs thinking on this, but I am (hopefully politely suggesting) that "it" (as in the collective it, not any specific one of you) is missing something that is fundamental to IT racing:

If it is stock on the car, you can run it even if otherwise prohibited. Adjustable timing gears. Rear spoiler. Ram air. Etc.


We disagreed. We felt that if it was stock on the car, you can absolutely run THE STOCK PART. No argument there, and that's what the clarification says.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can replace the stock part with a similar, but higher-performing part, if the rules don't generally allow that sort of higher-performing part. You are suggesting such an allowance would be "fundamental to IT racing" but ... where does that thought come from?

To use one of your examples: Are you suggesting that a car that comes with a stock rear wing can use any rear wing? Surely not.

[JeffYoung]

No, I'm not, because the difference is that dampers are free otherwise. Wings are not.

If the car comes with stock RR dampers, and dampers are free, very logical to me to allow any RR damper.

[JoshS]

Bad example on my part, I was trying to force one of your examples.

This is what happens when we write rules that say what you cannot do. So let me use another example ...

The rules say that a front spoiler may not attach aft of the front of the wheel well. But, you can add a front spoiler. Let's suppose a car comes with a front spoiler that attaches one inch rearward of that point. Can that car use a front splitter that extends all the way under the car, creating a flat (or even sculpted) bottom?

BTW, I recognize that this is still a forced example. The point is, Jeff, that what you are saying is "fundamental" is a pretty unique situation.

[Greg Amy]

To clarify, my personal issue with the rule as proposed above is NOT whether to allow RR shocks in the class. At all. My issue is that you're using a broad-brush 40 pounds of words to address an allowance on one specific issue.

With one specific car.

Which is what spec line exceptions are for.

It's that simple. Or, well, it can be...

[joeg]

Just ineligiblize that Honda--case closed.

There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.

[tnord]

I'm 100% with the ITAC on this one.

[seckerich]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup. :024:

[Knestis]

To clarify, my personal issue with the rule as proposed above is NOT whether to allow RR shocks in the class. At all. My issue is that you're using a broad-brush 40 pounds of words to address an allowance on one specific issue.

With one specific car.

Which is what spec line exceptions are for.

It's that simple. Or, well, it can be...

Not enough coffee yet but I'm not tracking, Greg - we didn't make an allowance for a specific issue for a specific car. The point is that the same rule applies to everyone, the same way. Or am I not understanding what you're saying...?

K

EDIT - I think maybe your point is that we rewrote the rule to deal with one special case? Maybe. I think the S2K catalyzed the conversation, certainly. Your saying we should have left it alone and stipulated in the ITCS line that this car had to run non-RR shocks in the rear, regardless of how it came equipped?

[dj10]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup. :024:
Steve, it said "stock", which to me, means just that, stock and unmodified.
"the unicorn";)

[Knestis]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup. :024:

What was that Bob guy's last name? Oh, yeah - STRETCH.

...as in that's a stretch.

There doesn't need to be any rule "limiting the revalve of the stock unit" - it's inherent to the rules set. "Replace" means "replace" - as in anything other than the stock part. Is there a rule specifically prohibiting the "revalving" of, say, valve springs?

K

[Greg Amy]

...we should have left it alone and stipulated in the ITCS line that this car had to run non-RR shocks in the rear, regardless of how it came equipped?
Close, but no.

Remember that whole S2k discussion thread? 'Course you do, it's what generated this proposed rule. To summarize as I understand it, the S2k comes stock with RR shocks. The S2k has been classified in ITR. The rules stipulate that RR are prohibited, ergo the S2k is not legal to use its original equipment shocks. So, you ("ITAC" you) are addressing this to allow the S2k - and any other car that comes stock with RR shocks - to run the stock RR shocks unless they replace them with aftermarket, non-OEM, non-applicable-to-the-aftermarket-stock-replacement- parts rule. If they do replace their shocks with performance replacements, they must adhere to the standard non-RR rule.

Yes?

If all that's accurate, then I stand by what I'm writing above. My point is, why write an over-reaching rule, applying to all cars in the category, when it only affects one, single spec line? Why not, instead, say the above one that cars' spec line only? And, if another car comes around with remote reservoir shocks, write it in that car's spec line too? Doing so means, at worst, you accidentally open up a Pandora's box of incorrect interpretation one one specific car which is a HELL of a lot easier to correct than writing an over-reaching rule that each and every competitor is going to parse to its nth degree to try and make it to their advantage...

If you follow this logic, then you should write over-reaching rules applicable to all cars, even though items are model-specific, such as Miata/BMW hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and rollcage designs to 2-seater coupes.

Besides, it's not like we're suddenly expecting a plethora of cars with remote reservoir shocks from the factory. There's just the one...

Spec lines exceptions are there to address model-specific differences. That's what this RR rule is all about: Honda S2000 rear shocks. Period. Don't write a 40# rule for everyone that is only, in actuality, intended for one car. Write into the S2k spec line:

"Original, unmodified rear OEM shocks are approved."

[raffaelli]

Interesting COA case listed. Did that guy really think he would get away with stealing a few laps? What a mess that would have been had there been an injury on track where he was involved. I think the original driver should have been held responsible also. I guess there was no action against the original driver since the replacement driver was just listed as an emergency contact and not crew.
:bash_1_:

[gran racing]

There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.

I have to assume you're joking otherwise that just plain stupid. There aren't a lot of many different types of models around which makes things very interesting and fun in IT. If the ITAC believed that, they never would have taken the time to class it and use a different weight determination process. Maybe it's just because I drive a Honda model which there are not that many around. :rolleyes:

Are there some good options that would work for the S2000? I can't remember what was said on rr-ax, but did Lee at Koni say they could make a race suspension (non rr) for them?

[lateapex911]

I'm not seeing it as black and white on the spec line exception listing subject.

I'm still thinking a general rule, (come on, we're smart enough to read complex sentences, and if we're not, we can call a brighter friend) is better, as it fends of unforeseen future examples. Honestly, maybe we class a car, oh..say, the RGX-9...and mid year '04s have an upgrade to the suspension which included a blingy set of Tein RR dampers.

Well, guess what we do?

Nothing.

It's in the rules.
No tech bulleting, no research for the actual date, no exception line writing that gets the date wrong in a typo, or anything equally goofy.

As for tech, it's really not a concern until the paper flies, right? As a tech inspector, you might mention to a competitor who presents his car for his logbook inspection or in impound that RRs aren't in IT, but all he needs to do is point out the rule that lists them as OK. If it goes further, you're handling protest papers, and the documentation from the protester, and the protestee that goes along with that, and your job is simple.

[Gary L]

Spec lines exceptions are there to address model-specific differences. That's what this RR rule is all about: Honda S2000 rear shocks. Period. Don't write a 40# rule for everyone that is only, in actuality, intended for one car. Write into the S2k spec line:

"Original, unmodified rear OEM shocks are approved."

Perfect. :happy204:

[erlrich]

I think this is a perfect example of when a spec line exception IS the most appropriate solution. How many cars out there now come stock with RR shocks? Then, how many of those are potential IT candidates? When (if) the time comes when there is more than one RR car in IT, THEN worry about re-writing the rules. I understand the desire to be proactive, and try to look into the future, but I think in this case it isn't warranted.

I would much rather the ITAC start thinking about more likely potential problems, such as the day when MOST of the cars coming into IT are equipped with ABS and/or traction control.

[Knestis]

Thanks, Greg - I get it. I think that the consensus was as Jake describes, although I do agree that your suggested type of "spec line exemption" isn't as poisonous as most examples we could come up with.

K

EDIT - I echo your concern on that front, Earl.

[JeffYoung]

Is an S2000 driver allowed to revalve his stock RR shocks, or must the remain totally stock?

I think we are taking something away from the S2000 that we do not take from others. The S2000 has a stock "advantage" that normally in IT we are allowed to exploit.

[Knestis]

Stock parts have to be stock - not believing that anyone is really likely to do that in this particular case, they shouldn't be prevented from doing what others can. (That being "nothing.")

K

[IPRESS]

Jeff,
Evidently the PTB think that you should be happy to just have a place to lap your new ride. Sometimes the most common of sense fall short. Sorry you got caught up in it.
I know we have to try to keep it fair, but sometimes the keepers of the rules are racing in areas that are thick with participants. They may not think so but it does factor in to the thinking process. Having competitive S2Ks in our DIV would be significant as we need all the IT numbers we can get. Come on back to "A" we could use you there too. I disagrreed with the anti RR crowd anyway. This is not vintage racing. RR shocks can be found cheaper in some cases then mono shocks. Of course all this was himhawed back and forth before the new ruling came out. They (CRB) made a call for good or bad (for the class as a whole) and basically it sucks for you and the rest of those who might want to run an S2k. Get that thing built and beat'em with stock shocks.

[tnord]

i don't get it Mac.

there are perfectly capable monotube shocks available for the rear of the S2K today, at no performance disadvantage to RR. he's allowed to run stock shocks if he really wants to.

arguing the wording of the rule is one thing, but i think the intent is correct.

[Knestis]

...sometimes the keepers of the rules are racing in areas that are thick with participants. They may not think so but it does factor in to the thinking process. Having competitive S2Ks in our DIV would be significant as we need all the IT numbers we can get. ...

The suggestion being that not allowing potential S2000 entrants to use aftermarket RR rear shocks is going to keep them from participating at all? Or that those parts are going to be the only thing preventing them from being competitive, thereby keeping them at home?

K

[dj10]

The suggestion being that not allowing potential S2000 entrants to use aftermarket RR rear shocks is going to keep them from participating at all? Or that those parts are going to be the only thing preventing them from being competitive, thereby keeping them at home?

K
Be serious K. :D

[77ITA]

There is a whole concept that most of you are missing here and I feel that none of you have any clue what I'm trying to say. Is it poor communication on my side or poor listening on yours?

The purpose of a remote reservoir is simply to fit "a lot of shock" into "a little place". They are not magic, they do not make a car fly around the track setting 50% lower lap times. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.

Now, let's get on with things. There is a car called the Honda S2000. It was engineered with remote reservoir rear dampers because there is very little space in the rear suspension. The rear dampers are very short and thus a remote reservoir damper was the only way to properly dampen each the rear wheels. This is only on the rear. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.

The next concept to present is that we are allowed to make modifications to our cars to make them more suitable for racing use. This includes changing out dampers to those that are more suitable for racing use. It's very commonplace... we all do it.

Due to the specific design of the S2000, most of the matched sets of good aftermarket dampers have a normal front damper and a remote reservoir rear damper. Just like original equipment. Seriously.. the bodies look just the same; a piggyback remote reservoir because there is no space within the body of the damper.

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

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=65&d=1204068843




With the current rule, I would be forced to run a non-remote reservoir in the rear if I wish to upgrade my dampers like everyone else. Any product for the S2000 that has rear dampers of a non-remote reservoir design would be junk. I am not saying they are junk simply because they are non remote reservoir, I am saying they are junk because the S2000 doesn't have the physical space to support an non-remote reservoir damper that would be adequate.

Any thing look strange here guys?
http://www.mvpmotorsports.com/Merchant/catalog/sus/grplus.jpg

Do you guys understand the concepts that I am trying to present? For the fifth time, I am not seeking to gain a competition advantage (for the rear) of the S2000. If I wanted a comp. adjustment, I would be trying to get the ludicrous book weight of 3,005lbs lowered.

finally, I present an example:

-Car XYZ comes from the factory with special magic laser brake pads.
-Special magic laser brake pads are banned in IT, but the car was classed anyway.
-We are allowed to upgrade "brake pads" to that which are suitable for racing use in IT
-Car XYZ should obviously be able to upgrade to a racing grade of special magic laser brake pads too.

*but*

The ITAC and CRB are scared of special magic laser brake pads becuase they are new and scary and then we will all instanly be racing prod. cars with washer fluid tanks. :)

I don't know how to explain this in a more basic fashion. This is my opinion and yes, I am an a**hole. I am also entiteld to be 100% wrong on this, but I think that I am correct and there were 19 votes in my favor from the previous thread.

[dj10]

Jeff, the 1st place I looked I found a race suspension for a S2000 and I'll bet there better than what you have now.

[77ITA]

Jeff, the 1st place I looked I found a race suspension for a S2000 and I'll bet there better than what you have now.

did you even read my post? :blink:

I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate. Regardless of that, it's an absurd ruling.

I have not yet purchased suspension for the car, so yes... anything is better than sitting on jack stands.

:D

[ddewhurst]

Jeff or anyone, where did your S2000 come from & do you have any suggestions where one could be found to build an E Production car?:shrug:

I have found one 28,000 miles for $9,000.00 with minor front damage out east. I'm in Wisconsin so long distance shipping will add some bucks.

[planet6racing]

As an Engineer, I have to ask this question:

Why do you feel that they will not be adequate? (looking for actual tech here, e.g. The oil will overheat after x cycles based on performance at Y track.)

Also, there are other reasons than "big shock in little area" to use RR dampers. Cooling of oil to maintain the newtonian flow characteristics of the oil is one...

[77ITA]

As an Engineer, I have to ask this question:

Why do you feel that they will not be adequate?

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:


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.

[dj10]

did you even read my post? :blink:

I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate. Regardless of that, it's an absurd ruling.

Yes I did read your ramblings :)and you are wrong, the double adjustables will be more than adequate if you get the right ones. Remember some of these manufactures do know something about racing.:D

[spnkzss]

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:

And the companies that created race ready non RR shocks for the S2000 didn't take these concerns into consideration when they created their shocks to be superior to the stock shock?

[JoshS]

So you're basically saying that it's "common sense" that anything else will be junk, but you've done no testing, nor cited any source that has done testing.

Look, every car in the ITCS has some sort of liability in IT trim. This is just one of those.

All that has happened in the latest Fastrack is a clarification of the existing rule. The ITAC wanted to make it clear that the stock rear shock is okay -- some people interpreted the situation to mean that even that wasn't true. So this is not a rule change. A rule change to extend allowances could still happen, but rule changes are looked at very carefully.

In the meantime, I'd suggest you go out there and find what you think is the best non-RR rear shock available. Talk to shock builders. Explain the situation. Ask what they've done to address the problem and find out why they think their non-RR design won't be a liability.

I notice that TC Kline has custom-valved non-RR Koni shocks for the S2000. I'd give him a call, at least just to get his take.

[Greg Amy]

There is a whole concept that most of you are missing here and I feel that none of you have any clue what I'm trying to say. Is it poor communication on my side or poor listening on yours?
Jeff, I think you are the one that's missing the point here. Everyone understands your position well, as we went through that last round of "S2000 remote rear reservoir shocks".

The bottom line - something you need to understand and accept, lest you become immensely frustrated - is that remote reservoir shocks are illegal in Improved Touring. Period. This has a long, convoluted history, it's been that way for many, many years, and it's more than settled for the time being.

And, no one is going to approve the use of remote reservoir shocks on the S2000 only.

You are being tossed a bone in that you can use the factory ones if you wish. But, if you choose not to, you have clear direction on how to proceed, sans RR shocks.

If you don't like that, then change it. But that only way you're going to change this rule is to lobby to get RR shocks approved for ALL cars, not just yours. Any requests to allow something that is currently specifically disallowed, but do so on only on one car, will be met with deaf ears. As it should be.

If you want to change this, work to change it globally. Or, play the cards you've been dealt.

It's that simple.

Greg

[Knestis]

-Car XYZ comes from the factory with special magic laser brake pads.
-Special magic laser brake pads are banned in IT, but the car was classed anyway.
-We are allowed to upgrade "brake pads" to that which are suitable for racing use in IT
-Car XYZ should obviously be able to upgrade to a racing grade of special magic laser brake pads too.

...or Car XYZ can use the stock SML pads.

...or upgrade to any brake pad allowed by the rules.

The degree to which each option is "obvious" depends on the interests of the person making the judgements. I know you feel picked on but that's not the intent, nor can we worry enough about individual interests to the degree that one make/model drives the decisions for an entire category.

We get requests all the time from people who are equally convinced that (part X) is "not adequate" - bearings (Neons, VWs), suspension pieces (944), etc. We can't give everyone what they want. And with due respect, you've got to decide what the actual value of RR shocks is:

"The purpose of a remote reservoir is simply to fit "a lot of shock" into "a little place". They are not magic, they do not make a car fly around the track setting 50% lower lap times." - You believe that the design isn't significantly better.

" I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate." - You believe that the design is significantly better.

Your job is to advocate for your interests but the fact that a rule doesn't reflect them does NOT mean the ITAC doesn't understand them, or that we're just not smart enough to understand the issue. We've just got to look at bigger issues, and we try to do that.

Kirk (who thinks it's valuable to explain the process and thinking, but wants to point out that his and other ITAC members' personal opinions on the subject may well differ)

[planet6racing]

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:

So, you have no proof that they will not work. The stock RRs were designed for the street, hence requiring additional shock travel and, possibly, the need for RRs. Unless you drive like I do (agriculturally), you won't need as much travel on track.

I'm not trying to be a dick here (though I know it comes across that way). You have said keywords that I have picked up on: "I feel they won't work," "It's obvious to me," etc. You have offered no proof, either by calculation or by testing that shows that the shocks designed by racing shock manufacturers for racing applications will not work. As a result, I have no choice but to rely on those skilled in the art. Relying on the design installed on the car and saying that the engineers required RR shocks is not proof, for one does not know if that was an engineering decision or a purchasing decision (yes, we engineers do not have final say in the design of most things).

If you can provide some proof that these will not work, I'll happily back you up. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is up to you.

[JeffYoung]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

[tnord]

I am saying they are junk because the S2000 doesn't have the physical space to support an non-remote reservoir damper that would be adequate.


the absolute absurdity of all this is as comical as your request to disallow all SM's from IT competition because "they are too fast/well prepared."

you haven't really talked to anybody about the non-RR options available.
you haven't even tried a set on your car.
you haven't presented evidence from anyone who has tried them.
you aren't a shock engineer or anything close to it by trade.

Jeff I promise you don't need RR shocks to be competitive with this car (especially in this division). Quit your bitching and at least call Koni and see what they have to say. :eclipsee_steering:

[77ITA]

First and foremost, whether or not the non-rr dampers would be junk is irrelevant... only grounds for my point of view which is, of course, my point of view. Just so we get this straight, my opinions on that matter are worthless, unconfounded, and based upon black-hole science. I'll paint myself as an idiot with no knowledge so we can get that off the table. ;)

The real debate here is centered around the fact that the S2000 comes with RR dampers in the rear. I understand that there is no intent to bring about RR in IT and that is a problem. The ITAC and CRB can't ban new technology at the same time that they are classifying new cars that come equipped with the exact new technology they are afraid of.

If the committee is unwilling to allow new technology such as this... or to make allowances for the cars that have it as OE, then we are looking at a long list of future situations just like this one.

Greg, you raise an excellent point of view. My future efforts will be aimed at getting open dampers for all of IT with a specific backing that references the fact that cars are coming with RR dampers as OE these days. Judging by the poll results and discussion from the last thread, it seems like people want open dampers anyway.

[dj10]

Jeff, I think you are the one that's missing the point here. Everyone understands your position well, as we went through that last round of "S2000 remote rear reservoir shocks".

The bottom line - something you need to understand and accept, lest you become immensely frustrated - is that remote reservoir shocks are illegal in Improved Touring. Period. This has a long, convoluted history, it's been that way for many, many years, and it's more than settled for the time being.

And, no one is going to approve the use of remote reservoir shocks on the S2000 only.

You are being tossed a bone in that you can use the factory ones if you wish. But, if you choose not to, you have clear direction on how to proceed, sans RR shocks.

If you don't like that, then change it. But that only way you're going to change this rule is to lobby to get RR shocks approved for ALL cars, not just yours. Any requests to allow something that is currently specifically disallowed, but do so on only on one car, will be met with deaf ears. As it should be.

If you want to change this, work to change it globally. Or, play the cards you've been dealt.

It's that simple.

Greg

Very nicely put Greg. BTW Jeff, I just had a custom built suspension built for me from Germany and on my test day they are with out a doubt, so far, it is the best suspension I've ever driven on and I've been racing sometime now, and they do build for S2000.:cool:

[Knestis]

...If the committee is unwilling to allow new technology such as this... or to make allowances for the cars that have it as OE, then we are looking at a long list of future situations just like this one. ...

I could NOT agree with you more on this point. That's the root of my pointing out that we made what we thought was the best decision at THIS TIME. The trick is making a real rule change in a way that is as minimally disruptive as possible, while recognizing those realities.


Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

GREAT example, Jeff. Well litigated.

Under the current state of affairs, I think the answer to your question is "yes." He's forced to make that choice. Whether he SHOULD be put in that position is another question, the answers for which are likely to be all over the map.

That said, your clause "b" is badly written - another of those "you can't" things. The rules (broadly stated) already allow a stock adjustable pulley, since the first principle of IIDSYCYC presumes that SITO - Stock is Totally Legal. That's the presumption we tried to reinforce in this case.

Kirk (who wonders if the keyway in that replacement timing gear set has to be in the same place as the stock one, relative to the gear teeth indexing)

[JoshS]

... since the first principle of IIDSYCYC presumes that SITO - Stock is Totally Legal. That's the presumption we tried to reinforce in this case.

Of course, stock is not "totally" legal, because there are explicit rules that make people remove or disable stock equipment (like ABS & traction control).

Just nitpicking your choice of acronym there, not disagreeing with the principles at all.

[jjjanos]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

From the bible:
"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."

Hmm, clearly written by engineers and not english majors.

The metal replacement gear must be identical in design and dimensions, A plastic, adjustable timing gear is stock. Therefore, the replacement metal gear must also be adjustable - i.e. identical in design.

[jjjanos]

GREAT example, Jeff. Well litigated.

Under the current state of affairs, I think the answer to your question is "yes." He's forced to make that choice. Whether he SHOULD be put in that position is another question, the answers for which are likely to be all over the map.

Quick question - how can the replacement be identical in design, dimension and cam timing if

A - it's made of entirely different substance? Metal versus plastic
B - ignoring A, how can it be anything but adjustable if it is identical in design and dimension?

Seems to me that the first part of the rule is entirely invalidated by the second part.

Wouldn't two gears identical in design, by definition be of the same dimension?

As one who deals with federal regulations every week, I would take "Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock." to mean that you cannot use an adjustable timing gear unless the car originally equipped with an adjustable timing gear. Note the difference - "Adjustable gears are prohibited on all cars unless stock timing gears are used."

[GKR_17]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

That would be a good comparison if the old shock wording had said RR shocks are prohibited unless fitted as stock, but that's not what it said. It was very clear that replacement RR's are not allowed. There is no reason to change that. The legality of stock RR's was debatable, with the new wording, now that's clear.

As for the keyway on a replacement timing gear, if it doesn't match stock dimensions (including angular relationship to the gear teeth) it's not legal.

[lateapex911]

........The ITAC and CRB can't ban new technology at the same time that they are classifying new cars that come equipped with the exact new technology they are afraid of......


Which isn't what happened here. While I thought the rule was clear enough, (for me at least, LOL) there was some clear confusion among reasonable people about the actual meaning, so barring a rule change, it was written in a manner that makes the situation clearer.

Now, as stated, if the letter was requesting RRs be allowed across the board, that would be another subject. I can't tell you how it would result though...

One thing I'll say is that the RR thing really fires people up...and it's amzing that when you really dig into their position, you find it's often based on misconceptions.

[erlrich]

That would be a good comparison if the old shock wording had said RR shocks are prohibited unless fitted as stock, but that's not what it said.

Took the words right out of my mouth... or off of my page as it were...

Conversly, if the rule said "cam timing gears may be replaced provided that the replacement gears (a) are of the same dimensions as the original, and (b) are non-adjustable" then he would be SOL.

Which brings up an interesting point - under the strict letter of the revised rule you cannot even replace the original RR shocks with new, OEM RR shocks. Think about it - using anything other than what originally came on the car constitutes replacing the shocks, at which time RR shocks are illegal.

[JeffYoung]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

[erlrich]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??
The way I read it is that you can use the RR shocks that came on the car from the factory, or you can replace them with any non-RR shock. Minor, but important difference.

[GKR_17]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

No, if that's the way the rule read then aftermarket RR's would be legal if the car had RR's stock.

Stock shocks are legal but can only be replaced with non-RR's. Though I wouldn't go quite as far to say that a new OE units can't 'replace' the original set that came on the car. Now that's a strict read!

Also... back to the cam gears - stock (or metal replacement) adjustable cam gears are fine, but in that case anything other than stock cam timing is not legal.

[Knestis]

Of course, stock is not "totally" legal, because there are explicit rules that make people remove or disable stock equipment (like ABS & traction control).

Just nitpicking your choice of acronym there, not disagreeing with the principles at all.

Fair point, as usual.

However, there's NO question in my mind that we'll be dealing with that issue before long. I've always believed that we SHOULD be able to run the cars in stock form if we want. It's part of that bolt-on philosophy that I still cling to - that a person should literally be able to replace parts as they want and be able to "get out there" with minimum hassle. And killing modern ABS is precisely that.

Jeff (ITA77) absolutely does have a point that there's a fear factor that plays a role in reluctance to accept new technologies. If one were to ask my PERSONAL view, I'd agree with him that RR shocks aren't going to turn a loser into a winner. Nor will ABS turn a wanker into the Stig.

Eventually, it's not about IF these technologies will make it into IT - it's about when, and the timing DOES matter.

K

[RacerBill]

The way I read it is that you can use the RR shocks that came on the car from the factory, or you can replace them with any non-RR shock. Minor, but important difference.


That's the way I read the rule. Actually, I see a contradiction in the rule. On one hand it says that any replacement must be of a non-remote-reservior design, and at the same time must be the same number and type as stock. How can a replacement be the same and different at the same time?

[JoshS]

Fair point, as usual.

However, there's NO question in my mind that we'll be dealing with that issue before long. I've always believed that we SHOULD be able to run the cars in stock form if we want. It's part of that bolt-on philosophy that I still cling to - that a person should literally be able to replace parts as they want and be able to "get out there" with minimum hassle. And killing modern ABS is precisely that.

Jeff (ITA77) absolutely does have a point that there's a fear factor that plays a role in reluctance to accept new technologies. If one were to ask my PERSONAL view, I'd agree with him that RR shocks aren't going to turn a loser into a winner. Nor will ABS turn a wanker into the Stig.

Eventually, it's not about IF these technologies will make it into IT - it's about when, and the timing DOES matter.

K100% in agreement.

That's why all of the ABS equipment (other than the wheel speed sensors) is still present in my car.

[Knestis]

That's the way I read the rule. Actually, I see a contradiction in the rule. On one hand it says that any replacement must be of a non-remote-reservior design, and at the same time must be the same number and type as stock. How can a replacement be the same and different at the same time?

Tube or lever, you mean? RR shocks aren't lever shocks.

K

[jimmyc]

while i think it is rather lame that RR aren't legal...

77ITA doesn't really have much of a valid argument.


Getting back to the RR thing. I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

[RacerBill]

K - the rule says "(e.g. tube, lever, etc.)". The 'etc' says that the type is not limited to tube or lever. Isn't a rr shock a type of shock?

BTW, my vote is to allow cars with RR shocks to replace with alternate RR shocks on the corners where they were stock.

[Andy Bettencourt]

K - the rule says "(e.g. tube, lever, etc.)". The 'etc' says that the type is not limited to tube or lever. Isn't a rr shock a type of shock?



I do not think so. The double adjustable Motons are mono-TUBE with a 'seperate reservoir'. Still tube-type IMHO.

I personally do not think that a 2-way adjustable RR shock provides any significant advantage (if any) over an internal rez shock made up of equal quality components.

[dj10]

I do not think so. The double adjustable Motons are mono-TUBE with a 'seperate reservoir'. Still tube-type IMHO.

I personally do not think that a 2-way adjustable RR shock provides any significant advantage (if any) over an internal rez shock made up of equal quality components.

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.:)

[Knestis]

...I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

There's little question that the rationale for prohibition of RR shocks and struts was cost - that's a matter of recent memory. However, there are a lot of current ITAC members who don't adhere to the assumptions behind that logic. And the price of that technology has come down a bunch in the ensuing years. AND there are lots of ways to spend pee-lenty of money on shocks, even without buying RR units.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.:)
I agree - but remember, we are limited to 2 adjustments only.

[lateapex911]

Honestly, I'd vote to allow RR shocks in a heartbeat, if I was voting from pure greed. Why?

Because some Most) of my competitors have finite amounts of money...and if some of them spend lots on blingy shocks, the less they spend on lapping, racing, driver training, testing, and the things that actually make 'em go fast, which means they spend more time in my mirrors.

Have at 'em boys.

[lateapex911]

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.:)

When this came up, I decided to inform myself...there was so much conflicting hype going around, so I did some research on the whole "IS a RR damper intrinsically better then a non RR damper, and if so, why?" question and learned that no, there are trade offs and advantages to the different architectures. One is not always better than the other.

Now, we limit dampers to two adjustments, which eliminates many RR designs, and we have free spring rates, and we have limited caged cars, ...so when you compare apples to apples, the "RR is better" case is really looking bad. And cooling? According to those who design dampers, that's a sales line from the early days, but has little to do with the real world today.

[dj10]

When this came up, I decided to inform myself...there was so much conflicting hype going around, so I did some research on the whole "IS a RR damper intrinsically better then a non RR damper, and if so, why?" question and learned that no, there are trade offs and advantages to the different architectures. One is not always better than the other.

Now, we limit dampers to two adjustments, which eliminates many RR designs, and we have free spring rates, and we have limited caged cars, ...so when you compare apples to apples, the "RR is better" case is really looking bad. And cooling? According to those who design dampers, that's a sales line from the early days, but has little to do with the real world today.
Thank AB & Jake, I ready didn't realize we are limited on 2 adjustments. That seems to defeat the purpose of the RR Shocks, doesn't it? Why would I waste my money if I'm not going to get all the adustability the RR's have to offer? Also we have to look at the the newer cars coming out with RR as OEM. If they start offering 4 way adjustments they will open up a a can of worms and if they have them, I better be able to use them too. Time will tell.

[lateapex911]

I can't think of any car on the market today with manually adjustable shocks...one way two way or four way.

I tend to doubt that this will happen, certainly not in large numbers, if only because of the liability questions that would arise.

The two adjustment rule exists to limit the "craziture"*. It's a good line to draw in the sand.

Craziture= Craziness of expenditure of time, effort and funds'


I ready didn't realize we are limited on 2 adjustmentsI hope your super jammy new DTM suspension doesn't have more than two! That would suck!

[Knestis]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I don't think that containing costs is any more valid a rationale for the "2-adjustment" rule, than it is for the "architecture" rule.

I believe we just have less collective angst about this other technology because (1) the voodoo factor is lower (you can't see the cool functionality of 4-ways like you can those reservoirs and braided lines!), and (2) few enough people understand how to manage all those adjustments, that there's some recognition that results aren't automagical.

K

[shwah]

Also we have to look at the the newer cars coming out with RR as OEM. If they start offering 4 way adjustments they will open up a a can of worms and if they have them, I better be able to use them too.

Yeah!

And I want a 16V head too, because there are other cars that have better flowing stock heads than mine, and I want to share that advantage. I want to install double wishbone suspension too, because it's not fair that some cars have better suspension geometry than me...

:026:

[jimmyc]

There's little question that the rationale for prohibition of RR shocks and struts was cost - that's a matter of recent memory. However, there are a lot of current ITAC members who don't adhere to the assumptions behind that logic. And the price of that technology has come down a bunch in the ensuing years. AND there are lots of ways to spend pee-lenty of money on shocks, even without buying RR units.

K


So pretty much you are saying that the ITAC would agree with the RR don't equal more money?

But there are other reason they don't think they fit the IT class

[JoshS]

So pretty much you are saying that the ITAC would agree with the RR don't equal more money?

But there are other reason they don't think they fit the IT class
The ITAC isn't unanimous on this topic. We decided to clarify the existing rule while we continue to debate whether or not there's merit to proposing a change.

[Knestis]

I try VERY hard to say what I mean - particularly where ITAC questions are concerned. I hope I get close and I'm willing to

I meant that "a lot of current ITAC members don't adhere to the assumptions behind the logic that prohibiting RR shocks will keep people from spending money on shocks." Maybe "a lot" isn't precise enough. How about "more than a few, but not all?" :)

To expand on Josh's point: In my short - but very positive - experience with this body, I've been reminded that there is NO SUCH THING as a truly representative committee that speaks with one clear mind on any important topic. And what any one of us believes gets moderated by the necessity of translating beliefs into policy. Even if there were 100% agreement with this principle, there are indeed other issues (as jimmyc points out) that deserve consideration - including respecting the fact that the current prohibition didn't happen all that long ago.

K

[lateapex911]

I find it interesting to try to crack open the minds of people and discover the reasons behind their beliefs...and often I learn a thing or two.

Look at the RR damper poll. In it, there were 6 choices. Two were throwaways, frankly, two were "extremes" and two were middle ground. Of 100 or so responders, FOUR options were plus or minus 3.5% from each other. Lot's of ways to spin THAT result!

Now, think about 9 guys on the ITAC...and toss in a few CRB guys....think you'll see a vast majority in that group either?

And there are other issues on the subject that haven't really even been discussed here (or on the RR thread,) which muddie the water even further...

[ddewhurst]

***(come on, we're smart enough to read complex sentences, and if we're not, we can call a brighter friend)***

I don't have any friends.:D Didn't want to wake any of the sleeping giants. The friken rule/spec line should be no different than a engineering drawing. ALL the pertinent info is on the drawing so that whatever is on the drawing may be completed with no one asking any questions. There is never (should never be) 40 pounds of BS on a drawing that requires a second or third party to decipher.


***It's in the rules.
No tech bulleting, no research for the actual date, no exception line writing that gets the date wrong in a typo, or anything equally goofy.***

Please point me in the correct direction so that I may read these written ^ rules.