Remote Reservoirs?

[Jason Saini]

Someone had told me they allowed Remote Canisters, and as such, we just went to rebuild a set of our customers (custom one-off Dynamic dampers that have been converted to non canister,) and I was going to have hoses and cans put back on them. So I came on here to look up the latest ruling, and find that the change was only to allow OEM remote canister dampers.

You have to be kidding me. This is one of the most vapid rules in the whole GCR. I figured that since cooler heads prevailed in Touring, they would prevail here too.

Let me break it down for those of you clinging to this completely ineffective rule:

- Remote canisters have nothing to do with damper price
- Koni 28's at $1000+/each are perfectly legal
- Penskes at $400/each, Motons at $900/each are not
- The Sachs through-rod dampers we run on our Speed Touring Car ($16k/set) could easily be converted to two-ways and be LEGAL for IT

Does anyone else see how crazy this is? Can we please think a little bit before missing a chance to not perpetuate a useless rule. Anyone who really believes that banning remote canister shocks keeps cost down really needs to re-read the above points.

Now we have to rebuild the dampers as-is, and then likely take them off again once the ITAC and CRB finally make the right choice and allow canisters.

Unbelievable. Really.

-Jason Saini (http://www.jasonsaini.com) . www.goteammer.com

[JeffYoung]

Yup, misguided rule.

[JoshS]

You have to be kidding me. This is one of the most vapid rules in the whole GCR.

"Vapid," as in, "bland?" Surprising to get so up-in-arms about something bland.

There was lots of discussion on this one, Jason. The rule was being reconsidered only because some cars come with these things as original equipment now, and the previous wording made it seem like even the original equipment wasn't legal.

The philosophy that the ITAC felt was right was that original equipment should almost always be legal. It's the nature of replacement parts that should be limited.

So, now that's fixed. The ITAC didn't set out to address the big picture item. Sorry to hear that someone misled you about the nature of the change.

[DavidM]

Now we have to rebuild the dampers as-is, and then likely take them off again once the ITAC and CRB finally make the right choice and allow canisters.


So why would you have to change them if the rule gets changed to allow remote reservoirs? The shocks are the same with or without the reservoirs, no? Or do you think having the reservoirs is an advantage? In which case you don't want the reservoirs because they're cheaper, but because you think they have an advantage.

The argument against is that if you can do the same thing without the remote reservoirs then why allow them. People then bitch that they have to spend more money to do the same thing, which is how we wound up with open ECUs.

I personally see no need to modify the rule. There's a thread on here somewhere with the big long debate.

David

[lateapex911]

Not sure if you saw the "opinion" thread I started jason, here it is:

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23691

I found the results...uhhhh...interesting.

[GKR_17]

I believe this is the same guy who wants to phase out the 1.6L spec miata motors while bringing in spec aftermarket ECU's. Maybe they need RR shocks, too?

[924Guy]

LOL... why do we get SM guys in here bitching about their ruleset, or our ruleset?

I have to agree, the answer is not so much to come here and vent, but to write a letter to the Comp Board.

Or do I misunderstand how the SCCA rule-making process works??

[Jason Saini]

According to Merriam Webster, Vapid can mean "Lacking Strength," and that's how I intended it.

I did read all the other threads and discussions on this site, before I posted. I think it's an important enough topic to bring up again.

The reason I would have to pull the shocks out again is that the are worn out, and need a rebuild now. Should the rule get reversed, I'd need to pull them out and get them upgraded.

And to the guy who said 'why do you need to upgrade them, doesn't that mean a canister is an advantage,' that is the problem. You are looking at this in a vacuum. Yes, the Dynamic shock in question would be better with a canister, but the Koni 28 or Sachs damper without a canister would be even better than the Dynamic _with_ the canister, and perfectly legal.

The rule doesn't make sense, period. Those of you clinging to it so dearly do not understand the first thing about race prep. Right now the _cost_ of dampers is what is keeping the spending in check, not the rule. There are shocks for $16,000 per set that are IT legal, but nobody is going to spend that much money on an IT car. Right now, there are people spending $4-5k per set for shocks on an IT car (Koni 28's, converted Dynamics, whatever.)

All the rule does is limit your choices - there are plenty of remote canister dampers out there which are much cheaper than Koni 28's, and if more people had access to them I would see parity getting better, not worse.

It's only a lack of understanding that keeps people clinging to this rule.

The reason an SM guy is in here is that he also happens to own a Prep shop and is working on an IT car. I also happen to have many years of autocross and race experience, so I know how this stuff works. I'm currently race in Speed World Challenge Touring, so I know how rules creep can effect a series.

However, there is NO effective argument that the remote canister rule in IT contains costs in any way. To the contrary, it increases costs for those looking for an optimum setup - and widens the gap between the haves and have-nots.

(FYI, I have written several letters about this in the past - especially concerning Touring... silly me to think that what might be good for Touring is different than IT. I had incorrectly assumed the logic would get transferred to IT. Now I see it's time for another letter.)

[JeffYoung]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

[JLawton]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?


So the argument is: Has this not been changed to try and keep costs down or has it not changed to keep IT more stock? (or limit rules creep or whatever you want to call it) ???

Was there a survey that went along with the earlier discussion? (yeah, to lazy to look it up...)

[betamotorsports]

Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

Yes. And you can also spend more on RR shocks that perform even better. Containing costs by defining configuration rarely works in a race series. Its like banning assault rifles based on configuration (flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc.)

IMHO, SCCA is behind the curve regarding shocks. Shocks have become such an important part of suspension design and development that they need to be treated similar to tires as far as the rules are concerned. It might need to go as far as SCCA approving specific models from a number of manufacturers for each race series/category.

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, I think they were legal (meaning that shocks were free). Folks invested in them (Chet Wittel's group being one of them), and then after doing so, the rule was changed to ban them.

So I think a rule that allowed them that had been in place for a long time (shockers are free) was changed in order to try and control costs.



So the argument is: Has this not been changed to try and keep costs down or has it not changed to keep IT more stock? (or limit rules creep or whatever you want to call it) ???

Was there a survey that went along with the earlier discussion? (yeah, to lazy to look it up...)

[Jason Saini]

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23691

Is the survey, IMO it didn't have enough choices (or wasn't clear enough.)

I think it should have been more like this:

1. Leave rule alone, no RR, Double Adjustable Only
2. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (only if you use OE shocks), DA Only
3. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (allow aftermarket), DA Only
4. Allow RR for all cars, DA Only
5. Allow RR for all cars, no restriction

The way that original survey was worded "Any damper may be fitted," was a sure way to get people to vote against that option. It _sounds_ too unrestrictive. It's important to restrict the number of adjustments, as that will control costs. I also believe there should be a rule that "No shock that was ever offered as a 3 or 4-way damper can be converted to 2-way."

That would make sense. Time for a new poll?

[Chris Wire]

Those of you clinging to it so dearly do not understand the first thing about race prep.

<snip>

It's only a lack of understanding that keeps people clinging to this rule.



Yeah, I'm also bitter, clinging to my guns and religion with antipathy toward people who aren't like me. Thanks, Barack.

I appreciate the 'enlightenment'. :rolleyes:

As a prep shop owner, I'd think that the rule would provide you with an additional source of revenue from your IT customers. The more the shocks need to be rebuilt, the more work for you, no? Or.....maybe DavidM was onto something, and your ultimate goal is an advantage for your customer that you feel others might not exploit due to cost/complexity/etc. All cards on the table please.

Inquiring minds want to know....

[Jason Saini]

Yes. And you can also spend more on RR shocks that perform even better.

This is a false statement, there is _no_ correlation between canister/no canister and high price/low price.

I do agree that trying to control costs by specifying configuration does not work. I also agree, an exclusion list would potentially work - but would be very hard to manage and the SCCA is stretched thin already.

I am posting about all of this because I care - I want the rules to be smarter. I'm trying to educate people, not just vent.

[dj10]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

Here we go again.:) I just bought a new & very good suspension for my car this year, the same suspension with 4 way adjustability & RR would have doubled the price.

[seckerich]

Careful what you wish for Jason. Those cool Dynamics were originally 3 way so it won't help you much if you add the extra wording. I have long stated that the RR shock ban does nothing to control cost. A very vocal group convinced they were getting beat by money forced the change in the first place. Two way RR shocks are just as cheap and more plentiful than what we run now. Not rule creep, just back to what we had originally. Glad someone else kicked that sleeping dog.

[Jason Saini]

Yeah, I'm also bitter, clinging to my guns and religion with antipathy toward people who aren't like me. Thanks, Barack.

I appreciate the 'enlightenment'. :rolleyes:

As a prep shop owner, I'd think that the rule would provide you with an additional source of revenue from your IT customers. The more the shocks need to be rebuilt, the more work for you, no? Or.....maybe DavidM was onto something, and your ultimate goal is an advantage for your customer that you feel others might not exploit due to cost/complexity/etc. All cards on the table please.

Inquiring minds want to know....

Nice, very mature response.

The point you're missing is that the additional cost/complexity is already legal, just without a canister. I say again, $16,000 through-rod dampers are legal in IT, and you could revalve them every day if you wanted to spend the time/money and it would be perfectly legal.

If you actually bothered to read my statements above, I stand to make _more_ as a prep shop if the rule stays the same, because the shocks aren't bump adjustable and we'd have to take them off the car each time we wanted to change the bump valving.

By making inexpensive, remote canister shocks legal ($400/each for Penskes, $850/each for Moton/JRZ,) you now make it _easier_ for everyone to dial their shocks in.

It's like saying going to non-adjustable shocks would save cost (non adjustable must be cheaper, right?) But guess what - then you'd have people revalving them all the time, or keeping 10 different sets on hand with 10 different valvings and then having to swap them in/out.

I stand by my assessment that people standing by this rule don't understand shocks, and their opinions are based on misinformation and flawed logic.

All this makes me want to do is build an IT car with $16k through-rod dampers and go out and start winning some races. Maybe that's what it would take for people to understand that the current rule has no basis in reality.

[shwah]

The reasons stated above are why I voted 'allow any shock' in the pole.

It is a dumb rule. It was a bad deal the way it was handled to 'take away' the RR shocks after the fact. That doesn't mean it's too late to fix it.

Of course it won't affect what I do in any way, so I had pretty much stopped thinking about it after it died off last time.

[Jason Saini]

Here we go again.:) I just bought a new & very good suspension for my car this year, the same suspension with 4 way adjustability & RR would have doubled the price.

Re-read all of my posts in this thread - the suspension that _you_ bought has nothing to do with what is legal. You could have spent 10x more, and it still would have been legal. 4-way should never be made legal.

[lateapex911]

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23691

Is the survey, IMO it didn't have enough choices (or wasn't clear enough.)

I think it should have been more like this:

1. Leave rule alone, no RR, Double Adjustable Only
2. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (only if you use OE shocks), DA Only
3. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (allow aftermarket), DA Only
4. Allow RR for all cars, DA Only
5. Allow RR for all cars, no restriction

The way that original survey was worded "Any damper may be fitted," was a sure way to get people to vote against that option. It _sounds_ too unrestrictive. It's important to restrict the number of adjustments, as that will control costs. I also believe there should be a rule that "No shock that was ever offered as a 3 or 4-way damper can be converted to 2-way."

That would make sense. Time for a new poll?

Uh, Jason? I know you said you read the threads, and I know there's a lot to read....but.. ( ;) ) in the first post in that thread, I wrote :


Assume choices 1-5 are for the standard IT allowable 2 way passive design.
I understand your points, and I've opined to those who listen that the 2 way limit is the true limitation, and is what controls the scale of things, as well as the limited cage that IT cars run.

hey jason, turn on your PM, or shoot me an email...

[dj10]

Re-read all of my posts in this thread - the suspension that _you_ bought has nothing to do with what is legal. You could have spent 10x more, and it still would have been legal. 4-way should never be made legal.

How much better of a shock is a 2 way adjustable with a RR? From what I heard, there is not much difference between a 2 way non RR and a 2 way with RR. If there is not much difference, they why have them? Isn't there some people that want Shocks open? If shocks are open then 4 ways w/ RR will be legal. IT is IT, not production, national or pro, but lots of good racing around.

[Jason Saini]

How much better of a shock is a 2 way adjustable with a RR? From what I heard, there is not much difference between a 2 way non RR and a 2 way with RR. If there is not much difference, they why have them?

That argument works perfectly in the other direction as well, you know.

[betamotorsports]

This is a false statement, there is _no_ correlation between canister/no canister and high price/low price.

No Jason. its a true statement. I did not infer a correlation, I just said it was possible to pay more for a RR shock that performs better then a non-RR shock. I generally agree with your position, not everyone here on the IT forum is your enemy.

[Jason Saini]

No Jason. its a true statement. I did not infer a correlation, I just said it was possible to pay more for a RR shock that performs better then a non-RR shock. I generally agree with your position, not everyone here on the IT forum is your enemy.

In that case, the converse is also true; It's possible to pay more for an non-RR shock that performs better than an RR shock. Not saying you were an enemy, just clarifying.

[Fastfred92]

Damn, my old revalved non adjust Bilsteins just plan suck.... But I will say I don't think I have ever lost a race to a car just because it had cans or extra shock knobs that most IT guys have no clue how to adjust... Now that ECU Armageddon is upon us I say let shocks be free once again!

[planet6racing]

According to Merriam Webster, Vapid can mean "Lacking Strength," and that's how I intended it.

I did read all the other threads and discussions on this site, before I posted. I think it's an important enough topic to bring up again.


But, Jason, in true CC.com fashion, if you had read the other threads, why did you start a new one? :D

This is one of those topics that gets argued about ad nauseum on this site. It comes down to this: If you can afford to spend a metric ton on non-rr shocks, you will most likely spend a metric ton on rr shocks. Except in certain applications, I have not yet been convinced of the need for them in IT.

[spnkzss]

And why change a rule for the sake of changing it?

[924Guy]

Damn, my old revalved non adjust Bilsteins just plan suck.... But I will say I don't think I have ever lost a race to a car just because it had cans or extra shock knobs that most IT guys have no clue how to adjust... Now that ECU Armageddon is upon us I say let shocks be free once again!

My exact thought reading this... I guess I'm leaving about $4k on the table here even under the current rules!! LOL I probably haven't spent enough on my motor either...

Just cause you CAN buy RR shocks for $5k, does it mean you should?? I see a lot of posts here about how much you CAN spend on shocks; isn't it more relevant to state how much you NEED to spend on shocks? My budget's $1k for the car, and my shocks last years. Adjustable would be lovely... IF I didn't give up reliability/durability.

Perspective question: how many races do you have to win to recoup the cost of the $16k shock package in gained prep work for your shop?? Then again, I probably don't want to know, I'd be kicking myself for not opening my own shop... :cool:

[betamotorsports]

Perspective question: how many races do you have to win to recoup the cost of the $16k shock package in gained prep work for your shop?? Then again, I probably don't want to know, I'd be kicking myself for not opening my own shop.

My shop's been open for over 5 years and I still don't think I've recouped the cost of the custom built Penske 8760s I had made for my 1970 Datsun 240Z. :D Wanna know how to make $50,000 a year in the race prep business? Quit your $150,000 a year day job, open a shop, and work 80 hours a week on other people's cars. :eek:

[jimmyc]

the no RR rules is an outdated attempt to have rules control costs. The current ITAC, doesn't feel strongly enough about it to change the ruling yet, but it wont be to much longer untill they allow them IMO.

RE: the cost

The reason why it is talked about is because Jake, Andy, and Krik have stated that it was put in the rule book to cut costs. That is a fallacie and the rule should be removed. Just like the stupid rule about 'threaded body shocks".

You can spend what ever you want, the fact remains that there are a lot of cars running around with ~$4,000 dollar legal shocks. There are RR shocks around this price point. If you only want to run around on Tociko Blues and stock springs good for you, but that is not going to get you to the front at big races and competitive classes.

[lateapex911]

RE: the cost

The reason why it is talked about is because Jake, Andy, and Krik have stated that it was put in the rule book to cut costs.

Just to clarify, none of us three were on the ITAC when the rule was put in place, so we're just reporting what the rational was, to the best of our understanding.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

...and IIRC, the ITAC was split right down the middle on this topic.

[Z3_GoCar]

So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? Poly/delrin motor mounts? Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. If you get the really high dollar RR shocks, you can even adjust the high speed damping internally, and stay with-in the two external adjustment part of the rule. If the shock resevoir rule is opened up, you've just made eveyones current shock and strut setup obsolete. It really is that simple.

James

[Jason Saini]

So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? Poly/delrin motor mounts? Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. If you get the really high dollar RR shocks, you can even adjust the high speed damping internally, and stay with-in the two external adjustment part of the rule. If the shock resevoir rule is opened up, you've just made eveyones current shock and strut setup obsolete. It really is that simple.

James

This is an incredibly short-sighted view. All of the rules creep that you mentioned are completely apples-to-oranges in comparison. RR shocks are not intrinsically better, nor are they always more expensive. The rule simply doesn't do anything to control costs.

Cost in shocks is not in the material (i.e. more metal, hoses, etc.), it's in how intricate and complex the engineering of the components (pistons, shims, etc.) are. There are simple RR shocks, and there are complex non-RR shocks.

There's just too much of a lack of understanding of the factors at play here.

[Chris Wire]

So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? Poly/delrin motor mounts? Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. If you get the really high dollar RR shocks, you can even adjust the high speed damping internally, and stay with-in the two external adjustment part of the rule. If the shock resevoir rule is opened up, you've just made eveyones current shock and strut setup obsolete. It really is that simple.

James

Preach on, Brother James!

This is the age-old scenario of turning IT cars into "real race cars" by seeking inclusion in our ruleset for what the "big boys" run. Fully programmable ECUs, diff and trans coolers, brake fans, lexan windows, etc., they've all been requested at one time or another. GT is out there for anyone that has to have it all. And you'll never convince me that the arguement for RR shocks is for anything other than a competitive advantage. I, for one, have enjoyed the discussions on this site since the rule took RR shocks off the table. The mere fact that we haven't had this discussion in a while tells me that not having RR shocks isn't really as big a deal as some would like to make it.

It's interesting to note that while placing restrictions on the type of shocks allowed doesn't guarantee lower cost IT suspensions, it does seem to have had that very result from perception alone. That being that it's far more difficult (or expensive, or both) to achieve with a custom non-RR shock that which might be readily available from the current market of RR shocks. Thus you have far fewer takers going down the custom road to achieve the same result than you would have spending the same money on RR shocks if they were legal.

I'm with Bill on this one, I just don't think the need in IT is there, and I'm plenty comfortable with the rule as it currently stands.

[shwah]

Preach on, Brother James!

... brake fans, ...they've all been requested at one time or another.

I like the fact that we can run brake fans, and plan to make a set.

[Gary L]

I like the fact that we can run brake fans, and plan to make a set.Oh Hell, it's the weekend and I'm feeling stupid, so I'll bite... You're gonna do WHAT??? :blink:

...hoping this is a ploy to get us off the subject of RR shocks.

Again.

[924Guy]

I like the fact that we can run brake fans, and plan to make a set.

LOL... I'm not using mine, you wanna buy 'em? ;)

[seckerich]

So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? Poly/delrin motor mounts? Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. If you get the really high dollar RR shocks, you can even adjust the high speed damping internally, and stay with-in the two external adjustment part of the rule. If the shock resevoir rule is opened up, you've just made eveyones current shock and strut setup obsolete. It really is that simple.

James
Missing the point James. We already can do that inside the shock. No RR needed. Just CHEAPER and easier on the outside. When the RR was taken away we just moved the valving. You can actually have 4 way adjustment inside the shock. The RR might be a help in an enduro but no noticable heat difference in a sprint with good units. Your shock is probably already obsolete if you don't know this.:rolleyes:

[shwah]

Oh Hell, it's the weekend and I'm feeling stupid, so I'll bite... You're gonna do WHAT??? :blink:

...hoping this is a ploy to get us off the subject of RR shocks.

Again.

Gonna make a set of wheel fans. Blackhawk is pretty brake hungry, and I run puny 13" wheels, so I figured why not make a set of carbon fiber plates, and attach some vanes to make some lower brake temps. Of course I'm lucky in that my production racing buddy already has the molds made, so the plates will come easy. Then decide between making carbon fins, or just using angle AL.

Yeah - silly, but fun to do, and gives me some composite practice before I try and make a new front air dam.:eclipsee_steering:

[lateapex911]

So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? ......... Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. ..............
James

James, James James....that's some apples to oranges comparisons going on there, but I guess I can see how you arrived at that point.

When the subject initially came up, I thought, "Again? This RR thing is sure controversial, what IS the truth on them?" (I wasn't convinced they were the be all end all of dampers but some sure think they are, and I wanted to learn more) So I did some research.

And you know what? It's like nearly anything, advantages and tradeoffs. Your "runs cooler" advantage, according to sources I contacted in the shock manufacturing world, is merely an old advertising ploy. More consistent? Again, there are companies that feel thats not limited to a RR architecture. It has been argued that some companies use the RR architecture as a crutch, because they don't have the manufacturing capability to make the dampers operate effectively, and adjust in a standard architecture. And, that an RR design can actually hurt certain aspects of a dampers performance.

So, I am not convinced that allowing the architecture (while keeping the two adjustment rule) is similar to opening Pandora's box, and I certainly think it's not in any way comparable to allowing cams or intake or injector changes. (Custom suspension components have been allowed for a looooooong time)

Now, I can see both sides of the issue, but I stop short in thinking that it will cost everybody money, because "the bar will have been raised". Critical thinkers will do their homework, and they will find that there's no simple trade....they won't send off a check for $4K, and bolt on 2 seconds of improvement. They'll find that it's way more complex...and smart money will look at the bigger picture, and find ways to spend that same amount more effectively.

The inverse is true too....the dumb money might just jump at the chance, and they will turn the same lap....which, to a guy like you, who spends his resources wisely, would be a good thing.

Bottom line, I don't buy the 'sky will fall' prediction, but......all rules changes have costs, and I realize there needs to be a strong motivation to change a rule, as the advantages need to be greater than the costs.

[Chris Wire]

......all rules changes have costs, and I realize there needs to be a strong motivation to change a rule, as the advantages need to be greater than the costs.

It will be interesting to see what ultimately drives this if indeed the rule ever gets changed again. Certainly market forces have driven the costs down for RR shocks, but what about the strut-type setups that are prevalent in IT? Those with more traditional dampers could easily transition to RR type, but the strut based cars will be left hanging in the breeze. And since our cars are 5 years old minimum by the time they reach IT, what is the incentive for manufacturers to develop RR strut packages for 5+ year old street cars? Not much, I'd guess.

I'd remind those in favor to look at the relative health of IT now, with great competition and good car counts, compared to what IT was and where it was going before the rule changed about 5 years ago or so.

We're back to "if it ain't broke....".

[Gary L]

Gonna make a set of wheel fans. Blackhawk is pretty brake hungry, and I run puny 13" wheels, so I figured why not make a set of carbon fiber plates, and attach some vanes to make some lower brake temps.
Okay then, I've got it. Guess I've been watching too many NASCAR things on TV... I thought you were talking about electric fans inside the ducts. :)

[Gary L]

I'd remind those in favor to look at the relative health of IT now, with great competition and good car counts, compared to what IT was and where it was going before the rule changed about 5 years ago or so.

We're back to "if it ain't broke....".Well put. :happy204:

[JeffYoung]

I have actually thought about this -- in line fans in the ducting line. Brakes may be ventilated....so what prevents us from doing this?

Grey area I guess, but ended up not doing it as it seemed a too aggressive read of the rules and I solved my brake issues other ways that I think are far more defendable.

But on this one, is it simply ITDSYC that is why you think they are illegal? Fair position to take I think, but just curious.



Oh Hell, it's the weekend and I'm feeling stupid, so I'll bite... You're gonna do WHAT??? :blink:

...hoping this is a ploy to get us off the subject of RR shocks.

Again.

[JLawton]

Grey area I guess, but ended up not doing it as it seemed a too aggressive read of the rules and I solved my brake issues other ways that I think are far more defendable.

But on this one, is it simply ITDSYC that is why you think they are illegal? Fair position to take I think, but just curious.



You may think twice the first time you go over a curb and rip the whole system out!!! :D


Or are the North East tracks the only ones that have big ass curbs?? :eek:

[Gary L]

I have actually thought about this -- in line fans in the ducting line. Brakes may be ventilated....so what prevents us from doing this?

Grey area I guess, but ended up not doing it as it seemed a too aggressive read of the rules and I solved my brake issues other ways that I think are far more defendable.

But on this one, is it simply ITDSYC that is why you think they are illegal? Fair position to take I think, but just curious.
I'm of the opinion that if the intent was to allow fans in the ducts, the rule would have mentioned "fans" or something similar. The paragraph simply says "Air ducts may be fitted to the brakes...." with some limitations on layout. Incidentally, your statement that "Brakes may be ventilated...." is somewhat inaccurate. The paragraph says that backing plates and dirt shields may be ventilated, not the brakes.

In any case, there are definitions for "duct" and "ventilation" in the technical glossary, and again... no mention of "fan" (which is also defined separately).

In keeping with my certitudinal nature, here's the bottom line... It's a duct that's allowed, not a duct with a fan in it.

I will admit to some bias here, probably due in part to the fact that I chose to race an IT car that, despite being a 40+ year old design, actually has brakes. :)

[JeffYoung]

My conclusion as well. I ALMOST installed them on the theory that I would only run them on my cool down lap and in the paddock as I suspected that it was the after session heat soak that was killing my caliper seals. Eventually decided that was a slippery slope I didn't want to go down.

BTW, on a totally unrelated matter, I have two 3" marine in line fans for sale, new in box, been sitting on my shelf for over a year....anyone want them? lol

Jeff L., the tracks down here are for the most part fairly smooth and other than at RA and CMP, we don't do much curb hopping. Plus, this stuff would be, on my car anyway, high enough up that I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

[924Guy]

BTW, on a totally unrelated matter, I have two 3" marine in line fans for sale, new in box, been sitting on my shelf for over a year....anyone want them? lol


Secret here - they make EXCELLENT defrost fans. Of course, then I got my stock heater core etc working, and don't need 'em anymore, but... you may want to keep 'em.

[JeffYoung]

That would assume that I had the talent to race an 85" live rear axle 195 wtq race car in the rain! lol...which I don't...................

[jimmyc]

It will be interesting to see what ultimately drives this if indeed the rule ever gets changed again. Certainly market forces have driven the costs down for RR shocks, but what about the strut-type setups that are prevalent in IT? Those with more traditional dampers could easily transition to RR type, but the strut based cars will be left hanging in the breeze. And since our cars are 5 years old minimum by the time they reach IT, what is the incentive for manufacturers to develop RR strut packages for 5+ year old street cars? Not much, I'd guess.

I'd remind those in favor to look at the relative health of IT now, with great competition and good car counts, compared to what IT was and where it was going before the rule changed about 5 years ago or so.

We're back to "if it ain't broke....".


You have it backwards sir.

You are just making assumptions here which are completly wrong.

JRZ, and moton (the only two RR companies i will comment on as they are the only ones i have experience with) are MORE then willing to build custom one off sets of struts for anything you want. This is largely due to the fact that everything they make is custom and built to order. The strut guys would have a much easier time getting better struts, well all of the odd low after market supported cars would. One would simply get in contact with one of the two companies give measurements, and wait the 6 to 8 weeks. These would be complete struts ready to bolt on.

[Jason Saini]

Don't forget (to the Strut argument,)... and I'm going to make this bold. The current rule does nothing to discourage people from building ultra-custom 4-way adjustable $16,000 struts.

The rule does NOTHING. It's pointless, and it just makes the haves and have nots further apart. Sigh. Some of you guys just don't get it.

[jimmyc]

Don't forget (to the Strut argument,)... and I'm going to make this bold. The current rule does nothing to discourage people from building ultra-custom 4-way adjustable $16,000 struts.

The rule does NOTHING. It's pointless, and it just makes the haves and have nots further apart. Sigh. Some of you guys just don't get it.

change the 4 to 2 way and you have a point. Their is another rule in the book that limits adjustment to 2 adjustments.

[planet6racing]

Jason:

If people have the money to spend on the ultra-expensive shocks without RRs, what will prevent them from spending the same on shocks with the RRs?

What does having RRs get someone that can't currently be gotten without RRs? Saving money is not acceptable tech.

[jimmyc]

Jason:

If people have the money to spend on the ultra-expensive shocks without RRs, what will prevent them from spending the same on shocks with the RRs?

What does having RRs get someone that can't currently be gotten without RRs? Saving money is not acceptable tech.

More option, then the currently limited options.


The rule was put in to try and control cost. End of story. Rules can't control cost.

I don't see why people are so scared, many cars are running ~$3600-3800 shocks currently.

[GregMeindl]

I personally love this topic because I fought long and hard in T2 to get reserviours approved.
I couldn't get any shocks for my SRT-4 that were worth a damn. I had Koni's in it and some others just ran stock struts out of frustration. Meanwhile the ol' Dodge Motorsports camp had custom made shocks from Dynamic that none of us could get. Ya know until after the Runoff's 2004 where Fernandez and Toby ran way up front banging away while the rest of the SRT's followed up the rear. Well after enough kicking and screaming we were told we could buy them at a HEFTY price. Just bolting them on was good for 2 seconds out of the box. Full blown custom shocks magically inside a stock dodge cartridge. Sold that car.

Then move on to a 2001 Firebird with Penske's. Pure heaven except for the fact you can't get at the adjustment knobs easily if at all. Cost $6,000 + for those baby's. Then I fought to get reserviours added so I could adjust the shocks. Add now another $500 per canister. Think shocks don't matter ??? well that car was 3rd at the Runoff's in 2005 with Don Knowles. The other birds just weren't as fast. (See the add in Sportscar where the black bird punts the Subaru in the SCCA Credit Card add !!)

Spending money doesn't make the racing better. Thats why I switched to SSC. Then I got Car of the Year syndrome from SCCA. Here I am having a lot of fun racing IT with you guy's and its starting all over again with the damn open computers. Do you expect me to spend $4000+ for a Motec when other can just flash their ECU ? I am screwed. The cars worth $4-5000 at best.

Now we are starting the shock spending spree. I have a working knowledge of these shocks and have raced them in my 95 Cobra R's in MotorolaCup/ Grand Am Cup and then in the T2 Firebird. If you feel the need to waste money in this economy open up the shocks and kill the ECU rule. Keep it to 2 way adjustable's only. Hell its only $1000-1500 a corner. Whats money ??? Nice coil overs from Koni only $850 vs. $4-6000 !!!!

People complain about Lime Rock's entry fee's and then add Mosport into the Calendar. Seen diesel prices lately or the toll prices ? $32 on the GW Bridge. But hey Millville surely will be cheaper entry fee's. This weekend Summit tow was $125.40 in tolls and $286 in diesel ( $411.40 total ). Lime Rock is less than 1 tank in diesel ($84) and $19 in tolls ( $103 total). Yeah saving on entry fee's really matters:blink:. Shouldn't we watch were all this spending is going ?

[shwah]

Off topic in a different direction...

The 'ECU rule' was opened up YEARS ago. Lots of us think that was a mistake. Some think it had to be done because of the cars that can simply flash thier ECU for custom programming.

Regardless, it has been on the books. The only recent change is that the size and shape of the box that the ecu resides in is no longer restricted, and you are allowed to add or substitute specific sensors to allow use of off the shelf, rather than custom ecus.

People love to trot this one out as an allowance that was just made, but that's not true.

But yeah - I say let RR shocks back in. I won't be running them either way.

[lateapex911]

Greg, i think you are comparing apples to oranges.

If I am not mistaken, Touring cars are running stock, or mandated springs, correct? My understanding was that cars like the Dodge, (that, IIRC, have no spring provisions) used the dampers to add spring rate, and the RRs were integral to that concept.

In IT, you are allowed to swap in $50 springs, saving buckets of exotic damper money.....

[WillM]

I agree with Jason.

Allowing dual adjustments, but disallowing remote dampers, reduces one's options and/or makes it significantly more expensive to attain that 2nd adjustment.

[trhoppe]

T2


Touring and IT don't have enough in common. Your shocks matter 10 TIMES as much when you are forced to run bullshit stock springs and stock swaybars, and have to use shocks and nitrogen to "replace them".

Having said that, I voted "allow whatever you want, limit it to 2 adjustments"

I just don't care enough to do anything else rather then just vote in a web poll, as I'm perfectly happy with the Koni 28s on my ITA car.

-Tom

[tnord]

so you can get non-canister units that function just as well as RR for the same price, and the benefit of changing the rule is to allow more options for people?

being a financial analyst, i tend to look at things purely in terms of cost/benefit. well, the potential cost of changing this rule seems pretty big with the unintended consequences, and the potential benefit seems pretty minimal.

leave it alone, we've already opened the door by allowing OEM RR stuff (one-off S2000 track package car anyone?).

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's another reason remote resovoir shocks are superior to integal resovoir; unsprung weight. The remote resovoir shocks don't need to carry the weight of the resovoir and extra working fluid. So, making remote resovoir shocks legal makes all the integral resovoir shocks obsolete, thus rasing costs because every one will need a new set of $10k RR shocks/struts instead of $3-$4k for a set that takes coil-overs. Maybe rules don't limit costs, but rule changes can be expensive, I spent $1500 on the extra door bar rule alone.

James

[trhoppe]

Here's another reason remote resovoir shocks are superior to integal resovoir; unsprung weight. The remote resovoir shocks don't need to carry the weight of the resovoir and extra working fluid. So, making remote resovoir shocks legal makes all the integral resovoir shocks obsolete, thus rasing costs because every one will need a new set of $10k RR shocks/struts instead of $3-$4k for a set that takes coil-overs. Maybe rules don't limit costs, but rule changes can be expensive, I spent $1500 on the extra door bar rule alone.

James

This is one of the dumber posts I have ever read. I am just blows away with your ignorance.

As a side note, I noticed today that our 4Runner has remote reservoir shocks :)

-Tom

[IPRESS]

What Jason is saying (as I see it) for us ....rather dense racers (only include yourself with me if you want) is:
A. RR or not RR shocks (either way) have no bearing on cost containment.
B. With RR shocks being more widely used, allowing them will give IT racers more shock choices. (IMHO, this MIGHT allow a person to have a better shock package for a cheaper cost.)
C. Rules Creep is not damaged by allowing RR shocks if you limit adjustments to the present 2.
D. SCCA's #1 problem is "WELL WE HAVE ALL WAYS DONE IT THIS WAY." (And actually no it wasn't always this way.)
E. Having the right shock package would be nice (just an opinion.)
F. Contrary to what some might think, JASON SAINI loves racing much more then the average Bear. He isn't out to gain anything for himself or his customers that anyone else can't use too. He has tossed this topic around a bunch and has told me many times that having use of RR shocks would allow me to have a cheaper and better set of shocks. I have debated spending the high dollars for monotube customs, but every time I just can't do it.
G. To some degree this IS like the ECU rule. Getting rid of the "in the stock box" rule gave EVERY IT racer more choices. I am happy as can be with my "poorman's custom ECU" and I don't see its low price being a competition factor. Likewise with the RR shocks, (as long as the adjustments are kept in line) choices will allow me or anybody else to shop around for better deals.

This one (change) makes sense.

[JeffYoung]

In post no. 2, I agreed. I agree again. Marc said it very well.

[lateapex911]

Mac....very well reasoned. no argument from me.

[IPRESS]

JAKE, This issue must be flawed if you think I used good rea:happy204:soning!!!!!!!

But just the same it is nice to be in agreement with some of the El Jefe's of the class.:D

[DavidM]

How do you know allowing remote reservoir shocks isn't rules creep? Typically, the more options that are allowed the more creative people can get.

So far, here are the arguments for allowing RR shocks:

Cost - We've already established cost is not a reason to modify a rule.

More options - Bogus argument IMO. Let's apply that logic to some other things. I'd like more options for adjusting camber on the rear of my car. How about allowing an adjustable upper control arm. It's cheaper than the stock piece. I'd also like more options for the brake master cylinder. More options is not a reason to change a rule IMO.

Because the rule used to allow RR shocks - I don't care what it used to say. It doesn't say that anymore and has no bearing on whether or not we change the current rule.

Changing a rule on the basis of allowing more options for something sets a very bad precedence in my mind. If you can't get the right shock package without RR shocks then maybe you should look at other shock manufacturers. We all play within the same set of rules.

David

[trhoppe]

More options - Bogus argument IMO. Let's apply that logic to some other things. I'd like more options for adjusting camber on the rear of my car. How about allowing an adjustable upper control arm. It's cheaper than the stock piece. I'd also like more options for the brake master cylinder. More options is not a reason to change a rule IMO.

Those don't work. The rule would be "like" that, if we had stock shocks.

The remote reserviour rule would be similar to if you could use threaded adjustable upper control arms, but not allowing you to use eccentric bolts.

-Tom

[IPRESS]

Well.................Nevermind

[Z3_GoCar]

This is one of the dumber posts I have ever read. I am just blows away with your ignorance.

As a side note, I noticed today that our 4Runner has remote reservoir shocks :)

-Tom

Do I have to break out the quarter car model, and run a frequency response analysis? Trust me weight is much better placed moving on the chassis than moving with the wheel. Newton say so. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.


James

[lateapex911]

James, not to split hairs (and I admit I['m no expert) but I don't think it's black and white.

First, RR dampers require more components. All dampers already have a fluid chamber, but the RR dampers add an external one, plus requisite valving and plumbing. There is some duplicity there.

Second, the entire damper is not considered unsprung weight, to my knowledge, only a portion of it.

Now, the weight we are talking about here is rather minor, so we are splitting hairs when we look at the big picture, but I don't think you can make a statement that allowing RR dampers will "obsolete" the existing stock of dampers people run currently.

it's just not that black and white.

[Z3_GoCar]

Jake,

You're right that it's not exactly cut-and-dried that remote resovoirs will be better in every situation. However, all it needs is to be better in one situation to disturb the ballance. Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.

The key to reducing unsprung mass is that everything connected to the suspension arm, moves at the motion ratio. Example, struts are typically better than a .9 motion ratio. In my case it's .92, that means for every pound mass taken off of the moving part of the strut has the effect of removing .92 pounds mass from the hub. Now here's a part where high pressure mono-tube remote resovoir shocks really shine because they can be mounted upside down. This means you take the heaviest, most complicated piece of the shock and instantly convert it to sprung weight because it's now afixed directly to the chassis. This effect can only be achieved with shocks thought because struts need the shaft to extend throught the upper bearing. So if a car has four wheel A-arm suspension, it benefits at all four corners. If it's got struts, sorry thanks for playing your SOL.

James

[lateapex911]

Jake,

Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.



James

Don't forget they use the RRs because their suspensions move through HUGE travels. A lot of fluid gets moved. Our cars have 1/10th of the travel requirements.

[trhoppe]

Jake,

You're right that it's not exactly cut-and-dried that remote resovoirs will be better in every situation. However, all it needs is to be better in one situation to disturb the ballance. Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.

The key to reducing unsprung mass is that everything connected to the suspension arm, moves at the motion ratio. Example, struts are typically better than a .9 motion ratio. In my case it's .92, that means for every pound mass taken off of the moving part of the strut has the effect of removing .92 pounds mass from the hub. Now here's a part where high pressure mono-tube remote resovoir shocks really shine because they can be mounted upside down. This means you take the heaviest, most complicated piece of the shock and instantly convert it to sprung weight because it's now afixed directly to the chassis. This effect can only be achieved with shocks thought because struts need the shaft to extend throught the upper bearing. So if a car has four wheel A-arm suspension, it benefits at all four corners. If it's got struts, sorry thanks for playing your SOL.

James

Hey, you are being an idiot again.

Struts can, have, and will use inverted mounting whenever someone wants to make them.

-Tom

[Z3_GoCar]

Don't forget they use the RRs because their suspensions move through HUGE travels. A lot of fluid gets moved. Our cars have 1/10th of the travel requirements.

Sure under normal conditions we need less than 2 inches of travel, but what happens when you have to hit the curb hard every time to get the last few tenth's? I've got a lot more travel in my shocks and struts that what I normally need. Or a more likely senario is a lot of smaller bumps taken at speed, often in braking zones when traction is most important. The volume of fluid moved is equal to the volume of steel moved into and out of the shock/strut. Say your strut has a 5/8" shaft and moves an inch up and down over a dozen stutter bumps, you've just moved over 30 cubic inches of fluid into and out of the strut. That's 30 cubic inches of fluid that move through the orfices in the piston. That's the same as a 12 inch shock (with the same 5/8" shaft) moving through it's complete range of motion once.

James

[seckerich]

Hey, you are being an idiot again.

Struts can, have, and will use inverted mounting whenever someone wants to make them.

-Tom
Have to agree with you there. Now I have to go turn mine back over because they must not work.:blink: Book smart and real world challenged. I wish those that are so sure they are right would do a little research before they state "facts" to support an arguement. Only good point against RR shocks so far is the dreaded "rules creep" and that is pretty thin. It would scare some of these drivers to know what is really being done every day LEGALLY to an IT car.

[Gary L]

It would scare some of these drivers to know what is really being done every day LEGALLY to an IT car.

Speaking of which (going off topic a bit - but aren't we always :)), you may just be the guy to ask, concerning something I observed on a particular ITS RX7 once upon a time. What would he have modified (legally or otherwise), that would make the minimum turning circle for the car at least 80 feet? Is this common with the 2nd gen car when lowered to typical IT ride height, er wut?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Speaking of which (going off topic a bit - but aren't we always :)), you may just be the guy to ask, concerning something I observed on a particular ITS RX7 once upon a time. What would he have modified (legally or otherwise), that would make the minimum turning circle for the car at least 80 feet? Is this common with the 2nd gen car when lowered to typical IT ride height, er wut?
Gary,

I am assuming you are saying that is a lot of space. The way we run the brake ducts on our customer cars, coupled with the 225 series tires, we have to be very careful going even close to full lock or it chews up the ducting. If there was no ducting, we would be fine.

[dickita15]

just the oversized tires with stock fender openings can create an issue.

[JeffYoung]

Same on the Turd 8. With the brake ducting, if I go full lock, I have problems.

Without the brake ducting, I am able to go full lock as I slide off the end of the longest straight with no brakes. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww wwwwwwwwwww!

[seckerich]

Speaking of which (going off topic a bit - but aren't we always :)), you may just be the guy to ask, concerning something I observed on a particular ITS RX7 once upon a time. What would he have modified (legally or otherwise), that would make the minimum turning circle for the car at least 80 feet? Is this common with the 2nd gen car when lowered to typical IT ride height, er wut?


Hi Gary

As Andy said we have a very hard time getting room to run the brake ducts because the unibody is very wide just in front of the tire area. Takes some creative ducts and never go near full lock or they get ripped out. Nothing illegal that stands out. After a big oops on track you usually need some racer tape to continue. It is just entertaining when guys get on here and tell me what we have done for 10 years is impossible.:rolleyes:

I will say I have a lot more in my shocks now than before we converted them back from RR. I also ran close to the same lap times with Koni Yellows at some tracks. Go figure.

[jimmyc]

Hey, you are being an idiot again.

-Tom

You could keep saying that over and over and over and over again, and he would probably just sound dumber and dumber and dumber.

on rr-ax.com Lee Grimes reported that several teams have saved more then 15lbs in unsprung mass as compared to the RR shocks they ran previously. (they switched from RR to koni 2812s.)


Really EVERY SINGLE post on here that is against RR being allowed is ripe with the reasoning embedded in FEAR. And the people are FEAR full because they are very VERY uneducated on the matter.

This rule is like the Bullshit "no adjustable shock rule" in NASCAR. It doesn't saved ANY team ANY money. They just carry around 50 sets of shocks and swap them out.

Same thing here, a bunch of people who are completly uneducated on the subject of RR, are afraid of them being allowed.

If you didn't spend 5,000 dollars on shocks with the current rule, the addition of RR WOULD NOT make you magically have to go spend 5,000

[924Guy]

OK.

ITAC members. WHAT are the successful arguments that are used to add a level of technology to the ITCS???

Here's ones that come to mind:

1) Enforcement - can't effectively enforce it out - so we have custom ECUs, for example.
2) Safety - the #1 benefit of adding such a technology improves safety (using race seats may be a good example?)

Is there any good examples in there where cost is the primary reason, and performance improvement comes along for the ride?

Is this even a valid way of approaching the issue? Define the criteria RR shocks would have to meet, then assess whether or not they do meet them?

Personally, I'm not all that convinced they'd add much to our racing experience, any more than, oh, say, allowing larger brakes... However, I'm not all that satisfied with the discussion here as far as convincing me otherwise... lotta name-calling, not as much clear scientific evidence as I'd like to see...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am personally on the fence on this one. I truly believe that AS LONG AS we keep the 'two-adjustment max' rule, RR shock pose no threat to cost/technology/speed creep.

So having said that - I am for their inclusion - but then I ask myself these two questions: is there really a need - and does it create a perception that IT is getting out of control and you HAVE TO have them in order to compete?

What are the REAL benefits? More choices? Bah. Plenty of choices now - even for the S2000. Is Koni gonna lower their prices if we allow this? Nope.

*I* think there isn't a problem but is the small amount of upside here worth the perception issues? Your call.

[lateapex911]

Vaughn, you're a brake engineer, so I'm diving in a deep pool, but....

I think your comparison isn't entirely appropriate.

While bigger brakes have their drawbacks (rotational and unsprung weight to start with), they also have major benefits for many in racing. I just don't see RRs as having the same advantage/disadvantage balance.

My take is like Andy's. His comments, though, have flipsides. We have choices. On the other hand, it won't hurt to have more...
The perception of IT getting out of control. On the other hand, many think we're afraid of the sky falling, and we're becoming irrelevant. Perceptions....

I can't, and won't, support rules because some people, who don't do their homework, and attain a level of critical thinking, feel they "must" have them. bah. Let them buy them. And if that were a large issue, we'd see lots of guys with 8K tied up in their dampers, standing around reading the manuals, and scratching their heads.

In the end lots of rules have been created for cost control and convenience. Heck, the allowance to run any spring, sway bar and 2 way dampers helps control the suspension, reducing tire abuse, making a better car that can operate in the range it needs to. SS guys spend BUCKETs of money on dampers, because they are spring limited, and they HAVE to...they have no other way. Making allowances can actually give people options, and options can reduce costs.

Of course, we can't legislate on cost alone, if somebody really wants to pay McLaren to prep their IT car, licking the undercoating off at $400 an hour, they can, but I feel that well written rules will provide reduced benefit from higher expenditures. The SS guys, I predict, would love to replace their mega $ dampers with $50 springs. In our case, we have chassis that flex, and a 2 adjustment rule. no matter what you do, those limitations aide to keep things in check.

Times change, and the rules have to adapt. Maybe today isn't the day for RR allowance, but predict it will come.

[tnord]

What are the REAL benefits?

to regular joe schmo IT racer? none.

risk !>= reward.

/thread.

[jjjanos]

OK.

ITAC members. WHAT are the successful arguments that are used to add a level of technology to the ITCS???

Here's ones that come to mind:

1) Enforcement - can't effectively enforce it out - so we have custom ECUs, for example.
2) Safety - the #1 benefit of adding such a technology improves safety (using race seats may be a good example?)

Is there any good examples in there where cost is the primary reason, and performance improvement comes along for the ride?

Is this even a valid way of approaching the issue? Define the criteria RR shocks would have to meet, then assess whether or not they do meet them?

I believe you may have framed the arguement incorrectly.

The question isn't why RR should be legal. The question is why they should be illegal.

Allowing these isn't an exception to a rule - we already are allowed to substitute shocks. Outlawing these is the exception.

Entire Rule: Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting points. The number and type (e.g., tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers shall be the same as stock. The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock absorbers is permitted. Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited. External adjustments of shock control shall be limited to two (2). No shock absorber may be capable of adjustment while the car is in motion.

The Rule: Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting points.
(except) The number and type (e.g., tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers shall be the same as stock.
(except) Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited.
(except) External adjustments of shock control shall be limited to two (2).
(except) No shock absorber may be capable of adjustment while the car is in motion.
(useless special allowance already allowed under replacement) The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock absorbers is permitted.

Now ask, why there was an exception carved out to prohibit RR shocks?

Was it to limit cost? If so, is the rule effective in controlling cost?
Was it to limit performance? If so, is it working and why limit performance?

I think the absolute answer to the first is no. Those with the $ can get super expensive custom jobs. Then it becomes a question of how effective is the rule? Are we talking about 99% of racers not spending the dough or 70%?

Not sure about the second because I'm not certain why one would want to limit performance as part of a performance-enhancing rule (allowing non-stock shocks).

[dickita15]

The question isn't why RR should be legal. The question is why they should be illegal.


This may just prove me to be one of the ignorant ones, but the rule is where it is today for whatever reason. I would need a compelling reason to support change. If was the decider I would have it demonstrated to be how this change would help the class. Lacking convincing evidence of a benefit to the class overall I do not think a change is warranted. Arguing it will do no harm just does not do it for me.

[Z3_GoCar]

Have to agree with you there. Now I have to go turn mine back over because they must not work.:blink: Book smart and real world challenged. I wish those that are so sure they are right would do a little research before they state "facts" to support an arguement. Only good point against RR shocks so far is the dreaded "rules creep" and that is pretty thin. It would scare some of these drivers to know what is really being done every day LEGALLY to an IT car.

He obviously can't find a flaw in my point so he's taken to directly insulting me. Besides if you're running them upside down, you've either relocated the springs to the bottom of the strut, which violates the ITCS, or you've built a kluge to make your mono-tube struts into de-facto double tube struts, which at least partially defeats the purpose of inverting them in the first place. Besides, you don't know my ratio of book to technical smarts.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

This may just prove me to be one of the ignorant ones, but the rule is where it is today for whatever reason. I would need a compelling reason to support change. If was the decider I would have it demonstrated to be how this change would help the class. Lacking convincing evidence of a benefit to the class overall I do not think a change is warranted. Arguing it will do no harm just does not do it for me.

I agree with you on this Dick. There must be a good reason, and so far I've not heard any, otherwise we become a mod of the month class. This month RR-shocks, next month wings or maybe composite body panels. After all the cars still got to weigh the same anyway.

James

[seckerich]

He obviously can't find a flaw in my point so he's taken to directly insulting me. Besides if you're running them upside down, you've either relocated the springs to the bottom of the strut, which violates the ITCS, or you've built a kluge to make your mono-tube struts into de-facto double tube struts, which at least partially defeats the purpose of inverting them in the first place. Besides, you don't know my ratio of book to technical smarts.

James

Wrong again James. Keep quessing and when you get it right come back and argue your point. My springs are right where they always were and legal. I just stated what you claim as fact is not. You still do not get it and I am sorry I do not have the time or inclination to educate you. Every point you make gets shot full of holes in one post. If you are insulted by that being pointed out I am sorry. Say you just dont want to buy them and be done with it. We get it.:rolleyes: Wasn't it you that whined for months that your Electromotive had to be made legal?? Different when it was what you already had and wanted it legal now wasn't it?

[jjjanos]

I agree with you on this Dick. There must be a good reason, and so far I've not heard any, otherwise we become a mod of the month class. This month RR-shocks, next month wings or maybe composite body panels. After all the cars still got to weigh the same anyway.

James

If I am reading the thread correctly, and I might not be, RR were legal at one time(?) and made illegal because, at the time, they were considerably more costly than non-custom, non-RR shocks. I'm infering that either custom, non-RR shocks were either unavailable or so costly that it was felt that few would or could purchase these. I.e. custom, non-RR cost = $$$$$, RR cost= $$$ and non-custom, non-RR cost=$.

If that is indeed the case, then the reason for the initial change no-longer exists.

Hasn't there already been one special case to the IT rules for the S2000? If I remember the rule correctly, they either must run the stock RR or non-RR shocks. That's a car specific change to the class philosophy - both in terms of allowing RR and in prohibiting a like-body for like-body swap. Smells production rule-like to me. "We'll allow the different throttle body, but we're talking away the cloaking device."

WTF are we going to do if someone asks to get a production car classified and the stock shocks allow for 4 adjustments? Maybe one hasn't been built yet, but give it time. Ban the car? Completely throw out the philosophy that stock parts always are legal as long as you meet the cage/belt/seat rules?

[JoshS]

WTF are we going to do if someone asks to get a production car classified and the stock shocks allow for 4 adjustments? Maybe one hasn't been built yet, but give it time. Ban the car? Completely throw out the philosophy that stock parts always are legal as long as you meet the cage/belt/seat rules?

I'm actually pretty clear on what we would do in that case.

The car would be just like the S2000. Its original equipment is absolutely legal to run. But if the owner wants to substitute some non-OEM equipment, then the replacement equipment must be legal to the rules.

[924Guy]

Sure, you can frame the question why they shouldn't be allowed, but that's the question everyone here's been answering, for the most part. I'm coming from the same place as Dick P - we have a functional, stable, and yes, GOOD ruleset. You need to be a lot more convincing to convince me to change it.

Oh, yeah - my struts are DEFINITELY what you'd call "upside-down" - and the springs are where they belong. Can't get 'em anymore, but my teammate just got equivalent struts, only cost about $280 ea... Somedays I'm glad I race a VW... ;)

[seckerich]

I'm actually pretty clear on what we would do in that case.

The car would be just like the S2000. Its original equipment is absolutely legal to run. But if the owner wants to substitute some non-OEM equipment, then the replacement equipment must be legal to the rules.

And you can count on Honda exploiting that one liner in the future. We can deal with it when it happens but the stock RR should have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

[shwah]

Its funny.

So many people toss up Production class as an example of what we don't want to happen to IT. IMO one of the biggest mistakes they made in production is digging their heels in and not allowing technology to evolve.

[jjjanos]

Its funny.

So many people toss up Production class as an example of what we don't want to happen to IT. IMO one of the biggest mistakes they made in production is digging their heels in and not allowing technology to evolve.

I think that goes hand-in-hand with the mistake they made in trying to keep 40 year-old cars competitive with modern cars. That's exactly what we are doing in IT by prohibiting modern, RR-equipped cars from replacing their stock equipment with like equipment. EVERYONE gets to replace their shocks EXCEPT for modern cars.

BTW: When the SCCA "updates" the GCR and says the update is through TB 08-06, shouldn't the revised GCR include all of the changes made in the TB's issued since the last revision?

The link on SCCA for the revised GCR (Through TB 08-06) doesn't appear to incorporate the changes in TB 08-05.

[dickita15]

I think that goes hand-in-hand with the mistake they made in trying to keep 40 year-old cars competitive with modern cars. That's exactly what we are doing in IT by prohibiting modern, RR-equipped cars from replacing their stock equipment with like equipment. EVERYONE gets to replace their shocks EXCEPT for modern cars.


Have I missed something? So far I know of one freaking car that is classes in IT that has stock RR shocks.
Give me less drama and give me some evidence that allowing RR shocks will make IT better in some way.
Without that why even bother to consider the change.

[jjjanos]

Have I missed something? So far I know of one freaking car that is classes in IT that has stock RR shocks.
Give me less drama and give me some evidence that allowing RR shocks will make IT better in some way.
Without that why even bother to consider the change.

As far as RR shocks go, putting on my SCOTUS robes, I see no justifiable reason for the exception/carve-out prohibiting these shocks. Cost might have been justifiable at one time, but I think there's sufficient evidence presented that the prohibition does not control costs in an absolute sense - compliant shocks exceeding the cost of illegal RR's are available.

I don't see the logic behind allowing us to swap shocks, except NOT these kinds, nor do I see the logic behind allowing anyone to upgrade their shocks, except if you have these kinds.

We have one such car now. Given that technology advances and the tendency to add computer-controlled stability increasing devices, we'll start to see those too.

Prod went wrong when it said a 1956 car should be able to compete with a <insert a year 30 or more years later here>. They did it by allowing extra mods for the older car and not allowing mods for the newer cars. The first raised the cost of racing for existing drivers in the old cars and the second discouraged younger drivers/newer cars from even competing.

My gut feeling is that we are on the leading edge of a wave of techno bugaboos -traction control and active suspensions - that will be standard on most/all cars because their cost is dropping and litigation/safety regulations will mandate their installation. We can either embrace that technology with the rules applied equally for all cars (Everyone can swapout their Framinghanger Gear or NO ONE can) or, we run a significant risk of becoming the next production category lamenting how we aren't seeing new blood coming into the category to compete against our 40-year old cars.

That'll mean accepting that older cars will be made obsolete for anything other than vintage racing - as they should be.

[924Guy]

As far as RR shocks go, putting on my SCOTUS robes, I see no justifiable reason for the exception/carve-out prohibiting these shocks. Cost might have been justifiable at one time, but I think there's sufficient evidence presented that the prohibition does not control costs in an absolute sense - compliant shocks exceeding the cost of illegal RR's are available.

I don't see the logic behind allowing us to swap shocks, except NOT these kinds, nor do I see the logic behind allowing anyone to upgrade their shocks, except if you have these kinds.

We have one such car now. Given that technology advances and the tendency to add computer-controlled stability increasing devices, we'll start to see those too.

My gut feeling is that we are on the leading edge of a wave of techno bugaboos -traction control and active suspensions - that will be standard on most/all cars because their cost is dropping and litigation/safety regulations will mandate their installation. We can either embrace that technology with the rules applied equally for all cars (Everyone can swapout their Framinghanger Gear or NO ONE can) or, we run a significant risk of becoming the next production category lamenting how we aren't seeing new blood coming into the category to compete against our 40-year old cars.

That'll mean accepting that older cars will be made obsolete for anything other than vintage racing - as they should be.

Sorry, but I think that's a bad, bad, comparison. First and foremost - allowing THAT technology (traction/stability control, active suspensions) in really will create a world of haves and have-nots. Very few people out there have access to this technology, in such a way as to be able to use and tune it effectively for a race-prepped car. The guys with big money and/or factory connections will use those and really spread the gap. Maybe that belongs in Touring, but it's not a part of an Improved Touring I want to be a part of (despite the fact that I DO have access to the technology).

I do agree that trying to create a rule for one car is foolish and short-sighted. We need to be more forward-thinking than that.

But WRT RR shocks, I still see this as a philosophical question of where do we want to draw the bar for performance gains - not a matter of technology, so much as this ain't GT.

There has to be a limit somewhere on just how much you can do to the car. Otherwise what's the real difference between, say, GT and Prod? Is that not the most fundamental difference???

[dickita15]

jj much of what you say is well thought out and you make some good points about technology such as traction control and active suspension. These items will be a challenge for the class and the rule makers. Personally I am of the opinion that for the foreseeable future these need to be kept out of IT. For the reasons Vaughn points out these technologies are game changers.
I understand your frustration with a rule that you think is stupid. I have been on the other side of the fence. I lobbied for open wiring harnesses at least for carb cars. I could never understand why I had to put so much effort into repairing my harness when the whole damn race car runs on 8 wires, but I lost.
You and I are on opposite sides of the going national thing. I am not afraid of that for some reason.
In the end we are still at the same point. The rule is as it is now and I do not see any upside in changing it.

[jjjanos]

Stuff....

With all due respect, that's the epitome of prod-think. "This car/thing must be made illegal or uncompetitive otherwise we will be uncompetitive." As my father always says, thats ARE AY CEE EYE EN GEE.

The Have/have-not rebutal is a strawman, IMO. Anyone owning a car that comes equipped with TC/AS has access to that technology. In terms of optimizing the computers to a road racing environment - allow chip swapping. The market will create programmable chips and shops will program them. And if you don't allow swapping, you'll still get it but will be unable to enforce the rule. (See ECUs).

Those racing cars w/o TC/AS don't get it. It wasn't stock.

The classification process can add the weight needed to fit the car in the proper class.

At some point, we're going to have to do it anyway because most cars that anyone will want to race likely will have this on it anyway. At that point, we can either not classify them or we can force people to disable the system. IMO opinion, that'll put those who want to race these cars into a different sanctioning body or we'll begin to hear "Why should the Modern Car Category pull IT's fat out of the fire? If they just let me run my damn car with what it came with, I might run in both race groups, but I just don't see any reason to do it as long as I am confined by the limited-prep IT rules...."


But WRT RR shocks, I still see this as a philosophical question of where do we want to draw the bar for performance gains - not a matter of technology, so much as this ain't GT.

There has to be a limit somewhere on just how much you can do to the car. Otherwise what's the real difference between, say, GT and Prod? Is that not the most fundamental difference???

I don't know. From what I've read here, it sounds as if anything one can do with RR shocks, one can do with unibody shocks, but the unibody costs much more. Isn't lowering our cost a good thing?

If I can spend $500 on RR shocks that give me the same performance as the guy who already spent $3000, I not only get the same performance as him, but I've got an extra $2500 to spend on something else - like taking the missus somewhere nice.

[trhoppe]

He obviously can't find a flaw in my point so he's taken to directly insulting me. Besides if you're running them upside down, you've either relocated the springs to the bottom of the strut, which violates the ITCS, or you've built a kluge to make your mono-tube struts into de-facto double tube struts, which at least partially defeats the purpose of inverting them in the first place. Besides, you don't know my ratio of book to technical smarts.

James
Whoever said that the next thing you post is going to be dumber then the previous things you posted was correct.

You should stop typing and making yourself look even more ignorant then you already have.

[jimmyc]

YOU CAN NOT look at this rules like other rules. Much like the 'threaded shock body' rule that was revoked.

It is a attempt to control cost, that MAYBE made some sense at the time. NOW it makes absolutely no since.

Just like the ECU rule, removing the exclusion for RR, isn't going to increase the cost of racing. END OF STORY.

Now ill wait for z3_GoCar to make some more dumb comments.

[GKR_17]

At some point, we're going to have to do it anyway because most cars that anyone will want to race likely will have this on it anyway. At that point, we can either not classify them or we can force people to disable the system.

We're past that point and the ban is already in the rules. It's not like the ECU rule because computerized dynamics (TC or ABS) aren't required to make the car fucntion. Vaughan is right, opening that up would be a massive mistake.

If we were starting from scratch I might allow RR's, but like many others I don't see how that will improve anything today. I seem to see a lot of folks who claim that RR's aren't really any better, but are more than willing to scrap whatever they have now to bolt them on.

Grafton

[dickita15]

I find it a very compelling argument when someone this is the way it is END OF STORY.
Of course following up with a personal insult always makes the case better as well.
:blink:

[rsportvolvo]

I agree that the current technology available makes the RR rule seem like a cost adder. But folks who would fork out the change for a RR damper years back will most likely do the same for a modern IT legal damper. So it's sort of a moot point.

SCCA is a stubborn group that doesn't necessarily follow reason or logic at times, but we're all guilty of that. I suggest using the technology available and hope for the rule change.

I posted a list of IT legal non RR dampers here:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24898

The Penske VPB-45 is a 2-way adjustable non-RR damper that costs more than most cars + their running budget. This is now the spec damper for the A1 GP series.

One good recent development for IT folks is Koni's deal with Grand-Am, Koni Challenge. Now there will be a huge influx of Koni 28 series dampers that us lowly IT folks can now get our dirty paws on for a reasonable price. Unfortunately the Koni service tools cost more than the dampers. Oh and don't mention the huge pile of RR dampers laying around now.

Some insight into coping with this rule can be gleaned from NASCAR. They banned RR dampers there awhile back, but the clever folks at Penske developed the 7300 damper (Ohlins and Bilstein followed suite). It operates the same way as the RR Penske's only in a more compact and legal package. The RR uses a CD drum and the 7300 uses a head valve. This same damper is offered with 3 different adjustment types: LSR, HSR, LSC. So one could taylor a very nice damper package that is very tunable and serviceable. And I'm not even mentioning the main piston options either. Colin Harmer has taken advantage of a more affordable option with the Penske 7500's on his ITA Miata. The 7500 doesn't have the head valve, but it does have the same adjustment types.

The big problem with RR dampers is ignorance induced fear. Most folks are not aware of what the current technology actually is and many don't care to learn. RR's were and are primarily used for cooling to improve damper consistency. It is after all a friction damper. High pressure deCarbon's (mono-tubes for the non-damperphiles) were the cat's meow, now it's back to low-pressure twin-tubes (TT). In fact there are different opinions on that too. Koni and Penske prefer the high frequency responsiveness of main valve damping where Sachs and Ohlins now prefer the wide adjustment range of solid pistons w/ spool valves in a low pressure TT for better initial grip. JRZ/Moton have a slightly different twist with the large diameter damper shafts. The technology battle will continue, as it always has. As a result grassroots racing folks can get good quality dampers for a very reasonable price. Not to mention they are user serviceable unlike the popular Bilstein and Koni dampers used by most folks here. Since IT is all about corner speed good dampers should be on the top of the list. Instead we're chasing small gains with aftermarket ECU's and such. Dampers are a better bang for the buck.

The bottom line with dampers isn't really cost or features, but knowledge and experience. Smarter folks will be in a better position to beat the less smart folks, that's racing. That may be bad news for some, but the good news is that dampers are still a bit of a black art (i.e. empirical vs. theoretical). So anyone with the desire to learn can catch up on the basics pretty quick. The next learning phase will cost a pretty penny as damper dyno's and shaker rig time are required in addition to track time.

With all that in mind how many folks get their dampers serviced? Penske recommends basic seals and fluid change at 30 track hours or yearly. Other brands have similar recommendations. Damper performance degrades gradually and is very difficult to notice. A good damper service routine will increase a cars handling consistency.

Sorry, but it's a boring rainy night here in South Korea and this gives me something to do.

[jimmyc]

I agree that the current technology available makes the RR rule seem like a cost adder. But folks who would fork out the change for a RR damper years back will most likely do the same for a modern IT legal damper. So it's sort of a moot point.


It isn't a cost adder. The koni 2812 costs >= a JRZ or moton clubsport 2 way.



One good recent development for IT folks is Koni's deal with Grand-Am, Koni Challenge. Now there will be a huge influx of Koni 28 series dampers that us lowly IT folks can now get our dirty paws on for a reasonable price. Unfortunately the Koni service tools cost more than the dampers. Oh and don't mention the huge pile of RR dampers laying around now.


Umm it is the OTHER way around.

BEFORE Koni signed up with GA the 28 series shocks was MUCH cheaper. Now that they are signed with GA the shocks are MUCH MUCH more expensive, and from my experience with 4 cars that run them the quality has gone down. Kinda seems on par with the way things go once something is spec'd. "Increase price decrease quality"



Some insight into coping with this rule can be gleaned from NASCAR. They banned RR dampers there awhile back, but the clever folks at Penske developed the 7300 damper (Ohlins and Bilstein followed suite). It operates the same way as the RR Penske's only in a more compact and legal package. The RR uses a CD drum and the 7300 uses a head valve. This same damper is offered with 3 different adjustment types: LSR, HSR, LSC. So one could taylor a very nice damper package that is very tunable and serviceable. And I'm not even mentioning the main piston options either. Colin Harmer has taken advantage of a more affordable option with the Penske 7500's on his ITA Miata. The 7500 doesn't have the head valve, but it does have the same adjustment types.


Yep learn from NASCAR that rules can't control costs. NASCAR says "hey no adjustable shocks" so what do the teams do? they carry around 40 to 100 different sets of shocks with different valving. Yep that SURE controlled cost.

Speaking of that, I know of two teams that now carry around 2 sets of koni 2812s with completly different valving. This means that they also now carry more spares. This all equals more $$$.

Why do they carry around 2 sets with completly different vavling? Because the 2812 doesn't have the adjustment range their previous shocks did. So now they had to purchase 16 new shocks.

[Tak]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.
If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

Tak
#29 ITA SFR SCCA

[lateapex911]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.
If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

Tak
#29 ITA SFR SCCA

That (the part I boldened) is A major key to the controlling of costs, BTW..

So, Tak, your last line left me wondering..."simple"...is the car simpler with or without RR dampers? Or does it matter at all? Is the number of allowable adjustments that draws the line between "simple" and "silly"? Or??

And, at this point, I think we've gotten far enough in this conversation (both in specifics and larger picture) that nobody will fall for the red herring that limiting the choice to non RRs will save money.

[rsportvolvo]

It isn't a cost adder. The koni 2812 costs >= a JRZ or moton clubsport 2 way.

My point is a racer willing to buy a (brand here) race damper will pay the extra money regardless as they see it as a requirement for being fast. The price differences between similar dampers is not what I was getting at.


Umm it is the OTHER way around.

BEFORE Koni signed up with GA the 28 series shocks was MUCH cheaper. Now that they are signed with GA the shocks are MUCH MUCH more expensive, and from my experience with 4 cars that run them the quality has gone down. Kinda seems on par with the way things go once something is spec'd. "Increase price decrease quality"

I agree that RR dampers from Koni Challenge are now cheap and plentiful, that doesn't help folks with the current ITCS regulations. That only helps the economics argument. The Koni 28 cost is high now, but in a few years the market will be flooded and the cost will go down. Right now the Koni 28 is a decent ITCS legal damper. Not to mention the knowledge pool is quite large and growing quickly. Too bad the Koni quality is suffering.


Yep learn from NASCAR that rules can't control costs. NASCAR says "hey no adjustable shocks" so what do the teams do? they carry around 40 to 100 different sets of shocks with different valving. Yep that SURE controlled cost.

Speaking of that, I know of two teams that now carry around 2 sets of koni 2812s with completly different valving. This means that they also now carry more spares. This all equals more $$$.

Why do they carry around 2 sets with completly different vavling? Because the 2812 doesn't have the adjustment range their previous shocks did. So now they had to purchase 16 new shocks.

I was pointing out a technical solution to the rule. The technical solution found in the 7300 is good for our current situation. Additionally it breaks down the RR is a better damper.

Good points on NASCAR and Koni Challege. The cost cutting effort only increased cost. Until folks in IT do the same the CRB probably won't buy it.

My guess is you're a JRZ/Moton guy. Those dampers are great for our cars. The adjustment range is so wide that just about any driver in any car can feel the changes. You can do the same thing with other brands, but you will have to revalve them. It's all part of the game.

[rsportvolvo]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.

Entry level classes have competitive participants. Those folks will continue to develop their cars to go fast. Upgrading an existing car in your current class can be cheaper than jumping to a higher level class.
I think you discount too many of these parameters. IT chassis' can be made quite stiff legally. Tires are always a limiting factor regardless of the class.


If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

No one can afford all of the testing they want including NASCAR and F1. A few have an open budget, but most folks work hard to make it happen. I would say that you are basicaly summing up the challenges faced by all who compete in motorsport.


Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

To some folks IT is a destination class. They enjoy the competition and can't/don't want to afford a more expensive motorsport hobby.

Never confuse limited prep racing with simple. Limited prep means the development is more focused as less options are available. Racing is never simple, even if the cars are older.

The only way to control cost is to do just that. Set a price for all competing cars and owners can't refuse a buy out. That rarely works out long term.

[JoshS]

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

I agree 100% with "keep the cars simple." To me it's a bolt-on ruleset, not a fabrication ruleset. RR shocks don't change that one way or the other for me.

But I disagree about the second sentence. All regional racing is driver-development racing. Actually I'll bet Randy Pobst would say that all racers at all levels are still developing, but anyway. Also IMO *any* class can be a destination class. I consider IT to be a destination class for me. Let's talk about it in person at Thunderhill, this is a great paddock or walk-the-track subject!

[Knestis]

Josh makes a very important point. We can't make decisions for IT presuming any particular "purpose" for the category. There are as many different sets of goals, priorities, objectives, desires, needs, and wants among the membership, as there are individual drivers.

To some, IT is a stepping stone. Personally, I stepped on it the first time years ago, wandered around, and ended up back here - probably to stay.

K

[shwah]

I'll just repeat that as far as I'm concerned limit it to 2 adjustments, stock location and let folks run RR if they want.

[SPiFF]

Considering how long it took to the change the lame threaded body shock rule, RR shocks will prolly be legal some time 2050-ish. :)

[Tak]

Jake, David, Josh, and others,
On re-reading my post, it comes accross as rather insulting...wasn't meant to be that way.
I really do believe the philosophy of the class needs to remain limited prep, to keep it a beginner class. In IT drivers need to learn race craft, car control, managing tires and brakes, some basic car setup (alignment, tire pressures, sway bars, springs, corner weights, ride height, DA shocks), and managing the driver.
Full disclosure, IT has become a destination for me, and I am one of the 'old men' of IT in the SFR. And I still think it needs to remain a beginner class.
Regarding chassis stiffness, the 8 point cage is good at stiffening the rear suspenstion up to the bulkhead. Stiffness from the bulkhead to the front suspension is dependant solely on the original chassis stiffness. And in most IT eligible cars, that is poor. Really sophisticated shocks will only work well on the select few cars with good stock chassis stiffness. Everyone else will be largely chasing their tail. That's why I think we need to draw a line on damper legality. From a rules enforcement perspective, I think the most reasonable line is at double adjustable shocks.

Tak

[lateapex911]

Tak, I generally agree with your post, especially regarding the chassis stiffness comments. I'll NEVER let pressure sway me to allowing the rules to add strut to cage bars.

Anyway, so, you draw the line at double adjustables. But, just curious, are RRs cool with you if they are limited to two adjustments?

[Tak]

Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.

[Knestis]

Nobody is ever going to get "special treatment" in IT - as long as this ITAC is around - in the sense that someone gets something that isn't allowed on other cars. What I think Jake is trying to get at, is what is the general sense of folks in terms of what the rule should be for everyone...?

** Current rule, with no-RR restriction and limit to 2 adjustments

** Remove no-RR restriction, retain 2-adjustment limit

** Allow RR units with more than 2 adjustments

** All only non-RR units but allow more adjustments

** Run whatever the heck you want

KK

[jimmyc]

My guess is you're a JRZ/Moton guy. Those dampers are great for our cars. The adjustment range is so wide that just about any driver in any car can feel the changes. You can do the same thing with other brands, but you will have to revalve them. It's all part of the game.

Actually I have always ran on Koni's, first the re-valved sports and now 3011's.

And i was a huge supporter of the 2812 it was a GREAT bang for the buck. IMO it was probably THE BEST bang for the buck. But now that prices have almost doubled.

And there are other/better "bang for your buck" options.

[lateapex911]

Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.

Hey Tak, could you shoot me an email ? Got a question for you. Thanks!

[Scooter]

I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.

I personally would love to hear some real solutions to keeping costs down on shocks instead of this type of arguing.

For instance, what if we just limit the brands and models of shocks? It doesn't seem hard for the board to occasionally check and see how much shocks are selling for. Seems easy enough to limit the base cost of a shock to say $500 each. You'll never be able to keep people from spending man-hours on things, but at least you'd have a chance at limiting the base cost of the shock. The rest of the rules stay the same. Just restrict certain brands and/or models.

[quadzjr]

Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.


There are many other advantages of having a RR shock over a single mono-tube design, Coming from my mechanical engineering background and my previous off-road racing experience. list of benefits independent of the amount of adjustments.. mostly

-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
-allows for more diverse mounting
-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock

Coming from the off-road world, standard non-RR shocks wouldn't not last a whole season.. the shocks would get hot to the touch with no ambient heat to heat them other than the heat generated form the piston itself. when the shock got too hot over whoops section if the oil were to foam in the shock damping would be extremely erratic.

I have run a few different shocks on my race quad. I loved my ohlins but they were sold with the old quad. My current shocks are Custom Axis DA RR fronts and SA (rebound) rear.

[quadzjr]

I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.


You can spend more on non-RR shocks then you can on RR shocks.. yes but that is mostly apples to oranges. If you find a shock A that is available in both RR and non-RR. I haven't seen the case of a RR being cheaper, not saying that it is not out there, jsut wouldn't make sense for it to be if the shocks are identical and the RR are better, and cost more to manufacture for them to be cheaper.

[lateapex911]

I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.

I personally would love to hear some real solutions to keeping costs down on shocks instead of this type of arguing.

For instance, what if we just limit the brands and models of shocks? It doesn't seem hard for the board to occasionally check and see how much shocks are selling for. Seems easy enough to limit the base cost of a shock to say $500 each. You'll never be able to keep people from spending man-hours on things, but at least you'd have a chance at limiting the base cost of the shock. The rest of the rules stay the same. Just restrict certain brands and/or models.

Limiting things often has the opposite effect. Only Koni dampers allowed? Koni might be wise to raise the price. But, more than that, we have 300 plus cars listed in the ITCS. I can't see how the ITAC could find time to go out and research what each car has in the way of fitment options, then cross reference costs and possible common models, etc. The work required to do that is ridiculous.

And, even if it were possible, what happens when we add a new car to the class? What if brand X doesn't have a fitment for that car? Do we not list it?

The genious in the IT rules that makes spending money on dampers silly after a certain point (AKA 'cost control") is the cage rule. I often read how people wish they could tie in the front of the chassis to the cage...but guess what? THAT is the reason nobody is going to get good return on the investment in mega dollar dampers....the chassis is the undamped spring!

That one simple part of the rule saves us all the silliness of listing "cost controlled" dampers.

Also, if you are thinking "But I see them limit dampers in pro racing", well, think again. Yes, the Koni challenge series runs on Konis, but the number of models listed for competition is small, and koni is onboard and makes fitments for those models..they are a sponsor of the series. That's not the case here in club racing)

[Scooter]

How about a claim rule for shocks? You can buy anyone else's shocks for $2,000 after any race.

I would certainly sell mine for that!

[924Guy]

How about a claim rule for shocks? You can buy anyone else's shocks for $2,000 after any race.

I would certainly sell mine for that!

LOL! That would add a whole new profit margin to my racing! :D

[lateapex911]

Claim rules work in non mixed marque racing, where everyone is racing a narrow range of products. You often find a claim rule in circle track racing where everyone uses a Chevy 350, for example. It's entirely possible that in mixed marque racing, it could be used vengefully. For example, a guy loves the Borgward Special GT, and decides to race it, but then finds that nobody makes a damper fitment for it. So he contacts Super Dampers LLC, and they fab up a set for him, and yea, he's hit hard ...they're double adjustable, fit the tight confines of the Borgard suspension, and cost him a pretty penny and then some. Claiming those would cost him a bundle, and could cause him to miss races merely because of timelines to get new ones fabbed.

[jimmyc]

You can spend more on non-RR shocks then you can on RR shocks.. yes but that is mostly apples to oranges. If you find a shock A that is available in both RR and non-RR. I haven't seen the case of a RR being cheaper, not saying that it is not out there, jsut wouldn't make sense for it to be if the shocks are identical and the RR are better, and cost more to manufacture for them to be cheaper.

koni 2812 is $1,000 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $4,000 for a set.

Ohlins TX36 is $899 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3596 for a set.

JRZ RS Pro is $925 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3,700 for a set.

Moton club sport $930 per sock for the typical honda/acura so $3,720 for a set.

All of those shocks perform around same.

[jimmyc]

Limiting things often has the opposite effect. Only Koni dampers allowed? Koni might be wise to raise the price.




NO WAYYYYY!!!!!

(sarcasm for any one that doesn't get it...)

[quadzjr]

koni 2812 is $1,000 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $4,000 for a set.

Ohlins TX36 is $899 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3596 for a set.

JRZ RS Pro is $925 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3,700 for a set.

Moton club sport $930 per sock for the typical honda/acura so $3,720 for a set.

All of those shocks perform around same.


I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.

My point is you can't compare any one of the quality non RR shocks you mentioned to say a cheap japanese ebay RR coilover that is cheaper..

[lateapex911]

Coming from .....my previous off-road racing experience. list of benefits independent of the amount of adjustments.. mostly

-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
-allows for more diverse mounting
-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock

Coming from the off-road world, standard non-RR shocks wouldn't not last a whole season..

I have run a few different shocks on my race quad. I loved my ohlins but they were sold with the old quad. My current shocks are Custom Axis DA RR fronts and SA (rebound) rear.

I was going to not respond, but just to provide a different light....


-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
True, but volume of fluid and travel have a major effect as well

-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
also available on non RR dampers

-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
-
allows for more diverse mounting

-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock
True, but, keep in mind some of those advantages are very minor in our world, compared to your off road background. Where your shock travel is sometimes measured in feet, ours is measured in inches...maybe two ro three. It's much different.

Again, mono tube, twin tube, inverted, remote reservoir...they ALL have advantages and drawbacks. Each unique application might need the advantages offered by one type of damper over another. (The S200 is a case where Honda went RR because of limited real estate )

[lateapex911]

I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.



I wonder about that. After talking with a guy inside Koni, I know that they think their damper has advantages over an RR design, while also maintaining superiority of some RR strengths..but...it costs a lot to build such a trick pony. I think he said they could do RR, but they'd give up some advantages, while not gaining others. He inferred the cost for such trickness was pretty high, and the cost for the reservor units would be a wash. As they felt the result would be a lesser damper, they have decided to persue their route.

[quadzjr]

I wonder about that. After talking with a guy inside Koni, I know that they think their damper has advantages over an RR design, while also maintaining superiority of some RR strengths..but...it costs a lot to build such a trick pony. I think he said they could do RR, but they'd give up some advantages, while not gaining others. He inferred the cost for such trickness was pretty high, and the cost for the reservor units would be a wash. As they felt the result would be a lesser damper, they have decided to persue their route.

Jsut curious...What advantages other than weight and packaging does a non-RR have over a RR shock?

I know most of my points are not as important in road racing.. though it would be cool to be about to adjust low/high speed damping that is position sensitive..

https://www.offroadunlimited.com/orustore/pc/catalog/445tubepiggybackbypasss.jpg

[lateapex911]

I'm going to have to beg off on the specifics for now. In doing the research on this issue when it frst came up to the ITAC a half year or so ago, I contacted people much smarter than me, and the result of those conversations was that it seemed rather gray...each design had its strenghts and weaknesses. I've shot a note out so that I can speak semi intelligently about the specifics. I think my basic point was that it's not totally balck and white.

That thing looks like a F1 technology fuel dump can!

[quadzjr]

I think my basic point was that it's not totally balck and white.

That thing looks like a F1 technology fuel dump can!

Yeah.. nothing is "Totally" black or white.. however with the original intent of the rule it still seems to me to weigh heavily to one side.

In my opinion.. worth all of 2 cents maybe 3.. the Fox shock is the way to go right now for truck offorad racing (PEP has a great shock with decent support if you can afford it for you ATV guys).. .. If you can afford a triple bypass 4.5" diameter shock.. I hope your driving ability and crew can match your wallet!

[jimmyc]

I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.

My point is you can't compare any one of the quality non RR shocks you mentioned to say a cheap japanese ebay RR coilover that is cheaper..


Im not. I am comparing them to other quality products.

You do know JRZ, moton, Ohlins, are really good quality shocks right?

[quadzjr]

Teh intent of the rule was to lower the cost on money.. which in the idea of IT it makes sense.

Yes.. I am missing your point.. I used to run Ohlins.. I am aware of there quality.. my point is and remains that when comparing apples to apples (i.e. take a shock A of any make and compare it to shock A that is available in RR configuration) The RR version of the same shock will cost more. This does not include special trick prices attached to convert a shock from RR to Non-RR and vice versa.

I had this conversation with Ohlins and JRZ at the Performance Racing Industry (PRI) show in orlando. Mostly on the price to build there RR shock into a non-RR shcok.. and additionally cost added to make it a strut type. (which the final price was well above the off the shelf price of the RR shcok.. I think it was in the range of 2 grand a corner) I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.

[jimmyc]

Also of interesting note...

Several professional huge dollar teams who were/are sponsored by a remote reservoir company have switched to non-remote reservoir shocks this and last year.

They all went fast, and they now have to pay for the new non-remote reservoir shocks.


I completely agree with jake, in that mono tube, twin tube, inverted, non-inverted, remote reservoir, non-remote reservoir. They are all different and all with there pluses and minuses..

[jimmyc]

I had this conversation with Ohlins and JRZ at the Performance Racing Industry (PRI) show in orlando. Mostly on the price to build there RR shock into a non-RR shcok.. and additionally cost added to make it a strut type. (which the final price was well above the off the shelf price of the RR shcok.. I think it was in the range of 2 grand a corner) I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.


Correct, because JRZ doesn't make/isn't set up for non RR shocks, so of course it is going to cost more.

[jimmyc]

Teh intent of the rule was to lower the cost on money.. which in the idea of IT it makes sense.



Which is a stupid idea, excluding RR shocks doesn't lower the $$


In fact i just showed how it now in this day in age INCREASES the cost.

[quadzjr]

That can't be used as a valid argument that someone converted.. some didn't, some decided the gains of reduction in weight (applied mathmatically as 1/2 sprung weight) was sufficient to go non-rr. or maybe it was other beneifits.. This topic should have nothing to do with what shock is better or why.. it is price. The shocks and benefits and especially PRICE of the shocks that you are mentioning in my opinion should we well outside the relm of IT anyways.

Jimmy I have no idea why you are argueing with me.. when we seem to be in agreement. Especially when Jake's comment that yoru are in agreement with is a continuation of my post he was responding to.

[quadzjr]

Which is a stupid idea, excluding RR shocks doesn't lower the $$


In fact i just showed how it now in this day in age INCREASES the cost.

The 28 series shock is on the higher end of the scale for koni shocks for sports cars compared to the three others you mentioned within their respective company. That argument and yours is based on opinion.. for your arguement to be held true it woudl have to be that the koni is equal to performance as the JRZ,Moton,Ohlins.. which is based on opinion.. therefore an arguement cannot be won or lost.

[lateapex911]

Teh intent of the rule was to lower the cost on money.. which in the idea of IT it makes sense.

I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.

Quick history lesson, Steve, maybe you weren't around back 'in the day' when this went down.

The original rule allowed any damper that attached at the original mounting points, essentially. Gabriel Adjustamatics may have been the choice back then, who knows! Time and progress march on, and damper technology trickles down, and eventually, there are these "Remote Reservoir" things that fit IT cars, but jeeez, they were expensive. And, perception was that they were THE hot ticket. Some guys run them, and sure enough, win the ARRCs. (Nevermind that those same guys probably had 400 dyno runs on their engine, years of chassis development, and dozens of testing days and countless races under their belts) the general perception was that the situation was out of control, and the PTB decided to ban the uber expensive RR units. Nevermind that Penske could be hired to build you a non RR unit...who would do that!?

So they get banned. Obviously, some people are pissed, others breath a sigh of relief. I was among the latter initially, but talking to more involved parties and looking deeper and critically converted.

Now, time has continued to march on and manufacturing efficiencies, along with the trickle down effects of CAD/ CAM have reduced prices of lots of things and now we see the original premise, which was to eliminate a single technology sector on the basis of cost, has ceased to be relevant. Simply put, a RR damper might be the right solution for car A, but not car B. Cost isn't nearly as black and white as it once was, and it's arguable if they ever truly represented the technological high ground everyone perceived they occupied.

now..fast forward. The IT community has invested in non RR technology. Therefore, allowing RRs will have a cost...all change does. Some subscribers will perceive that it is a required change to keep up, or get ahead of the Jones. Some will do critical thinking and make their own calls based on their needs, the advantages of different designs, and the cost involved. For new builds, such an option opes up possibilities. I'd seriously consider RRs if I were to build a 911. The method of (legally) cornerweighting that car is extremely painful and time consuming, and using high pressure gas RRs (like a neat and not too pricey set that Moton builds) would be sweet, and a great time ....and money saver.

But, the bottom line is this, to change the existing rule, the ITAC has to consider whether they represent a true cost issue, whether true cost control is actually possible or desirable, and whether the cost of change to the membership, whether it's perceived or real, is worth it.

(Your talk with Lee would have been illuminating.)

[quadzjr]

Thanks Jake,

I was not around during those days, I have only been apart of the IT community since 2004ish.. and mostly crewing for people. (I was too busy either driving in straight line, or dodging trees).

I cannot argue the benefits.. going to RR brings.. they speak for themselves and are extremely nice.. on a 911 they might save you time, but are we now thinking that time is money?

I do admit the logic for the rule is sketchy.. people are reactionary.. that is human nature. There are alot of weird rules in IT, (washer bottle, rim width, door glass, etc..) that might not makes sense to some but they are the rules.. and that is IT.. play if you want. However I do 100% believe that IT needs to grow and evolve over time. However I think there is better places to allow the group to evolve than to worry about RR or non RR.

Personally, and I admit that it is my opinion so it is worth what you paid for it. The people that seem to fight for the RR's are people that can financially afford them (otherwise why bother?).. Not the people running tokico, koni, and kyb adjustable "sport" shocks. Their point is that you can spend more money on a fully built non rr shock.. True.. and If you think that you need that extra something, regardless you are going to get it. I mean the additional cost is a dime in the bucket compared to the amount of hours spent on the dyno, the amount of money spent to build an "IT" legal motor, yaddaa... yaddaa.. yaddaa. In my eyes this will not only alow the "cheaper" solution with RR's but will also allow the significantly more expensive shocks that are not cheap and the bar will be raised just that much more... taking just a bit more of driver out of the equation (provided he/she is smart enough or has crew that are smart enough to utilize them) and add more wallet to win. Additionally, it will create a larger gap between the guys out there having fun hoping to get a podium, and the guys that have a good chance of winning if they show up.

I rest, or atleast I am going to attempt to. I don’t even have a IT car, we have been campaigning a Prod car for the last two years.. I just like the IT guys much better, (a lot of national Prod guys are just too.. well… better left unsaid. maybe it is all the decaying British stuff that makes them loopy? :D) my dad is going to be driving an ITB MR2 in a year or so.. This topic no matter which way it goes, has no affect on us. (Total budget for the car is around what the price of a set of these RR shocks are going for).

[Scooter]

I have another idea to lower costs.

How about if you have to get a shock qualified before you can use it?

The ITAC would have a general rule that shocks should not cost more than say $500 each and be non-RR. Then if you want to use a shock model, if it's not already classified, you have to submit it for approval.

If that model shock costs $1000 a corner, then they tell you no. If that shock costs $550 a corner, and that's the only kind they make for your Humber Super Snipe, then they say yes. Or if RR shocks are the only things that work on your car and using non-RR shocks would force you to spend $1000 a corner, then they say ok for that model shock. (If it turns out that that model shock also works on a different car, then fine I guess?)

It would be a lot of shock classifying at first, but then it would probably get to be a much simpler process. And people would probably get a little mad about this or that classification like they always do. But it would actually limit what people could spend on shocks.

[Knestis]

Sorry.

While I appreciate the motive, it's just not workable. Offer anyone who builds a GRM "$2009 challenge" car $2009 for their car and they'll laugh in your face. We set a price of $500 and all of a sudden, everyone is getting their shocks for, uh, $499.

It's just not workable.

The ONLY way that we might directly control costs is with claim rules but the culture will never go for it.

K

[lateapex911]

There are 361 cars in the ITCS.

There are what, 7 or so shock manufacturers?

And there are how many different "models" from each manufacturer? Let's say 2.

So, 7 * 2 = 14, 14 * 361 = 5054 facts to check. yea, you could probably find a way to whack that down, probably to a manageable level of, oh, say 2000?

Now pricing....gotta call the retailers to get the "street pricing"...., some retailers will sell for more, or less than others...so, that's ....well, forget the math...that's an insane amount of fact checking.

Hey, if we were Speed World Challenge, and we had, oh, 8 cars classed, that might be manageable, but .......

I agree with Kirk, it's a valiant ideal, but it's far from workable.

[shwah]

I'm still in the camp that the justifiction for ADDING complexity to the rule (when the shock configuration limitation language was included) was not valid. Thus I don't see why we don't take it back out and leave the simpler any shock with up to two adjustments is allowed.

I won't be changing my shocks, but I like simpler rules.

[Greg Amy]

Offer anyone who builds a GRM "$2009 challenge" car $2009 for their car and they'll laugh in your face.
Same thing I was thinking of.

Nice thought, but unworkable. NASA tries it with additional prep points for shocks that cost "more than $xxx". Problem is, what if you build them yourself? For example, Kessler fab'd the struts on my NX2000; the 8611 inserts cost (I think?) $200 each, who's to say Kessler did all the other work for "free"? So now I have a set of struts that he won't make for anyone else for anything less than ~$2000 per set, yet mine are listed for $800?

As Kirk noted, a claim rule would address this, but it's not in the culture. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

who's to say Kessler did all the other work for "free"? - GA

He would! HA! Seriously, your struts were the FIRST thing I thought of when this came up. Not workable.

[racingralph]

given the ok , we will go back to reservoirs for our shocks.one of the adjustments is in the "cans" , the othe other on the shock. without the "cans" all we have is very high dollar single adjustable shocks. so to rules makers , tell me , yes we can or no we can't use the remote reservoirs that came with our shocks. maybe some day ..... ralph

[lateapex911]

given the ok , we will go back to reservoirs for our shocks.one of the adjustments is in the "cans" , the othe other on the shock. without the "cans" all we have is very high dollar single adjustable shocks. so to rules makers , tell me , yes we can or no we can't use the remote reservoirs that came with our shocks. maybe some day ..... ralph

Keep your eye on Fastrack.

[quadzjr]

Keep your eye on Fastrack.

I was also told that on another subject.. :D I guess July is going to be loaded with IT stuff.

[rsportvolvo]

Correct, because JRZ doesn't make/isn't set up for non RR shocks, so of course it is going to cost more.

Check again. JRZ has non-RR DA dampers (acutally a twin-tube design vs. the RR JRZ's monotube design).

http://www.jrzsuspension.com/index.php?id=17,16,0,0,1,0

[rsportvolvo]

Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.

Tak,
Your thinking on damper adjustment shaft velocity ranges is incorrect. Damping tuning in the lower shaft velocities is more beneficial. High speed adjustments are good for curbs and other large imperfections (overly simple examples). The damper spends most of its time in the lower shaft velocity ranges. To back my arguement up take a look at a damper histogram. It looks like a flattened bell curve (er, should). So having the low speed adjustments is what you want. Why have an adjustment that effects 25% of your overall damping?
____________________

Additionally most folks look at RR's, adjustments, mono-tube, twin-tube, triple-tube etc. in isolation. The damper is a system in itself and must be looked at with that understanding. Additionally there are different operating principles that various manufacturer's prefer. Some work best with a RR and some don't.

Damper tuning is emperical engineering and not theoretical engineering. So formulas, degrees and such don't mean as much as a good testing regiment. The best sedan damper guy I've worked with only has a HS diploma, but he works magic on chassis setups.

Bottom line is if you don't corner balance your car regularly and change setups at the track you're wasting time and money on adjustable dampers.

[jimmyc]

Check again. JRZ has non-RR DA dampers (acutally a twin-tube design vs. the RR JRZ's monotube design).

http://www.jrzsuspension.com/index.php?id=17,16,0,0,1,0

correct, they just released those, what 4 months ago?

they have a twin tube double adjustable, and a mono-tube single adjustable non-RR

[rsportvolvo]

correct, they just released those, what 4 months ago?

they have a twin tube double adjustable, and a mono-tube single adjustable non-RR

Nah, it's been at least 18 months as I spoke with them about it at the PRI show in 2007 and they were available then. When they became available is not the point. They are currently available and a good option for the IT crowd. Some Pro teams even run these twin-tube JRZ's on occasion, that is from the JRZ USA reps.

[jimmyc]

Nah, it's been at least 18 months as I spoke with them about it at the PRI show in 2007 and they were available then. When they became available is not the point. They are currently available and a good option for the IT crowd. Some Pro teams even run these twin-tube JRZ's on occasion, that is from the JRZ USA reps.

hmm interesting i thought they became available first of 09...


I have a set of the mono-tube single adjustable, as soon as my car is back together im going to do some testing with them.

[Tak]

Damping tuning in the lower shaft velocities is more beneficial. High speed adjustments are good for curbs and other large imperfections (overly simple examples). The damper spends most of its time in the lower shaft velocity ranges. To back my arguement up take a look at a damper histogram. It looks like a flattened bell curve (er, should). So having the low speed adjustments is what you want. Why have an adjustment that effects 25% of your overall damping?
____________________


Bottom line is if you don't corner balance your car regularly and change setups at the track you're wasting time and money on adjustable dampers.

RSportVolvo-
I agree with your bottom line, but disagree with your reasoning on the high speed/low speed part. Recall that high speed or low speed refers to the damper controlling either chassis movement (low speed) or wheel movement (high speed). The four combinations are:
1) high speed compression--bumps or kerbs.
2) Low speed compression--chassis roll, loaded side.
3) Low speed rebound--chassis roll, unloaded side.
4) High speed rebound--extending the tire toward the ground.
Every DA shock I have seen or looked into adjusts high speed compression and high speed rebound. The strategy for adjustment is to increase compression damping until the car 'skates' on bumpy surfaces, then back off two or three clicks. Rebound is increased to control the rate of body roll--and to adjust turn in / exit understeer/oversteer. Managing bumps and kerbs is vital to sustained traction--in my opinion it is the most important adjustment on a damper!
There is a great description of shock tuning at http://www.koniracing.com/rrtuningguide.cfm
To your point on the damper histogram, yes, high speed is a smaller percentage of the histogram. But on the track, every time you are at the traction limit, that high speed portion of the histrogram really matters!!!
Here is a link that shows a few dyno curves for adjsutable shocks--see that the high speed is where the adjustment is happening.
http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets6.html
(The curves from the koni site require downloading a 5MB pdf...).

Enjoy
Tak

[rsportvolvo]

Tak,

I inserted my responses below.


RSportVolvo-
I agree with your bottom line, but disagree with your reasoning on the high speed/low speed part. Recall that high speed or low speed refers to the damper controlling either chassis movement (low speed) or wheel movement (high speed). The four combinations are:
1) high speed compression--bumps or kerbs.
2) Low speed compression--chassis roll, loaded side.
3) Low speed rebound--chassis roll, unloaded side.
4) High speed rebound--extending the tire toward the ground.

Depending on what you define as low speed and high speed, you are agreeing with me (we're saying the same thing). Please define what you mean by low speed and high speed, i.e. specifc ranges with numerical values.


Every DA shock I have seen or looked into adjusts high speed compression and high speed rebound.

Most low speed adjustments will affect the high speed section of the curve. Did you look at the low speed ranges?


The strategy for adjustment is to increase compression damping until the car 'skates' on bumpy surfaces, then back off two or three clicks. Rebound is increased to control the rate of body roll--and to adjust turn in / exit understeer/oversteer. Managing bumps and kerbs is vital to sustained traction--in my opinion it is the most important adjustment on a damper!

Your thinking is quite common. You're trying to use the damper to mask other problems. I prefer actual data (dyno plots). Please read through the Far North Racing link you posted as the writer and I are in complete agreement. You're take is not inline with ours.


There is a great description of shock tuning at http://www.koniracing.com/rrtuningguide.cfm

Good entry level primer, nothing detailed. Koni's 28 series manual is better along with Penske's and the Ohlins TT-44 manual (much more detailed.)


To your point on the damper histogram, yes, high speed is a smaller percentage of the histogram. But on the track, every time you are at the traction limit, that high speed portion of the histrogram really matters!!!

High speed damper velocites only occur if you're on kerbs and bumps. You can lose traction on smooth sections too. It's car/track/setup specific. I think you're confusing damper shaft velocity with peak cornering speed.


Here is a link that shows a few dyno curves for adjsutable shocks--see that the high speed is where the adjustment is happening.
http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets6.html
(The curves from the koni site require downloading a 5MB pdf...).

Enjoy
Tak

That link proves my point and disproves yours. The author is stating that the key range to look at is the low speed range, specifically 3.0 in/sec and lower. The Penske speed range is only to 3.0 in/sec (Penske rebound sweep & Penske 8760 sweep), the Penske 8100 compression adjuster (auther states as being "junk") range is 10 in/sec and the Koni is in excess of 10 in/sec. You can only compare the same ranges, otherwise it's apples to oranges. I highly recommend you reread the Far North Racing link (all pages are a good read) and review what you posted. They are not inline with each other.

Thanks for posting the links and making me re-think my current position on damper tuning.

[Tak]

Hi David-
Not looking for an argument, just voicing a difference of opinion. And to a very large extent, yes, we are saying the same thing.
My definition of 'high speed compression' is anything higher than the chassis roll rate. 'high speed rebound' again, is anything higher than the chassis roll rate. Assigning a number is pointless, as it changes from car to car, and changes with spring rate and damper rate on the same car. Physically for the damper, high speed is after the knee, low speed is before it. I believe the knee should be above the chassis roll rate. I do agree with what the farnorth racing guy is saying--especially the .65 critical damping at lower damper speeds (to dissipate stored energy in the spring). Do keep in mind that he is talking autocross, where the lower average speed results in lower damper piston speeds over bumps. His cited data is from Topeka, that I have heard is fairly smooth (or was before a few winters), I've not been there.
Some real life examples of why I think adjusting high speed damping is more important
1) Thunderhill turn 2 (bumpy ~80mph 180 degree sweeper). With too stiff compression, the chassis bounces noticably (upsets my onboard video too) and the tires skate over bumps after the car takes a set. Soften the compression damping front and rear, the chassis smoothes out, and tires grip. Turn in feels marginally better with the stiffer compression. Stopwatch shows approximately 0.5 to 0.7 sec faster through T2 with softer compression all around. Are the bumps and undulations moving the dampers at 2, 3, 4, whatever in/sec? I don't know, I don't have that kind of data acq. The fact that the chassis doesn't bounce as much suggests that wheels are moving and the chassis is not--i.e. high speed compression damping lets the wheel come up without upsetting the chassis.
2) Turns 3 and 4 at Laguna Seca (smooth ~90 degree corners with dragons teeth apex berms). These corners can be done with either soft or hard compression damping equally--because the track is smooth. BUT, with softer compression, I can use ~6" more apex berm, and that makes it MUCH easier to keep tires out of the dirt on the exit. Especially useful when following someone closely, or being followed by a car that is not as compliant over the berms...

If I changed springs for each track, adjusting low speed damping might be more important...I don't know.

Good dialog, thanks for the pointer to the Ohlins setup page.

Tak