Threaded shock bodies

Hello. I have a pair of rear shocks that have threaded bodies and I understand that they aren't permitted. However, my car's rear suspension design has the springs seperate from the shocks. The springs aren't wound around the shock body and the threaded part would be unused. Is it still considered illegal? No threads no matter what? Thanks!

Eric

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric R287:
Hello. I have a pair of rear shocks that have threaded bodies and I understand that they aren't permitted. However, my car's rear suspension design has the springs seperate from the shocks. The springs aren't wound around the shock body and the threaded part would be unused. Is it still considered illegal? No threads no matter what? Thanks!

I believe they are 100% legal. What's more is I've seen a letter from a CB member who believes the same thing. Of course, neither means anything in the long run. What matters is what the court of appeals thinks.

I think the operative concept here is you would not be using threaded body coilovers which is what is forbidden. There is absolutely nothing in the ITCS that forbids threaded body dampers. Only threaded body coilovers.

I certainly intend to use theaded body dampers on the rear of my 944 (torsion bars).

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Hey Darin, pay attention, here's a classic example of mis-information.

Quote:

is absolutely nothing in the ITCS that forbids threaded body dampers. Only threaded body coilovers.

17.1.4.D.5.b.5 reads as follows:

Quote:

coil-over struts or shock aborbers, (my emphasis) where a threaded sleeve is permanently attached to a housing, are prohibited, unless fitted as standard equipment. 

Guess you missed that, huh George?

Eric,

There are plenty of things in the GCR and ITCS that don't seem to make much sense. The way I read the rule is that no, you can't use them, even if the springs aren't over the shocks. Unfortunately, the only way to get a definative ruling on this is either through the protest/appeal process or through a rules clarification request (send in your $250).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quote:

Coil-over struts or shock absorbers, where a threaded sleeve is permanently attached to a housing...

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Hey Darin, pay attention, here's a classic example of mis-information.

I don't know why, when you have George here to discuss this with, you keep insisting on dragging my name into these things, but since you have...

So, is it (emphasis mine...) "Coil-over struts OR <Coil-over> shock absorbers, ..."

OR is it "Coil-over struts or <any> shock absorbers..."

In other words, is the "coil-over" part considered distributive???

I understand, as George does, that it is. Bill has decided (big suprise) that he will take the opposite interpretation...

Most "unofficial, official" interpretations and discussions I've been party to indicate the first reading, which would mean that a shock absorber, WITHOUT a "coil-over", but that has a threaded body, would be perfectly legal...

If you think this needs better clarification, be sure to write your always willing to help local ITAC and Comp Board...

Don't bother writing to see if you can get Bill corrected... there isn't much we can do about that...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/...1203_thumb.jpg

Easier solution:

Remove the threads from the body.

Some reasonable person may argue the intent is to prohibit coil-overs on threaded bodies, and since you aren't utilizing them for spring mounting/location adjustment you aren't really "illegal".

However, another reasonable person may argue that your threaded body shocks provide a advantage since they provide better cooling through their much larger surface area.

It's a lot simpler to remove the threads and let reasonable people disagree about someone elses' car http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

--Daryl

Interesting point Daryl, but I don't think there's anything in the GCR about additional cooling being illegal. Additionally, just because something provides an advantage doesn't automatically make it illegal.

Also, I have to concur with George and Darin, and I think probably 99 out of 100 other people who would conclude that the adjective 'coil-over' modifies both 'struts' and 'shock absorbers' in this case.

Lastly, since the GCR specifically defines 'coil-over shock' as "A tubular shock absorber which contains top and bottom mounting locations for a coaxial spring, and is used with such a spring supporting the weight of the car." (emphasis added) it seems pretty clear (IMHO) that Eric's application is perfectly legal.

------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited October 13, 2003).]

Well there you go Eric, if someone ever protests you, you can just say "Darin and George say they're legal, and they're on the ITAC."

Matter of fact, you don't even need to buy or read the GCR, just ask them. It's obvious that they know everything about every rule interpretation, and just how it will go.

Daryl's solution should eliminate any problems. There have been stories of people doing this w/ Penske and Koni shocks and being found to be in compliance.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

The rule prohibits coilovers with premanently attached threads, not threaded body dampers. Small distinction, but an important one.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well there you go Eric, if someone ever protests you, you can just say "Darin and George say they're legal, and they're on the ITAC."

Matter of fact, you don't even need to buy or read the GCR, just ask them. It's obvious that they know everything about every rule interpretation, and just how it will go.

How old are you??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

I don't recall anyone so far saying anything about what is and isn't legal, and I certainly know that no one here has thrown around any "official" position on the matter...

Re-reading what I posted... it is very clear that what WAS presented was a reasonable discussion about the matter, complete with an arguable opinion, and the open ended possibility that that opinion could very well be wrong. Hence the "if you think it's unclear, you sould write..." etc. etc. etc...

Thankfully, I believe that most everyone else here got it...

You know... when I was first ASKED to be on the ITAC, we discussed the public presence (i.e.: message boards) and how we were to handle questions like this... It was suggested that, in order to avoid ABSURD comments such as:

Quote:

\"Darin and George say they're legal, and they're on the ITAC.\"

and

Quote:

\"you don't even need to buy or read the GCR, just ask them.\"

That we just simply say... "hmmm... that's an interesting question. You should write that to the Comp Board."

Sure am glad that 99% of the participants here don't follow your train of "logic" and that you've yet to deter me... I'd hate to have that group deprived of the open communication that we are trying to provide...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/...1203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Thanks for all the information! The shocks in question aren't installed on my car.

After getting an idea of all the IT rules from this forum I'm a little freaked out. My car has been gutted of a lot of things and would probably make it illegal. Although, nothing has been added to the car to make it illegal.

Not sure what I'm going to do at this point...

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well there you go Eric, if someone ever protests you, you can just say "Darin and George say they're legal, and they're on the ITAC."

Matter of fact, you don't even need to buy or read the GCR, just ask them. It's obvious that they know everything about every rule interpretation, and just how it will go.

This feud you've got going is really getting tiresome. I've begun avoiding topics once I see you guys get going. When you feel your temperature rising, why not just wait a day before you respond. We'll all thank you for it.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Quote:

Originally posted by Eagle7:
This feud you've got going is really getting tiresome.

I hear you, and have already decided to take action to avoid this in the future...

If anyone needs any information I might be able to provide, my e-mail address is:

[email protected]

Feel free to contact me... I don't have all the answers, but am always willing to discuss and try to reach a conclusion...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/...1203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Eric, I know what you are talking about...it seems like there is a lot of gray in the rules...do what I did...ask you reagon Tech. guy. He will let you know how to go.

Quote:

Originally posted by erlrich:
Also, I have to concur with George and Darin, and I think probably 99 out of 100 other people who would conclude that the adjective 'coil-over' modifies both 'struts' and 'shock absorbers' in this case.

Lastly, since the GCR specifically defines 'coil-over shock' as "A tubular shock absorber which contains top and bottom mounting locations for a coaxial spring, and is used with such a spring supporting the weight of the car." (emphasis added) it seems pretty clear (IMHO) that Eric's application is perfectly legal.

Perfect post. When the rules seem grey, look to other areas for definitions/clarifications. Legal IMHO.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

The rulebook could be SO much better if someone were actually empowered to rewrite sections of it as questions arise and technology changes. As it is, the process seems to allow changes only a line or two at a time - adding, deleting, or editing just few words at a time.

K

Quote:

Originally posted by Knestis:
As it is, the process seems to allow changes only a line or two at a time - adding, deleting, or editing just few words at a time.

K

I thought people didn't want a moving target? Can you imagine the uproar if IT was more like Solo in that the rules committees just made changes and everyone had to adjust wholesale?

Besides, if IT truely "isn't broken", isn't minor tweaking all it really needs???

Just asking because these are all things you have all said in the past...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/We...1203_thumb.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by Knestis:
The rulebook could be SO much better if someone were actually empowered to rewrite sections of it as questions arise and technology changes. As it is, the process seems to allow changes only a line or two at a time - adding, deleting, or editing just few words at a time.

K

Kirk, I agree with you. The problem is that with rewrites (just like writing rules initially) is unintended consequences. That would lead to the moving target that Darin is talking about.

I understand both sides of this equation. You are right that changing a line at a time or a few words at a time makes some of the rules seem disjointed and leaving one thinking they need a secret decoder ring. I will say that if one does read carefully, most things can be figured out. Too bad it takes so much effort. However, the other side of this is potentially, there could be many large changes on a regular basis and this would bring its own problems.

I don't know what the answer is. Of course, with a smaller population (such as with a pro series) this is easier to do because unintended consequences are generally found pretty quickly and can even be handled on a personal level.

Much tougher in club racing.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Quote:

I understand, as George does, that it is. Bill has decided (big suprise) that he will take the opposite interpretation...

Quote:

Don't bother writing to see if you can get Bill corrected... there isn't much we can do about that...

Don't expect to take shots at me Darin and not have me say anything. As I said, your arrogance is only surpassed by your lack of objectivity.

It is entirely possible that in the GCR citing that I posted, that the term "coil over" is distributive. It's also entirely possible that it is not. Without clarification from the rule making body, reasonable people could go either way on it. Although, you seem to have a problem w/ me taking that position.

This is a case of someone new to SCCA racing trying to get information on the legality of his shocks. Would you rather him take an opinion on legality and risk having a steward or tech inspect that does not see "coil over" as distributive?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric R287:
Thanks for all the information! The shocks in question aren't installed on my car.

After getting an idea of all the IT rules from this forum I'm a little freaked out. My car has been gutted of a lot of things and would probably make it illegal. Although, nothing has been added to the car to make it illegal.

Not sure what I'm going to do at this point...

uh oh! don't freak out about it yet! And don't judge the whole IT community by what you read here...actually, there are a bunch of great guys who actually race out there in the real world, and none of them are going to bust your stones about your rear shocks having threads. (and hard to believe, http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif a lot of the guys on this forum are cool as well!)

IMHO, they are legal, but even if they aren't, they won't be an issue unless you are beating the field, and someone is sure your motor is illegal, but doesn't want to bet big...so he will go for the shocks instead! But there are two things that would have to happen for a protest to fly...you will have to be at the front of the field, and you'll have to piss of the wrong person! Most of us would rather have a talk and discuss things before the paper flys.

I suggest you sit down and give the rule book a good reading, then decide if you have major items that are illegal. If you do, take care of those, but if it's minor stuff, do your best and work at it, but don't stay away from the track because your washer bottle is missing it's cap!

It's all about attitude!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Thanks to all of you! This all seems to be so much more difficult than I was expecting, but hopefully I can get everything sorted out.

Apart from the rear shocks, some the smaller things that I didn't consider an issue seem like they will become one. Such as, removal of pretty much everything inside of the interior besides the dash and guages.

I'll have to see what the people in my area(Chicago region) have to say. I really just want to get out and have some fun.

Quote:

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I hear you, and have already decided to take action to avoid this in the future...

Don't get discouraged, Daryl. The vast majority of us really appreciate the open dialogue that you, Andy, and Geo have brought to this forum.

Remember, just as some people feel that IT racing is a stepping stone to Production racing, similar people may also feel that the IT forum is a practice ground for the REAL griping on the Prod forum!

------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
..... similar people may also feel that the IT forum is a practice ground for the REAL griping on the Prod forum!

Oh...LOL...I'm not worthy! I have so much to learn....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Don't get discouraged, Daryl. The vast majority of us really appreciate the open dialogue that you, Andy, and Geo have brought to this forum.

Yes, please don't leave. I really DO appreciate the variety of opinions expressed, but the namecalling and personal attacks go over the line for me.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Quote:

Originally posted by Eagle7:
Yes, please don't leave.

Not leaving, just going to resist getting involved in pissing matches...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/We...1203_thumb.jpg