http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-may.pdf
this should be grounds for some fun discussion :happy204:
Printable View
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-may.pdf
this should be grounds for some fun discussion :happy204:
Allow me to start with my discontent...
ARE YOU JOKING?! :rolleyes:
Quick! Run for your carburated Datsun! There's all sorts of scary newfangled technology out there these days!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...eff/images.jpg
Allow me to reiterate this new nonsensical ruling for you all.
If you intend to race a car that came from the factory with any sort of advanced technology in Improved Touring, please be ready get screwed over because the consensus of the ITAC and CRB is to run and hide from all that is new and/or different.
I am now left with two options for my ITR Honda S2000.
1) run stock remote reservoir rear dampers that are utilized from the factory due to space constraints
or
2) run aftermarket non-remote reservoir dampers that are complete junk, as they can not be of the remote reservoir design that is clearly required due to space constraints
great logic there, guys. This really makes it fun and easy to be involved in the SCCA. :)
Damn, that's awkward. That's like packin' on 40 pounds of words into a 2-pound problem...
How about we just put in an exception on the Honda S2000 spec line, stating "OEM remote reservoir rear shocks are allowed"...?
I guess I don't read it that way. To me it says RR's are bueno if the car came with them from the manufacturer (stock). If, however, you want to change them from the stock units to something else, then RR's no bueno, and normal IT rules apply. How else could it be implemented?
Si??
R
The ITAc decided that it didn't want to open the door to RRs at this time. But, it also knows that cars that come with RRs might not be limited to one car. It decided to make a categorical ruling, rather than a line item exception that would need repeating. One thing you can say, is that the ITAc is trying it's best to keep line items exceptions to a minimum.
I am sure some will like the ruling, some won't care, and some will hate it.
And if the ruling were different, we'd have the same acceptance/hate, except the roles would be reversed, LOL>
Hopefully we will see more Porsches in ITB at the new weight.:happy204:
Repeated for...what other car? So you're planning on re-wording the rules for Miata hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and the Petty bar rules for small coupes with only two seats (a la Honda del Sol)? After all, those have more than one instance.
It's awkward. It's hard to read. It's wordy. And you know what happens with hard-to-read wordy rules...but, hey, it's your bed...
I agree with Greg, it does seem better to put information on the spec line for each car that can use RR's. As an inspector how am I to know which car can use them and which can't? If the Honda is the exception, put it on the spec line.
w0w ... I have been trying to drink the S.Club Koolaid and not rant about the dumb rules, but you guys just keep churning them out!!
Has the dumb threaded body shock and ECU rules of the past not been enough? Why do we need to paint people into these corners that only cubic dollars will get them out of. Just write the rule as "of non-remote reservoir type (unless fitted as stock)" and be done with it!!!
We already limit adjustment to 2, so you ware not going to sneak in Formula1 dampers.
Maybe someone will list all the remote reservoir type dampers that are on the market which would meet the 2 adjustability max rule of IT. I am sure there is nothing in there that will cause the sky to fall.
Have to agree with Zsolt. If fitted as stock, then the S2000 guys should be able to use any two adjustment damper, RR or otherwise. THis sheet be crazee man.
Some things to think about - not choosing sides:
The S2000 used RR in the rear only. Is your intention to allow only the rear aftermarket RR's or is it to allow the whole car RR's?
If you only allow the rear, people will write in for an allowable 'matched set'. If you allow the whole car, you have created an exception to the rule. Do you line item this car only?
Why not try and create a rule now (however seemingly cumbersome) that reflects current thinking but also covers any future models classed instead of making exceptions for each as they pop up?
There are some big guiding principles that the ITAC seems to try to fall back on, particularly when the doo-doo is looking like it might get deep and sticky.
One is that we're trying like hell to avoid make/model specific exceptions to the general rules. The current philosophy is that the good of the entire category benefits from bigger thinking, more so than it would from a patchwork of little decisions - even if each might seem "right" to particular people who own a particular car. The point at which something is good for one car, it should be good for the entire category, seems like. And if a line-item allowance for RR shocks were made for one model, there'd be a hew and cry about "competitive advantage" and it'd be Katie bar the door. Right?
Setting aside the issue of whether there IS an advantage for the moment (an open question, about which reasonable people seem to differ), how do we equitably tell the Integra guys they don't get the cool toys when the S2000 guys do? Perceptions matter, and an allowance for one car would, in the real world, translate quickly into a de facto rule change across the board.
The wording is a little funky because we tried to put it in terms of what the rule would ALLOW, rather than what it might PROHIBIT. That's another big-picture principle, as part of an effort to head off wacky interpretations and loopholes, and anticipate new technology coming along. It might be a new emphasis so we've got some things to learn but I hope the concept is at least appreciated.
It was also our understanding that there are perfectly reasonable non-RR aftermarket parts for the car in question. While Jeff's interpretation (ITA77, not Young) is spot on - keep the stock bits or replace them with non-RR units - he's only limited to the same "junk" that everyone else has to run.
I will tell you that, while the change to the shock rule passed on to the board was something approaching a consensus decision, there was nothing like 100% agreement about any aspect of it. Your ITAC represents the same broad range of perspectives as does any handful of IT drivers. I don't believe we've heard the last of this issue but be sure that the ITAC thought this was the best answer at this time.
If you are pro or con RR shocks for the entire category, hone your case presentations. I gotta feeling we'll be hearing them in the coming months. :)
K
Understand the ITACs thinking on this, but I am (hopefully politely suggesting) that "it" (as in the collective it, not any specific one of you) is missing something that is fundamental to IT racing:
If it is stock on the car, you can run it even if otherwise prohibited. Adjustable timing gears. Rear spoiler. Ram air. Etc.
For me, the S2000 came with stock RR rear shocks. So, S2000 guys should be able to replace the rears only with any RR shock.
Requests for "matched sets" should be denied like any other "special request."
We disagreed. We felt that if it was stock on the car, you can absolutely run THE STOCK PART. No argument there, and that's what the clarification says.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that you can replace the stock part with a similar, but higher-performing part, if the rules don't generally allow that sort of higher-performing part. You are suggesting such an allowance would be "fundamental to IT racing" but ... where does that thought come from?
To use one of your examples: Are you suggesting that a car that comes with a stock rear wing can use any rear wing? Surely not.
No, I'm not, because the difference is that dampers are free otherwise. Wings are not.
If the car comes with stock RR dampers, and dampers are free, very logical to me to allow any RR damper.
Bad example on my part, I was trying to force one of your examples.
This is what happens when we write rules that say what you cannot do. So let me use another example ...
The rules say that a front spoiler may not attach aft of the front of the wheel well. But, you can add a front spoiler. Let's suppose a car comes with a front spoiler that attaches one inch rearward of that point. Can that car use a front splitter that extends all the way under the car, creating a flat (or even sculpted) bottom?
BTW, I recognize that this is still a forced example. The point is, Jeff, that what you are saying is "fundamental" is a pretty unique situation.
To clarify, my personal issue with the rule as proposed above is NOT whether to allow RR shocks in the class. At all. My issue is that you're using a broad-brush 40 pounds of words to address an allowance on one specific issue.
With one specific car.
Which is what spec line exceptions are for.
It's that simple. Or, well, it can be...
Just ineligiblize that Honda--case closed.
There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.
I'm 100% with the ITAC on this one.
I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup. :024:
Not enough coffee yet but I'm not tracking, Greg - we didn't make an allowance for a specific issue for a specific car. The point is that the same rule applies to everyone, the same way. Or am I not understanding what you're saying...?
K
EDIT - I think maybe your point is that we rewrote the rule to deal with one special case? Maybe. I think the S2K catalyzed the conversation, certainly. Your saying we should have left it alone and stipulated in the ITCS line that this car had to run non-RR shocks in the rear, regardless of how it came equipped?
What was that Bob guy's last name? Oh, yeah - STRETCH.
...as in that's a stretch.
There doesn't need to be any rule "limiting the revalve of the stock unit" - it's inherent to the rules set. "Replace" means "replace" - as in anything other than the stock part. Is there a rule specifically prohibiting the "revalving" of, say, valve springs?
K
Close, but no.
Remember that whole S2k discussion thread? 'Course you do, it's what generated this proposed rule. To summarize as I understand it, the S2k comes stock with RR shocks. The S2k has been classified in ITR. The rules stipulate that RR are prohibited, ergo the S2k is not legal to use its original equipment shocks. So, you ("ITAC" you) are addressing this to allow the S2k - and any other car that comes stock with RR shocks - to run the stock RR shocks unless they replace them with aftermarket, non-OEM, non-applicable-to-the-aftermarket-stock-replacement- parts rule. If they do replace their shocks with performance replacements, they must adhere to the standard non-RR rule.
Yes?
If all that's accurate, then I stand by what I'm writing above. My point is, why write an over-reaching rule, applying to all cars in the category, when it only affects one, single spec line? Why not, instead, say the above one that cars' spec line only? And, if another car comes around with remote reservoir shocks, write it in that car's spec line too? Doing so means, at worst, you accidentally open up a Pandora's box of incorrect interpretation one one specific car which is a HELL of a lot easier to correct than writing an over-reaching rule that each and every competitor is going to parse to its nth degree to try and make it to their advantage...
If you follow this logic, then you should write over-reaching rules applicable to all cars, even though items are model-specific, such as Miata/BMW hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and rollcage designs to 2-seater coupes.
Besides, it's not like we're suddenly expecting a plethora of cars with remote reservoir shocks from the factory. There's just the one...
Spec lines exceptions are there to address model-specific differences. That's what this RR rule is all about: Honda S2000 rear shocks. Period. Don't write a 40# rule for everyone that is only, in actuality, intended for one car. Write into the S2k spec line:
"Original, unmodified rear OEM shocks are approved."
Interesting COA case listed. Did that guy really think he would get away with stealing a few laps? What a mess that would have been had there been an injury on track where he was involved. I think the original driver should have been held responsible also. I guess there was no action against the original driver since the replacement driver was just listed as an emergency contact and not crew.
:bash_1_:
Quote:
There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.
I have to assume you're joking otherwise that just plain stupid. There aren't a lot of many different types of models around which makes things very interesting and fun in IT. If the ITAC believed that, they never would have taken the time to class it and use a different weight determination process. Maybe it's just because I drive a Honda model which there are not that many around. :rolleyes:
Are there some good options that would work for the S2000? I can't remember what was said on rr-ax, but did Lee at Koni say they could make a race suspension (non rr) for them?
I'm not seeing it as black and white on the spec line exception listing subject.
I'm still thinking a general rule, (come on, we're smart enough to read complex sentences, and if we're not, we can call a brighter friend) is better, as it fends of unforeseen future examples. Honestly, maybe we class a car, oh..say, the RGX-9...and mid year '04s have an upgrade to the suspension which included a blingy set of Tein RR dampers.
Well, guess what we do?
Nothing.
It's in the rules.
No tech bulleting, no research for the actual date, no exception line writing that gets the date wrong in a typo, or anything equally goofy.
As for tech, it's really not a concern until the paper flies, right? As a tech inspector, you might mention to a competitor who presents his car for his logbook inspection or in impound that RRs aren't in IT, but all he needs to do is point out the rule that lists them as OK. If it goes further, you're handling protest papers, and the documentation from the protester, and the protestee that goes along with that, and your job is simple.
I think this is a perfect example of when a spec line exception IS the most appropriate solution. How many cars out there now come stock with RR shocks? Then, how many of those are potential IT candidates? When (if) the time comes when there is more than one RR car in IT, THEN worry about re-writing the rules. I understand the desire to be proactive, and try to look into the future, but I think in this case it isn't warranted.
I would much rather the ITAC start thinking about more likely potential problems, such as the day when MOST of the cars coming into IT are equipped with ABS and/or traction control.
Thanks, Greg - I get it. I think that the consensus was as Jake describes, although I do agree that your suggested type of "spec line exemption" isn't as poisonous as most examples we could come up with.
K
EDIT - I echo your concern on that front, Earl.
Is an S2000 driver allowed to revalve his stock RR shocks, or must the remain totally stock?
I think we are taking something away from the S2000 that we do not take from others. The S2000 has a stock "advantage" that normally in IT we are allowed to exploit.
Stock parts have to be stock - not believing that anyone is really likely to do that in this particular case, they shouldn't be prevented from doing what others can. (That being "nothing.")
K
Jeff,
Evidently the PTB think that you should be happy to just have a place to lap your new ride. Sometimes the most common of sense fall short. Sorry you got caught up in it.
I know we have to try to keep it fair, but sometimes the keepers of the rules are racing in areas that are thick with participants. They may not think so but it does factor in to the thinking process. Having competitive S2Ks in our DIV would be significant as we need all the IT numbers we can get. Come on back to "A" we could use you there too. I disagrreed with the anti RR crowd anyway. This is not vintage racing. RR shocks can be found cheaper in some cases then mono shocks. Of course all this was himhawed back and forth before the new ruling came out. They (CRB) made a call for good or bad (for the class as a whole) and basically it sucks for you and the rest of those who might want to run an S2k. Get that thing built and beat'em with stock shocks.
i don't get it Mac.
there are perfectly capable monotube shocks available for the rear of the S2K today, at no performance disadvantage to RR. he's allowed to run stock shocks if he really wants to.
arguing the wording of the rule is one thing, but i think the intent is correct.
The suggestion being that not allowing potential S2000 entrants to use aftermarket RR rear shocks is going to keep them from participating at all? Or that those parts are going to be the only thing preventing them from being competitive, thereby keeping them at home?
K
There is a whole concept that most of you are missing here and I feel that none of you have any clue what I'm trying to say. Is it poor communication on my side or poor listening on yours?
The purpose of a remote reservoir is simply to fit "a lot of shock" into "a little place". They are not magic, they do not make a car fly around the track setting 50% lower lap times. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.
Now, let's get on with things. There is a car called the Honda S2000. It was engineered with remote reservoir rear dampers because there is very little space in the rear suspension. The rear dampers are very short and thus a remote reservoir damper was the only way to properly dampen each the rear wheels. This is only on the rear. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.
The next concept to present is that we are allowed to make modifications to our cars to make them more suitable for racing use. This includes changing out dampers to those that are more suitable for racing use. It's very commonplace... we all do it.
Due to the specific design of the S2000, most of the matched sets of good aftermarket dampers have a normal front damper and a remote reservoir rear damper. Just like original equipment. Seriously.. the bodies look just the same; a piggyback remote reservoir because there is no space within the body of the damper.
http://www.modacar.com/Merchant2/gra...ss_dampers.jpg
https://improvedtouring.com...5&d=1204068843
With the current rule, I would be forced to run a non-remote reservoir in the rear if I wish to upgrade my dampers like everyone else. Any product for the S2000 that has rear dampers of a non-remote reservoir design would be junk. I am not saying they are junk simply because they are non remote reservoir, I am saying they are junk because the S2000 doesn't have the physical space to support an non-remote reservoir damper that would be adequate.
Any thing look strange here guys?
http://www.mvpmotorsports.com/Mercha...sus/grplus.jpg
Do you guys understand the concepts that I am trying to present? For the fifth time, I am not seeking to gain a competition advantage (for the rear) of the S2000. If I wanted a comp. adjustment, I would be trying to get the ludicrous book weight of 3,005lbs lowered.
finally, I present an example:
-Car XYZ comes from the factory with special magic laser brake pads.
-Special magic laser brake pads are banned in IT, but the car was classed anyway.
-We are allowed to upgrade "brake pads" to that which are suitable for racing use in IT
-Car XYZ should obviously be able to upgrade to a racing grade of special magic laser brake pads too.
*but*
The ITAC and CRB are scared of special magic laser brake pads becuase they are new and scary and then we will all instanly be racing prod. cars with washer fluid tanks. :)
I don't know how to explain this in a more basic fashion. This is my opinion and yes, I am an a**hole. I am also entiteld to be 100% wrong on this, but I think that I am correct and there were 19 votes in my favor from the previous thread.
Jeff, the 1st place I looked I found a race suspension for a S2000 and I'll bet there better than what you have now.