let's define "remote reservoir" dampers...

[77ITA]

*edited*

To start with, a refresher on the rules (taken from '08 GCR):


b. Springs and Shock Absorbers

1. 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.
2. MacPherson strut equipped cars may substitute struts, and
/or may use alternate inserts. Spring seat ride height location
may be altered from stock. Remote reservoir struts
and/or inserts are prohibited.

Remote Reservoir Shock Absorber - Any shock absorber or dampening device which uses an externally mounted (connected either by hose or “piggy back” design) fluid and/or gas reservoir.

...and the question:

I'm building a Honda S2000 for ITR. The OEM rear shocks have what I consider to be an external reservoir due to space confinement. Subsequently, the aftermarket rear shocks I've found utilize the same design.

Here is a picture for reference.


The OEM shocks look just the same, save for the aluminum housing and threaded perch.

What do you guys think?

[Knestis]

From the GCR Glossary...

Remote Reservoir Shock Absorber - Any shock absorber or dampening device which uses an externally mounted (connected either by hose or “piggy back” design) fluid and/or gas reservoir.

[77ITA]

thanks, I updated my original post to include that.

So where exactly does that leave me if even the OE dampers are not legal? Does the simple fact that the car is classed in IT overrule the dis-allowance of external / remote reservoirs for the rear on this car in specific? Also, If I am able to find rear dampers that do not utilize external / remote reservoirs, would that constitute an illegal change in damper "type"?

Maybe I have to run the car without rear dampers!

[Greg Amy]

I think it's time to write a letter to the CRB...

Just about every shock has a reservoir of some kind, so it's not the existence of one that makes shocks illegal, it's the location. The Koni strut inserts I run, for example, have a co-axial reservoir, around the outside of the working cylinder. My reservoir is "remote" to the working cylinder but still legal, as it's not "external" (to what, I cannot explain).

Where the reservoir is located is a design issue of packaging, being able to fit as large a reservoir as possible within the space constraints allowed. Historically, shocks built with external reservoirs (external to the visible cylinder, i.e., you can actually see them as a separate part) were high-dollar, high-performance items; they were banned from IT due to being seen as far and above the spirit of the "low cost" rules. However, these days that's not the case; I can buy clearly-IT-legal struts from Koni for $1500 per corner that far and away exceed the performance of the ones I have now. That distinction of reservoir shocks being expensive and non-reservoir not is not only blurred, it's pretty much gone (I can buy cheap remote reservoir shocks off the IntarWeb that are total pieces of crap, and as described above I can buy non-reservoir shocks that are neat stuff).

What I'm trying to say here is the old boogity-boo about remote reservoir shocks - one that I personally supported ten years ago - is moot. Time to let that old prejudice die.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Greg, however most will cite 'rules creep' as an opposition. Plenty of good shock choices out there now without allowing RR units.

I do think a letter is in order however. The addition of "unless equipped as original equipment" would solve the issue.

[Gary L]

I'm firmly in the anti-creep camp, so I agree with Andy: "...unless originally equipped." is the way to handle this, IMO.

[Grumpy]

The key words here are "may be replaced". Therefore the OEM shocks are legal.

I thought direct replacement of OEM parts was OK in IT, but checking it, none of the references apply to IT. I withdraw my prior statement.

My interpretation for external reservoir shoks would be==> OEM - OK, direct replacement of OEM - NO, any non reservoir - OK. All else NO.

Just one opinion. I don't do SCCA tech anymore, but if I had to rule on a protest, just one opinon.

[JimLill]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??

[Grumpy]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??

But the GCR already says that. It says keeping OEM is OK, if you change the shock it must be.......

It says you MAY change it, not MUST change it.

[Z3_GoCar]

As much as every one hates it, I'd suggest a spec line allowance. Something like: " Stock dampers with a piggy back reservoir may be used or replaced with Shocks with a piggy back reservoir no larger than stock." This makes the most sense since it is the minimal change needed, but allow aftermarket tunning options.

James

[tnord]

that reeks of "in the stock box" to me.

if it came with them from the factory, keep em, otherwise....no dice.

[Rabbit07]

I find it ironic that Improved Touring banned remote reservoir shocks stating that they were too expensive and Touring allowed them stating that they were less expensive!? Hmm.............



The saga of the SCCA

[Knestis]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K

[tnord]

don't devalue symbolism kirk.

look at SM.

[dickita15]

But the GCR already says that. It says keeping OEM is OK, if you change the shock it must be.......

It says you MAY change it, not MUST change it.

I disagree with that point of view, “Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited.,Is a standalone sentence. It bans them regardless of if they are stock. No different than wider wheels or ABS.
I would vote for a spec line exception if the ITAC finds a suitable shock complying with the rules is rare.

[dj10]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K

I wouldn't mind a set of RR Moton's,TRZ or KW for about 2.

[Bill Miller]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K

There's a new sheriff in town!

[mlytle]

There's a new sheriff in town!

naw...just one more new member of the police force.....

[rcc85]

We could use the example of dry sumps: "Dry sump systems are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment" (ITCS 9.1.3.h) and say that "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment".

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

P.S. Are there any IT legal cars that came with dry sump oiling systems?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob, that was my first take as well. However, is the intent for those with OEM RR shocks to keep the OEM units or to allow them to swap out to any RR unit that fits the other rules?

If its the latter, what is your suggestion on how to write it?