Remote res.dampers...your opinion...

[tnord]

anytime there's a debate about what to do with a rule it seems like the answer comes out as....."open it up!" won't take long for us to get to prod that way.

i certainly hope the majority of your post wasn't directed at me kirk.

PS - no i don't think it's OK the Isaac is left out.

[dj10]

There legal........there not legal........there legal.......there not legal........WTF OVER! :~)
Is there something broken with the rule as it is now? You already screwed some people big time when you abolished the RR rule the 1st time.
If you worried about new cars coming into IT with RR as factory OEM, have it read, "Cars with RR as OEM must run them as they came from the factory with no changes allowed." Let's see how many people keep their factory OEM RR.

[Rabbit07]

Should we start sending letters to the CRB? Is there a proposal in place? Just my two cents, but I would prefere that they be opened up, but remain two way adjustable.

[lateapex911]

There legal........there not legal........there legal.......there not legal........WTF OVER! :~)
Is there something broken with the rule as it is now? You already screwed some people big time when you abolished the RR rule the 1st time.
If you worried about new cars coming into IT with RR as factory OEM, have it read, "Cars with RR as OEM must run them as they came from the factory with no changes allowed." Let's see how many people keep their factory OEM RR.

Which is why that was one of the options of the poll, Dan.

[dj10]

Which is why that was one of the options of the poll, Dan.

My option is not on your poll.
It figures you guys would change the damn rule now that I am installing a new KW Suspension. ;~)

[lateapex911]

Dan, it is on the poll:

RR dampers allowed, but only the ones fitted as orig. equip

....the next option allows upgrading the RR dampers but only on cars so equipped from the factory.

Or are you saying they MUST run the stock dampers? Cute...

Remember, don't freak out...I'm just asking an opinion!

[77ITA]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now.

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now.

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

Actually, not how I read it. A RR shock is still a 'tube' shock, no?

Why is it Koni makes a non-RR for the S2000? How can that one fit? Why the reluctance to run custom-valved Koni Yellows?

Again, just playing Devil's advocate. I am all for 'unless fitted as OE'. Of course 'matching' your front and rear shocks might be hard...

[tnord]

Eleven votes now? I wish that I were able to describe how hard I am rolling my eyes right now.

Speaking specifically of the Honda S2000, the rear suspension was designed with RR dampers as original equipment. Honda didn't do it for fun, they did it due to space confinement... that's the design of the car. Any OE or high quality aftermarket replacement will utilize the same RR design and if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

i'm against RR jeff.

the exception should not make the rule, and of everything i've read, there's no good reason to change it and risk unintended consequences when there really isn't a problem in the first place. i don't know about this "change in damper type" issue, but whatever language change might be needed, it shouldn't include verbage to specifically allow RR shocks.

what is it you really want, to be able to run RR shocks, or do you want the language changed to make it legal for you to run the standard single tube stuff (assuming it isn't legal now)?

[GKR_17]

...if an individual would choose to use non RR dampers in their place, that would constitute a change in damper type.... which isn't legal either.

If that were true there would have been no reason to ban RR's in the first place.

[Knestis]

...i certainly hope the majority of your post wasn't directed at me kirk.

PS - no i don't think it's OK the Isaac is left out.

Sorry - that was "you" as in "one," not as in Travis.

K