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

[Andy Bettencourt]

I like your research!!!!

[Knestis]

Ick - I don't.

The "unless original equipment" thing is an extension of the rules stipulating what we can't do, rather than what we can. Every one of the clauses cited as examples should be deleted.

When the rules say "may" be replaced, they presume - IIDSYCYC - that the stock parts may be left. There's no question in my mind that the RR rear shocks on the Honda in question are perfectly legal.

And with respect to the ABS/traction control question, I've long believed it should be allowed to stay. It is NOT a no-cost thing to disable and every year those systems get more integrated into OE cars' ECUs. My wife is shopping for a new street ride and Consumer Reports won't rate something a "best buy" unless it's got active stability control - even econoshitboxes.

K

[JeffYoung]

Grafton and Kirk are both right - that language should be cleared up one way or the other, and probably as Kirk suggests. Grafton is right that the "unless fitted" language leads one to conclude that if that language is absent, then a prohibition in the ITCS covers even stock equipment. That shouldn't be that way, and the language he cites is problematic and should be removed.

Andy, you asked, what is the problem that removing the RR shock ban is designed to solve? I think it is this. A long time ago, we decided shocks were "free." Just like "exhaust" is free, or "brake pads" are free or "ECU" is free. Within those areas, we decided to allow innovation and development.

The RR shock ban changed that for an area that had been free for a long time, and cost competitors a lot of time and money. And, it was enacted for the wrong reason -- cost control. So, I guess it is more a fixing of a wrong than a solving of a problem. Or rather, reaffirming a long held IT principle that was deviated from for the wrong reasons.

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

[lateapex911]

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

But Jeff, you're all set with your Lee specials, why would you? :kool:

(:kool: is supposed to be the Koolaide pitcher smiley, but I don't have teh source code...

[ohno50]

It seems that what is not resolved is the issue that 1 car has OEM RR dampers. (covers shocks and struts).

1st deal with that issue.

As far the a general rule change for dampers, what is the purpose of the change?

Availability, Cost, Better Performance. Where is the data to support these factors or any factors that should be evaluated to call for any changes?

How about real numbers except stating that costs drop for one or anther reason!

[JeffYoung]

busted! LOL.....

But Jeff, you're all set with your Lee specials, why would you? :kool:

(:kool: is supposed to be the Koolaide pitcher smiley, but I don't have teh source code...

[lateapex911]

It seems that what is not resolved is the issue that 1 car has OEM RR dampers. (covers shocks and struts).

1st deal with that issue.

As far the a general rule change for dampers, what is the purpose of the change?

Availability, Cost, Better Performance. Where is the data to support these factors or any factors that should be evaluated to call for any changes?

How about real numbers except stating that costs drop for one or anther reason!

That's why it's a poll....to get your input, and maybe your ideas and logic.
While there IS one car that could be an issue, try to think of the bigger picture. What if this? or what if that?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you asked, what is the problem that removing the RR shock ban is designed to solve? I think it is this. A long time ago, we decided shocks were "free." Just like "exhaust" is free, or "brake pads" are free or "ECU" is free. Within those areas, we decided to allow innovation and development.

The RR shock ban changed that for an area that had been free for a long time, and cost competitors a lot of time and money. And, it was enacted for the wrong reason -- cost control. So, I guess it is more a fixing of a wrong than a solving of a problem. Or rather, reaffirming a long held IT principle that was deviated from for the wrong reasons.

And P.S. I will probably never run an RR shock.

I am not sure you are on the right track here Jeff. The exhaust rule has it's paramters, brake pads have their parameters, even the new ECU rule has it's parameters. Shocks also have their parameters.

To say shocks are 'free' opens you up to units that can perform better than what we have today (if one has the resources to get to that level of tune) by going to multi-adjustment units (way more than 2). You have to draw the line somewhere on everything.

Why move the line when there is no problem here to be addressed for the masses?

And why won't anyone acknowledge that the S2000 has 2-way mono tube options that aren't RR for the rear? It can meet the rules with ease. Nobody runs stock shocks anyway.

[JeffYoung]

True, I agree. But when have we ever changed an exhaust or brake pad or ECU rule to LIMIT what people were doing legally under the previous rule set?

I am not sure you are on the right track here Jeff. The exhaust rule has it's paramters, brake pads have their parameters, even the new ECU rule has it's parameters. Shocks also have their parameters.

To say shocks are 'free' opens you up to units that can perform better than what we have today (if one has the resources to get to that level of tune) by going to multi-adjustment units (way more than 2). You have to draw the line somewhere on everything.

Why move the line when there is no problem here to be addressed for the masses?

And why won't anyone acknowledge that the S2000 has 2-way mono tube options that aren't RR for the rear? It can meet the rules with ease. Nobody runs stock shocks anyway.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk makes an excellent point about the 'unless fitted as original equipment' language. There's no need for it to be there. The way I read the rules, anything that comes on the car stock, is legal (w/ a few special exceptions, like glass T-tops/sunroofs, etc.).

I am surprised that 6 people have voted to ban RR shocks, even if they were fitted as stock. What's up w/ that???

We saw how well the "no threaded body..." rule worked, people went out and had the threads turned off the bodies of Penske shocks and put sleeves over them. Spirt of the rule? No. Letter of the rule? Absolutely.

As far as the ABS/TC argument goes, once you opened up the ECU rule, you created an unpoliceable situation for TC. The ABS thing should be allowed, and should be just another 'adder' in the classification process. Car comes w/ ABS? That's worth 100#/5%/???.

And Kirk, it doesn't matter how intertwined the ABS/TC is w/ the stock ECU, you're free to toss that out the window now, and use one that could care less if the ABS or TC is there or not.

[lateapex911]

Kirk makes an excellent point about the 'unless fitted as original equipment' language. There's no need for it to be there. The way I read the rules, anything that comes on the car stock, is legal (w/ a few special exceptions, like glass T-tops/sunroofs, etc.).

I am surprised that 6 people have voted to ban RR shocks, even if they were fitted as stock. What's up w/ that???

yea. me too! I tossed that in there, just for giggles...but lo and behold, it's getting some action! AND, just as surprising, some out there think it'd be cool to develop active suspensions or metorlogical (I butchered THAT one, spelling-wise) shocks!

As far as the ABS/TC argument goes, once you opened up the ECU rule, you created an unpoliceable situation for TC.

Agreed, and one that was rather discriminating. Of course, ignition boxes have had the capability too, and they are allowed category wide.

[tnord]

prod racing here we come!

[Knestis]

I'm the biggest anti-creeper around and I don't buy the "prod here we come" wolf-crying. There are all kinds of technologies in shock absorbers. Why do we arbitrarily ban one physical configuration, that accomplishes essentially the same thing - damping spring action - as ALL of the other options?

Any of you anti-RR folks think that it's OK that the Isaac is left out in the SFI cold because it uses a different design to do essentially the same physics as a Hans?

The rationale ALL goes back to fears about cost. I could spent $50,000 on struts if I wanted to. It MIGHT make me faster. You can't make a rule preventing me from spending money. If you make me buy cheaper shocks, I might spend the same dough on a coach or more new tires, and actually gain MORE time on you. If you seriously think that simply bolting on a pair of Motons is going to make mid-pack Mort a front-runner overnight, you're deluded.

HOWEVER, that's all academic. There are costs associated with change - most of which are not monetary - so I tend to think that new rule at this time is unlikely to realize any net benefit to the category as a whole.

If I were starting from scratch - why not. Knock yourself out with four adjustments and other parts to break or fall off. As it is, eh...

K

[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.

[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

[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!