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

[lateapex911]

OK, we debated the legality and our thoughts on the RR damper thing...lets get some numbers. For the sake of compactness, I left out lots of words. Assume choices 1-5 are for the standard IT allowable 2 way passive design. Please indicate your choice, and heck, if you don't like the choices, post yours.

[Knestis]

The cost rationale doesn't hold water and if we're going to go down the claim road - which I don't believe the culture will EVER accept - we should apply it to cars rather than parts.

K

[JeffYoung]

No claim rule. This is not a spec class. We all spend too much time, effort, money and love on our cars to have some joker claim them for X dollars.

The RR rule was just an attempt to lower costs, and in our class, I don't see that as a valid reason for regulation. People can already spend an unlmited amount on areas where the rules are already free - wheels, new tires, exhaust (lots of dollars there), flow bench work on allowed head porting, etc. etc. etc. Why dampers got selected for "cost regulation" I do not understand.

[erlrich]

If the only reason for the rule outlawing RR dampers is the cost issue, there is no question in my opinion it should be changed. But IS that the only reason? Are there any performance advantages over the $10k custom made units that are legal? Will they give a distinct advantage to any one make? I don't think so, but I don't know for a fact.

[seckerich]

No claim rule. This is not a spec class. We all spend too much time, effort, money and love on our cars to have some joker claim them for X dollars.

The RR rule was just an attempt to lower costs, and in our class, I don't see that as a valid reason for regulation. People can already spend an unlmited amount on areas where the rules are already free - wheels, new tires, exhaust (lots of dollars there), flow bench work on allowed head porting, etc. etc. etc. Why dampers got selected for "cost regulation" I do not understand.

At the time they were disallowed there was a huge gap in price. High end shocks were almost exclusively RR. It contained cost for those that had not spent the money and doubled the cost for those that had. As with every rule we engineered an alternative and put the same damping inside the unit and heat dispersion was the only loss. No difference in a sprint and very little in an enduro. On average it cost $1000 per set more to do the custom units rather than a more generic RR unit anyone can purchase. Times change as do cost.

[77ITA]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

[1stGenBoy]

I have a question about answer #3.
What happens if a car has RR dampers in the rear as OE and non RR dampers in the front as OE?
Would the whole car be able to use RR or just the rear?
Jake, You know I'm going with this and what car I'm refering to.

[lateapex911]

Bob, for the sake of arguement, (I had little space up there) let's assume the term (in the original position) was part of the choice. In other words, if the car uses them in the front, but not the back, then it's non RRs at the back, but RRs are Ok in the front.

Sorry that wasn't clear earlier. if anyone wants to change their vote, contact me.

(Also, I'm trying to get a feel for the crowd on this...it's just me thinking out loud. No official action or poll is being taken! )

[lateapex911]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

Jeff, I always like to toss in questions that land at the "extreme" end of the possibilities, and I'm often surprised that they actually get a vote or three! It gives you insight into people thoughts, however illogical you might consider that extreme to be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

The space issue is a red-herring. Didn't someone provide a part number for a non-RR shock for the rear of an S2000? They aren't REQUIRED, are they?

[/devils advocate mode]

As long as the "2 adjustment max" rule stays in place, going to RR won't improve short term perfromance IMHO.

But I have to come back to the age old question: What problem is allowing RR shocks into IT trying to solve?

[shwah]

I won't be running them, but I voted allow any damper.

[lateapex911]

Andy, the answer to your question could be:

"because of the ease of packaging, RR dampers will allow the same performance as a high and non RR damper, but at a reduced price."

So, in summation, the answer could be, "more choices and lower price points"

Devils advocate hat OFf.

[spnkzss]

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

[/devils advocate mode]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?

I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

[lateapex911]

The philosophy in IT regarding dampers has been to allow upgrades from factory. In the case of the car equipped with RR dampers, they are essentially getting a line item exception that says they must either run stock, or...? (assuming there are no applications other than RR).

(Keep in mind that we need to think about these policies while considering all assumptions, such as the one above)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Koni has a Sport Yellow 8041-1279 application for the S2000. No RR.

Probably the same type of shock 90% of IT cars run with custom valving?

[GKR_17]

I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

Interesting, you can read it that way since it's included in the part about replacing shocks. The line "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." may not apply to OEM parts, however it is usually followed by "unless fitted as stock". Logically, class intent would allow the OEM shocks, but I also thought the same thing about ABS several years ago.

[erlrich]

Did something come out of the S2000 thread that I missed? (admittedly I didn't keep up with that one) As I read the rule now, it says "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." Was it decided that the rule only applies if you choose to replace the shocks?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is an interesting excesize in interpretation.

[GKR_17]

I retract my earlier statement, in the current rule RR shocks are not legal even if stock.

Here are a few examples:

"Air cleaner assemblies may be modified, removed or replaced. Velocity stacks, ram air or cowl induction are not permitted unless fitted as original equipment..."

"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted. Internal distributor components and distributor cap may be substituted. Crankfire ignition systems are prohibited unless fitted as original equipment..."

"Cars originally equipped with plastic/phenolic timing gears may substitute metal gears, provided that the design, dimensions, and cam timing remain as stock. Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock."

For OEM RR shocks to be legal, the rule should include the line "unless fitted as original equipment", which it does not. It would be an easy fix to add if the ITAC wanted it included though.