Remote res.dampers...your 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...

[vr6guy]

After reading this post, one question came to mind. Exactly how many cars come from the factory with RR shocks that would be eligible for IT racing. Maybe in this case class expansion is not the answer. If these cars that have RR shocks as OE equiptment were'nt classified, we wouldnt be discussing this issue.

Who's gonna be the first to want some hybrids classified?!

Go to any short track in the country, and every week they have racing. Maybe NASCAR is onto something. Lets keep it simple, and stop classifying some of these cars that cause nothing but discussion after discussion. :eek:

Marc Rider
NER

[lateapex911]

After reading this post, one question came to mind. Exactly how many cars come from the factory with RR shocks that would be eligible for IT racing. Maybe in this case class expansion is not the answer. If these cars that have RR shocks as OE equiptment were'nt classified, we wouldnt be discussing this issue.

Who's gonna be the first to want some hybrids classified?!

Go to any short track in the country, and every week they have racing. Maybe NASCAR is onto something. Lets keep it simple, and stop classifying some of these cars that cause nothing but discussion after discussion. :eek:

Marc Rider
NER

yea, cuz the S200 is soooo unpopular...
Marc, think bigger picture...discussion is OK. That's how problems are sorted out. The guys who do road racing aren't for the most part, interested in driving a bashed up Nova in circles with the doors chained shut. Eliminating cars isn't the answer...thinking proactively is.

[vr6guy]

Your idea of thinking proactively is, and probably always will be different than mine. The more things to argue about means less time for people to race. You are the same person that gave me a load of crap about allowing me to run a 15"x6.5" on my ITB gti.

[lateapex911]

Sigh, Marc....you can't race 24/7...there's more to racing than driving on the track, and formatting the competition is part of that...otherwise it's not racing. And having a set of rules that treats everyone fairly means that when you CAN race, it's meaningful, and globally fair.

And yes, i did object to your request for running a wheel larger than allowed for the class (which if I recall correctly was borne of your desire to save money because you had a cheap source of wheels that fit your car, which I guess is a somewhat difficult car to find cheap wheels for). If you got your way, the result would have been:

-A better wheel for you (a line item exception for your car) than anyone else, or....
-Everyone else having to switch wheels to be on the same level playing ground as you.

I found the concept shortsighted or, at worst, selfish. Sorry.

If you consider that a load of crap, so be it.

[vr6guy]

Sigh? wow..... you really have a hard time reading between the lines
I somewhat expected something like this from you

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITAC fan club continues to grow!

[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)?

[lateapex911]

To me, the most interesting part is the votes given to the last option, one I threw in as a "extreme", that I thought would get no votes. I'm interested to hear the mechanics and logic behind the votes. anyone care to discuss?

[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.

[77ITA]

what is it you really want

I'm glad you asked.

The only thing I am trying to acheive here is to allow a car that was designed with RR rear dampers from the factory to compete using the same type of equipment, be it stock dampers or performance replacement.

The car was designed with RR rear dampers and that is what I intend to use. This is the best picture I could come up with for referance, but the rear dampers are significantly shorter than the fronts, thus the OE RR design.



All of that being said, the car never should have been classified in IT if it wasn't intended to be raced on OE design type suspension.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,

Let me ask you this: What is wrong with the non RR solution Koni sells? Why do you feel you HAVE to have RR's?

Just curious at this point. It might be principle at this point, and that is ok...

How would you write the rule if you were the singular decision maker?

[IPRESS]

From what I have read, the idea of excluding the RR shocks back when they were excluded was based on the costs and perceived competition advantage they would give the user.
I also read that there are monotube shocks that are equal if not better.
According to above posts, RR shocks are now in line pricewise and in some cases cheaper. Since they are being used in several series that have cars like IT cars, the chances of finding a deal on some used shock packages are high. Therefore going with RR shocks as a legal option may be the cost saving route for a top performance shock.
Rules creep is what everybody fears. But as the ITAC has shown by being proactive at looking at rules tweeks, IT has to at least bend a little to stay up with the changing tech part of the auto industry. If we are not willing to make a change when it probably will be cheaper in sourcing shocks, then we might as well change IT to IT Vintage.
I have no idea if RRs or Monos are better, I do know that for certain $$$$ amount one company ( and a good one it is) can give you a top shock package within the rules now. Other companies use RRs to get the same (what I have been told) performance in a shock. Pricewise about the same. I see no reason to limit our choices if the technology & price are close to the same.
I voted to allow them and don't really see why there is a reason not to allow them.
Other then people hate change around here...... And I can live with that too.

[77ITA]

Jeff,

Let me ask you this: What is wrong with the non RR solution Koni sells? Why do you feel you HAVE to have RR's?

Just curious at this point. It might be principle at this point, and that is ok...

How would you write the rule if you were the singular decision maker?

Thanks for asking, but I'm surprised that I even have to answer this.

Common knowledge of dampers tells us that utilizing a remote reservoir will allow a damper to be compact in construction while maintaining large travel distance, piston rod diameter, and fluid capacity. Given the compact design of the rear dampers on the S2000, it's obvious to me (and the engineers that made the car) that a remote reservoir is required. Anything less would be insufficient, especially when you consider the racing environment... lower ride height, full use of travel, greater stresses, and higher fluid temperature. I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.

Funny, I can picture a small department of Japanese suspension engineers having this same conversation with the cost-cutting folks at Honda during the development of the car. "NO, you fool, S2000 must have the remote reservoir!"

[JoshS]

I'm just plain not willing to put a non-RR damper on the rear of the car.

I don't get it. Why did you start building a car with such conviction about shocks, when the current rules don't allow what you are looking for? Or were you planning to stick with the stock shocks until the rule changes, if it even does?

[JeffYoung]

A core principle of IT is if it was on the car stock you can run it. Ram air. Adjustable cam gears. Alum. hoods. Etc. etc. etc.

The RR rule is written screwed up because no one anticipated RR stock shocks. If someone thinks, and I agree there may be an argument that this is the case, that the S2000 can't run its STOCK RR shocks, then this needs to be fixed as an intended consequence of a poorly written RR shock rule, in my humble opinion of course.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are correct Jeff - however NOBODY runs stock shocks so there should be no desire to keep them.

I guess I don't know what the hang up is with the 'do or die' attitude on running them because the factory put them on. There is a non-RR solution from one of the top shock companies in the world.

So let's say that you are allowed under a corrected 'unless fitted as OEM' clause. Is anyone expecting that the FRONT of the car gets to run RR (because it didn't come like that stock)? Any company make a 'matched but mismatched' set of shocks likethis? I think the only legal set of matched shocks would be the Koni's anyway...no?

[JeffYoung]

Good points, but for me anyway, just a simple philosophy issue. If fitted as stock, he should be allowed to replace them (the rears only, I agree) with replacement RR shocks.

[seckerich]

Good points, but for me anyway, just a simple philosophy issue. If fitted as stock, he should be allowed to replace them (the rears only, I agree) with replacement RR shocks.

With the same number of adjustments as stock--Zero. If RR is such a big deal for this car let it run a shock similar to stock. If you want the allowed adjustable shocks you have to meet the rest of the rule. If one gets them, we all do.

I still think at the least we should line item all ITR to allow RR shocks and ABS. (Ducking the flames):eek: