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

[IPRESS]

AHHHHHH........Just as I thought the world is flat and it will remain FLAT. Damn those that think otherwise!

Jeff, won't you join me in a VINTAGE IT race somewher in the Midwest this year. I will bring my black leather driving shoes, and my GULF Racing jacket so we will fit in with the retro IT crowd!

[tnord]

i'm against the RR shocks, and it probably surprises no one that i was against the open ecu as well. but then again, i hate all the new driver aids, fancy creature comforts, and all the other electronic BS on new cars these days. i guess i'm just an old fuddy-duddy that isn't open to change. oh wait, i'm 27.

it's not like there aren't any traditional shocks available for the car, or the car won't work without them (as was the case with the BMW wheel speed sensor issue), so i really fail to see a problem with the current rule. change the rule to say you may run OEM RR's if you want.

jeff you realize that changing the fronts to RR would constitute a "change in damper type" also, right?

[dj10]

[quote=seckerich;262282I still think at the least we should line item all ITR to allow RR shocks and ABS. (Ducking the flames):eek:[/quote]

Steve, I respectfully disagree with you here. These should be left to production or world challange.
BTW, business is picking up here rather well, so I'm going to do everything in my power to make it to VIR in May. So, save me a spot.

[IPRESS]

We agree to disagree Mr. Fuddy-Duddy.

[lateapex911]

Devils advocate hat ON

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.

Ahhhhhh...."common" knowledge.....never wrong that common knowledge, is it? My research into this matter has shown opinions vary widely on the advantages and disadvantages of the different shock designs. The net net is that it's is very tough to make blanket statements.

Given the compact design of the rear dampers on the S2000, it's obvious to me (and the engineers that made the car)

Ahhhh, "obvious"....but while it's obvious to you, perhaps there are other reasons why this happened. Such as the company that hasan OEM contract felt it was cheaper and easier to make a RR shock than to work the magic with out the RR.

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

Have you looked into the other options? Have you called the company and spoken to technicians regarding the application and asked them why their product is inferior to the stock RR?

If you're going to make such sweeping and black and white statements, you need to make sure your case is open and shut.

Devils advocate hat OFF....

[dj10]

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

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

Jeff, would you run your OEM RR shocks as they came from the factory? If so then I'll agree to let you run them.:cool: If not then you should go to Production or T3, don't you think?

[Parrish57]

Years ago when the RR debate was in full fury I was one of the Have-Nots that was strongly in favor of the ban. In a conversation with one of the Haves he correctly predicted that he would be able to simply spend the same money on new shocks that are compliant. I hate it when I'm wrong. The RR debate is a moot point due to the advancment of technology. I'm now in favor of lifting the ban. This is not rules creep, but tech evolution.

If you guys want to spend your $$s on RR shocks go for it. I prefer to spend my hard earned cash on a good motor, good brakes, dyno time, track time, and sticker tires. I don't care if you bolt on a $50,000 set of shocks custom made in Maranello and blessed by the Pope. I'm going out next weekend with my big right foot, my 60's technology, and my $150 per corner Bilsteins to kick the field in the collective nuggets!

[IPRESS]

Attaboy Steve, giv'em a kick for me.

I see this as SCCA at it's historical best, "can't do it that way cause we always do it this way."

[seckerich]

Steve, I respectfully disagree with you here. These should be left to production or world challange.
BTW, business is picking up here rather well, so I'm going to do everything in my power to make it to VIR in May. So, save me a spot.

Dan I still treat you like a unicorn--I have heard you exist but until I actually see you at a race I wont believe it!!

I think my ITR problem just got solved. The RX8 just got classed in E Production so I don't have to wait for the ITAC to finally get to it. They got a request and got it classed--go figure.

[JoshS]

I think my ITR problem just got solved. The RX8 just got classed in E Production so I don't have to wait for the ITAC to finally get to it. They got a request and got it classed--go figure.

There's no point in the ITAC classing it yet. Even if we'd already classed it, it couldn't be legal until 2009, because that's when 2004 models are eligible in IT.

[JeffYoung]

Have to disagree. You class it now, and guys get to start building for 09.

That's not the hold up on classing.....the upcoming knock down, drag down pissing match fight over weight is.........

[JoshS]

I think everyone can feel confident that it will be classed. We just can't tell you the weight yet (because we don't know.)

[JeffYoung]

You guys need to make the weighting process on that car as open as you possibly can. You've got a screwy situation with a car that needs to be in ITR, but with a complete fark up by the factory on what the stock hp "really" is. There's credible evidence to suggest 160whp and credible evidence to support quite a bit more. There's strong feeling on both sides (Mazda camp v. non-Mazda camp), and you've seen my position in the proposal for classing itself (although I'm done with the issue now).

But before the car is classed I would make the weighting process transparent and in fact perhaps put it out for comment before setting it. At least that way both sides can't say they didn't have input into the weight setting.

It is VERY important, as I am sure you know, to get this right. Not only objectively as "right" as possible on the weight itself, but also procedurally in how you go about setting it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The problem is that the ITR guys are going to yell because they think the weight is too low AND the RX-8 guys are going to yell because they think the weight is too high. It's a total lose-lose.

Add to that - that there will be 100% built, developed and well driven cars hit the track on day 1, they will start winning, furthering the perception that they were misclassed.

Can't wait.

[seckerich]

You just made the most important point in this whole discussion on the RX8. The ITAC is already considering the car weight based on full prep compared to some current less than full prep competitors. You are in a bad position from the start. I fully expect the car to get classed heavy to "cover your collective A#$#$ and none will get built. Prod is a moving target but at least I know who has the gun. We would like to build some cars and help the class grow, but it looks like the deck is already stacked against us. Good luck guys, would not want to be in your shoes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You just made the most important point in this whole discussion on the RX8. The ITAC is already considering the car weight based on full prep compared to some current less than full prep competitors. You are in a bad position from the start. I fully expect the car to get classed heavy to "cover your collective A#$#$ and none will get built. Prod is a moving target but at least I know who has the gun. We would like to build some cars and help the class grow, but it looks like the deck is already stacked against us. Good luck guys, would not want to be in your shoes.

Well, all cars are classed at their estimated 'full prep' level. I am just predicting the outcome of the classification as all. No issues with it personally because I feel I know why people and cars win races - and it ain't about 75lbs here or there in IT.

I know the results - and we have just got to weather the storm - from both sides.

[JeffYoung]

I agree the weight classing will be a pissing match and the ITAC will be the loser, which stinks.

My only suggestion, and it is just that, is make the weighting process as OPEN as possible. Open it up to debate. Share the information you have. Get comment from the existing ITR drivers. Etc. It won't make people happy, but it will perhaps take some of the mystery out of the process and at least they won't be able to claim that they had no idea what was going on.

[lateapex911]

I agree the weight classing will be a pissing match and the ITAC will be the loser, which stinks.

My only suggestion, and it is just that, is make the weighting process as OPEN as possible. Open it up to debate. Share the information you have. Get comment from the existing ITR drivers. Etc. It won't make people happy, but it will perhaps take some of the mystery out of the process and at least they won't be able to claim that they had no idea what was going on.

Are you kidding Jeff?

We published, TWICE, in Fastrack, AND we posted threads on this board, AND we posted threads on the RR/AX board, AND IIRC, something on the never visited SCCA IT board, a manifesto regarding the ECU rule, and complete explanations of options. We got better responses and more of them than ever, the membership was clearly in favor of one option, and the ITAC, and eventually the CRB agreed, yet we still have people sniping and acting all surprised!

Oh, they'll claim ignorance, you just wait!

All- Andy's point is that the RX-8 has interest from known builders who will do top notch prep, and will have top notch drivers. THAT's what it takes to win races, and when the car hits that track, nearly fully developed and wins out of the box, the folks driving other cars (still being developed) will scream bloody murder.

Then theres the clusterfvck of the stock HP, AND the fact that they make the torque of a sick mouse pulling a dead raccoon back to base, AND the fact that there is NO* other engine like it racing in IT, (the ITAC bases its process on the "genre" of the engine) and you can see the issues.

*I can see the responses..."But there are TWO rotaries already racing, just class it like them!". Not that easy.....the 1st gen is a carbed simple engine with two exhaust ports, and small rotors/disp. The 2nd gen is injected, larger rotors/disp. The 3rd gen has completely different porting, and uses a weird siamese exhaust arrangement, where the two rotors actually share an exhaust header pipe. The gains that the other versions see are largely due to exhaust work...and the arrangement of the exhaust on the 3rd gen precludes that. It's an entirely different animal... kind of like comparing a Nissan V6 DOHC to an American in the V cam V6.

[JeffYoung]

Agreed. I would just be sure to put out for debate, on the RX8, before it is classed:

1. The assumption you are using for stock hp and why.

2. The assumption you are using for IT gains and why.

3. Any other factors that go into weight for the car.

You've read my proposal. I agree that the factory hp situation is a mess and it looks highly likely to me the car makes no where near 230 crank hp stock. If you guys do agree, again I would humbly suggest you make it clear as to why clearly and expressly before the weight is set.

[lateapex911]

It's an interesting concept, we'll see what the CRB thinks of it....