May fastrack is up

[tnord]

I'm 100% with the ITAC on this one.

[seckerich]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup.

[Knestis]

To clarify, my personal issue with the rule as proposed above is NOT whether to allow RR shocks in the class. At all. My issue is that you're using a broad-brush 40 pounds of words to address an allowance on one specific issue.

With one specific car.

Which is what spec line exceptions are for.

It's that simple. Or, well, it can be...

Not enough coffee yet but I'm not tracking, Greg - we didn't make an allowance for a specific issue for a specific car. The point is that the same rule applies to everyone, the same way. Or am I not understanding what you're saying...?

K

EDIT - I think maybe your point is that we rewrote the rule to deal with one special case? Maybe. I think the S2K catalyzed the conversation, certainly. Your saying we should have left it alone and stipulated in the ITCS line that this car had to run non-RR shocks in the rear, regardless of how it came equipped?

[dj10]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup.

Steve, it said "stock", which to me, means just that, stock and unmodified.
"the unicorn"

[Knestis]

I don,t see anything limiting the revalve of the stock unit. What is to stop them from being converted to aftermarket equivlent with external adjustment? Seems you would require stock unmodified RR or aftermarket. I think you still opened the door for anything goes rear setup.

What was that Bob guy's last name? Oh, yeah - STRETCH.

...as in that's a stretch.

There doesn't need to be any rule "limiting the revalve of the stock unit" - it's inherent to the rules set. "Replace" means "replace" - as in anything other than the stock part. Is there a rule specifically prohibiting the "revalving" of, say, valve springs?

K

[Greg Amy]

...we should have left it alone and stipulated in the ITCS line that this car had to run non-RR shocks in the rear, regardless of how it came equipped?

Close, but no.

Remember that whole S2k discussion thread? 'Course you do, it's what generated this proposed rule. To summarize as I understand it, the S2k comes stock with RR shocks. The S2k has been classified in ITR. The rules stipulate that RR are prohibited, ergo the S2k is not legal to use its original equipment shocks. So, you ("ITAC" you) are addressing this to allow the S2k - and any other car that comes stock with RR shocks - to run the stock RR shocks unless they replace them with aftermarket, non-OEM, non-applicable-to-the-aftermarket-stock-replacement- parts rule. If they do replace their shocks with performance replacements, they must adhere to the standard non-RR rule.

Yes?

If all that's accurate, then I stand by what I'm writing above. My point is, why write an over-reaching rule, applying to all cars in the category, when it only affects one, single spec line? Why not, instead, say the above one that cars' spec line only? And, if another car comes around with remote reservoir shocks, write it in that car's spec line too? Doing so means, at worst, you accidentally open up a Pandora's box of incorrect interpretation one one specific car which is a HELL of a lot easier to correct than writing an over-reaching rule that each and every competitor is going to parse to its nth degree to try and make it to their advantage...

If you follow this logic, then you should write over-reaching rules applicable to all cars, even though items are model-specific, such as Miata/BMW hard tops, BMW fuel cells, and rollcage designs to 2-seater coupes.

Besides, it's not like we're suddenly expecting a plethora of cars with remote reservoir shocks from the factory. There's just the one...

Spec lines exceptions are there to address model-specific differences. That's what this RR rule is all about: Honda S2000 rear shocks. Period. Don't write a 40# rule for everyone that is only, in actuality, intended for one car. Write into the S2k spec line:

"Original, unmodified rear OEM shocks are approved."

[raffaelli]

Interesting COA case listed. Did that guy really think he would get away with stealing a few laps? What a mess that would have been had there been an injury on track where he was involved. I think the original driver should have been held responsible also. I guess there was no action against the original driver since the replacement driver was just listed as an emergency contact and not crew.

[gran racing]

There are not that many S2000(s) around and if you like Hondas, there are a lot of other IT classes to pick a Honda to dominate with.

I have to assume you're joking otherwise that just plain stupid. There aren't a lot of many different types of models around which makes things very interesting and fun in IT. If the ITAC believed that, they never would have taken the time to class it and use a different weight determination process. Maybe it's just because I drive a Honda model which there are not that many around.

Are there some good options that would work for the S2000? I can't remember what was said on rr-ax, but did Lee at Koni say they could make a race suspension (non rr) for them?

[lateapex911]

I'm not seeing it as black and white on the spec line exception listing subject.

I'm still thinking a general rule, (come on, we're smart enough to read complex sentences, and if we're not, we can call a brighter friend) is better, as it fends of unforeseen future examples. Honestly, maybe we class a car, oh..say, the RGX-9...and mid year '04s have an upgrade to the suspension which included a blingy set of Tein RR dampers.

Well, guess what we do?

Nothing.

It's in the rules.
No tech bulleting, no research for the actual date, no exception line writing that gets the date wrong in a typo, or anything equally goofy.

As for tech, it's really not a concern until the paper flies, right? As a tech inspector, you might mention to a competitor who presents his car for his logbook inspection or in impound that RRs aren't in IT, but all he needs to do is point out the rule that lists them as OK. If it goes further, you're handling protest papers, and the documentation from the protester, and the protestee that goes along with that, and your job is simple.

[Gary L]

Spec lines exceptions are there to address model-specific differences. That's what this RR rule is all about: Honda S2000 rear shocks. Period. Don't write a 40# rule for everyone that is only, in actuality, intended for one car. Write into the S2k spec line:

"Original, unmodified rear OEM shocks are approved."

Perfect.

[erlrich]

I think this is a perfect example of when a spec line exception IS the most appropriate solution. How many cars out there now come stock with RR shocks? Then, how many of those are potential IT candidates? When (if) the time comes when there is more than one RR car in IT, THEN worry about re-writing the rules. I understand the desire to be proactive, and try to look into the future, but I think in this case it isn't warranted.

I would much rather the ITAC start thinking about more likely potential problems, such as the day when MOST of the cars coming into IT are equipped with ABS and/or traction control.

[Knestis]

Thanks, Greg - I get it. I think that the consensus was as Jake describes, although I do agree that your suggested type of "spec line exemption" isn't as poisonous as most examples we could come up with.

K

EDIT - I echo your concern on that front, Earl.

[JeffYoung]

Is an S2000 driver allowed to revalve his stock RR shocks, or must the remain totally stock?

I think we are taking something away from the S2000 that we do not take from others. The S2000 has a stock "advantage" that normally in IT we are allowed to exploit.

[Knestis]

Stock parts have to be stock - not believing that anyone is really likely to do that in this particular case, they shouldn't be prevented from doing what others can. (That being "nothing.")

K

[IPRESS]

Jeff,
Evidently the PTB think that you should be happy to just have a place to lap your new ride. Sometimes the most common of sense fall short. Sorry you got caught up in it.
I know we have to try to keep it fair, but sometimes the keepers of the rules are racing in areas that are thick with participants. They may not think so but it does factor in to the thinking process. Having competitive S2Ks in our DIV would be significant as we need all the IT numbers we can get. Come on back to "A" we could use you there too. I disagrreed with the anti RR crowd anyway. This is not vintage racing. RR shocks can be found cheaper in some cases then mono shocks. Of course all this was himhawed back and forth before the new ruling came out. They (CR made a call for good or bad (for the class as a whole) and basically it sucks for you and the rest of those who might want to run an S2k. Get that thing built and beat'em with stock shocks.

[tnord]

i don't get it Mac.

there are perfectly capable monotube shocks available for the rear of the S2K today, at no performance disadvantage to RR. he's allowed to run stock shocks if he really wants to.

arguing the wording of the rule is one thing, but i think the intent is correct.

[Knestis]

...sometimes the keepers of the rules are racing in areas that are thick with participants. They may not think so but it does factor in to the thinking process. Having competitive S2Ks in our DIV would be significant as we need all the IT numbers we can get. ...

The suggestion being that not allowing potential S2000 entrants to use aftermarket RR rear shocks is going to keep them from participating at all? Or that those parts are going to be the only thing preventing them from being competitive, thereby keeping them at home?

K

[dj10]

The suggestion being that not allowing potential S2000 entrants to use aftermarket RR rear shocks is going to keep them from participating at all? Or that those parts are going to be the only thing preventing them from being competitive, thereby keeping them at home?

K

Be serious K.

[77ITA]

There is a whole concept that most of you are missing here and I feel that none of you have any clue what I'm trying to say. Is it poor communication on my side or poor listening on yours?

The purpose of a remote reservoir is simply to fit "a lot of shock" into "a little place". They are not magic, they do not make a car fly around the track setting 50% lower lap times. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.

Now, let's get on with things. There is a car called the Honda S2000. It was engineered with remote reservoir rear dampers because there is very little space in the rear suspension. The rear dampers are very short and thus a remote reservoir damper was the only way to properly dampen each the rear wheels. This is only on the rear. Burn this into your brain before we go any further.

The next concept to present is that we are allowed to make modifications to our cars to make them more suitable for racing use. This includes changing out dampers to those that are more suitable for racing use. It's very commonplace... we all do it.

Due to the specific design of the S2000, most of the matched sets of good aftermarket dampers have a normal front damper and a remote reservoir rear damper. Just like original equipment. Seriously.. the bodies look just the same; a piggyback remote reservoir because there is no space within the body of the damper.








With the current rule, I would be forced to run a non-remote reservoir in the rear if I wish to upgrade my dampers like everyone else. Any product for the S2000 that has rear dampers of a non-remote reservoir design would be junk. I am not saying they are junk simply because they are non remote reservoir, I am saying they are junk because the S2000 doesn't have the physical space to support an non-remote reservoir damper that would be adequate.

Any thing look strange here guys?


Do you guys understand the concepts that I am trying to present? For the fifth time, I am not seeking to gain a competition advantage (for the rear) of the S2000. If I wanted a comp. adjustment, I would be trying to get the ludicrous book weight of 3,005lbs lowered.

finally, I present an example:

-Car XYZ comes from the factory with special magic laser brake pads.
-Special magic laser brake pads are banned in IT, but the car was classed anyway.
-We are allowed to upgrade "brake pads" to that which are suitable for racing use in IT
-Car XYZ should obviously be able to upgrade to a racing grade of special magic laser brake pads too.

*but*

The ITAC and CRB are scared of special magic laser brake pads becuase they are new and scary and then we will all instanly be racing prod. cars with washer fluid tanks.

I don't know how to explain this in a more basic fashion. This is my opinion and yes, I am an a**hole. I am also entiteld to be 100% wrong on this, but I think that I am correct and there were 19 votes in my favor from the previous thread.

[dj10]

Jeff, the 1st place I looked I found a race suspension for a S2000 and I'll bet there better than what you have now.