May fastrack is up

[77ITA]

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.

did you even read my post?

I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate. Regardless of that, it's an absurd ruling.

I have not yet purchased suspension for the car, so yes... anything is better than sitting on jack stands.

[ddewhurst]

Jeff or anyone, where did your S2000 come from & do you have any suggestions where one could be found to build an E Production car?

I have found one 28,000 miles for $9,000.00 with minor front damage out east. I'm in Wisconsin so long distance shipping will add some bucks.

[planet6racing]

As an Engineer, I have to ask this question:

Why do you feel that they will not be adequate? (looking for actual tech here, e.g. The oil will overheat after x cycles based on performance at Y track.)

Also, there are other reasons than "big shock in little area" to use RR dampers. Cooling of oil to maintain the newtonian flow characteristics of the oil is one...

[77ITA]

As an Engineer, I have to ask this question:

Why do you feel that they will not be adequate?

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:

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.

[dj10]

did you even read my post?

I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate. Regardless of that, it's an absurd ruling.

Yes I did read your ramblings and you are wrong, the double adjustables will be more than adequate if you get the right ones. Remember some of these manufactures do know something about racing.

[spnkzss]

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:

And the companies that created race ready non RR shocks for the S2000 didn't take these concerns into consideration when they created their shocks to be superior to the stock shock?

[JoshS]

So you're basically saying that it's "common sense" that anything else will be junk, but you've done no testing, nor cited any source that has done testing.

Look, every car in the ITCS has some sort of liability in IT trim. This is just one of those.

All that has happened in the latest Fastrack is a clarification of the existing rule. The ITAC wanted to make it clear that the stock rear shock is okay -- some people interpreted the situation to mean that even that wasn't true. So this is not a rule change. A rule change to extend allowances could still happen, but rule changes are looked at very carefully.

In the meantime, I'd suggest you go out there and find what you think is the best non-RR rear shock available. Talk to shock builders. Explain the situation. Ask what they've done to address the problem and find out why they think their non-RR design won't be a liability.

I notice that TC Kline has custom-valved non-RR Koni shocks for the S2000. I'd give him a call, at least just to get his take.

[Greg Amy]

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?

Jeff, I think you are the one that's missing the point here. Everyone understands your position well, as we went through that last round of "S2000 remote rear reservoir shocks".

The bottom line - something you need to understand and accept, lest you become immensely frustrated - is that remote reservoir shocks are illegal in Improved Touring. Period. This has a long, convoluted history, it's been that way for many, many years, and it's more than settled for the time being.

And, no one is going to approve the use of remote reservoir shocks on the S2000 only.

You are being tossed a bone in that you can use the factory ones if you wish. But, if you choose not to, you have clear direction on how to proceed, sans RR shocks.

If you don't like that, then change it. But that only way you're going to change this rule is to lobby to get RR shocks approved for ALL cars, not just yours. Any requests to allow something that is currently specifically disallowed, but do so on only on one car, will be met with deaf ears. As it should be.

If you want to change this, work to change it globally. Or, play the cards you've been dealt.

It's that simple.

Greg

[Knestis]

-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.

...or Car XYZ can use the stock SML pads.

...or upgrade to any brake pad allowed by the rules.

The degree to which each option is "obvious" depends on the interests of the person making the judgements. I know you feel picked on but that's not the intent, nor can we worry enough about individual interests to the degree that one make/model drives the decisions for an entire category.

We get requests all the time from people who are equally convinced that (part X) is "not adequate" - bearings (Neons, VWs), suspension pieces (944), etc. We can't give everyone what they want. And with due respect, you've got to decide what the actual value of RR shocks is:

"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." - You believe that the design isn't significantly better.

" I know there are dampers offered for the s2000 that don't have a remote reservoir, but I don't feel that they would be adequate." - You believe that the design is significantly better.

Your job is to advocate for your interests but the fact that a rule doesn't reflect them does NOT mean the ITAC doesn't understand them, or that we're just not smart enough to understand the issue. We've just got to look at bigger issues, and we try to do that.

Kirk (who thinks it's valuable to explain the process and thinking, but wants to point out that his and other ITAC members' personal opinions on the subject may well differ)

[planet6racing]

allow me to quote myself from earlier discussion on this matter:

So, you have no proof that they will not work. The stock RRs were designed for the street, hence requiring additional shock travel and, possibly, the need for RRs. Unless you drive like I do (agriculturally), you won't need as much travel on track.

I'm not trying to be a dick here (though I know it comes across that way). You have said keywords that I have picked up on: "I feel they won't work," "It's obvious to me," etc. You have offered no proof, either by calculation or by testing that shows that the shocks designed by racing shock manufacturers for racing applications will not work. As a result, I have no choice but to rely on those skilled in the art. Relying on the design installed on the car and saying that the engineers required RR shocks is not proof, for one does not know if that was an engineering decision or a purchasing decision (yes, we engineers do not have final say in the design of most things).

If you can provide some proof that these will not work, I'll happily back you up. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is up to you.

[JeffYoung]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

[tnord]

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.

the absolute absurdity of all this is as comical as your request to disallow all SM's from IT competition because "they are too fast/well prepared."

you haven't really talked to anybody about the non-RR options available.
you haven't even tried a set on your car.
you haven't presented evidence from anyone who has tried them.
you aren't a shock engineer or anything close to it by trade.

Jeff I promise you don't need RR shocks to be competitive with this car (especially in this division). Quit your bitching and at least call Koni and see what they have to say.

[77ITA]

First and foremost, whether or not the non-rr dampers would be junk is irrelevant... only grounds for my point of view which is, of course, my point of view. Just so we get this straight, my opinions on that matter are worthless, unconfounded, and based upon black-hole science. I'll paint myself as an idiot with no knowledge so we can get that off the table.

The real debate here is centered around the fact that the S2000 comes with RR dampers in the rear. I understand that there is no intent to bring about RR in IT and that is a problem. The ITAC and CRB can't ban new technology at the same time that they are classifying new cars that come equipped with the exact new technology they are afraid of.

If the committee is unwilling to allow new technology such as this... or to make allowances for the cars that have it as OE, then we are looking at a long list of future situations just like this one.

Greg, you raise an excellent point of view. My future efforts will be aimed at getting open dampers for all of IT with a specific backing that references the fact that cars are coming with RR dampers as OE these days. Judging by the poll results and discussion from the last thread, it seems like people want open dampers anyway.

[dj10]

Jeff, I think you are the one that's missing the point here. Everyone understands your position well, as we went through that last round of "S2000 remote rear reservoir shocks".

The bottom line - something you need to understand and accept, lest you become immensely frustrated - is that remote reservoir shocks are illegal in Improved Touring. Period. This has a long, convoluted history, it's been that way for many, many years, and it's more than settled for the time being.

And, no one is going to approve the use of remote reservoir shocks on the S2000 only.

You are being tossed a bone in that you can use the factory ones if you wish. But, if you choose not to, you have clear direction on how to proceed, sans RR shocks.

If you don't like that, then change it. But that only way you're going to change this rule is to lobby to get RR shocks approved for ALL cars, not just yours. Any requests to allow something that is currently specifically disallowed, but do so on only on one car, will be met with deaf ears. As it should be.

If you want to change this, work to change it globally. Or, play the cards you've been dealt.

It's that simple.

Greg

Very nicely put Greg. BTW Jeff, I just had a custom built suspension built for me from Germany and on my test day they are with out a doubt, so far, it is the best suspension I've ever driven on and I've been racing sometime now, and they do build for S2000.:cool:

[Knestis]

...If the committee is unwilling to allow new technology such as this... or to make allowances for the cars that have it as OE, then we are looking at a long list of future situations just like this one. ...

I could NOT agree with you more on this point. That's the root of my pointing out that we made what we thought was the best decision at THIS TIME. The trick is making a real rule change in a way that is as minimally disruptive as possible, while recognizing those realities.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

GREAT example, Jeff. Well litigated.

Under the current state of affairs, I think the answer to your question is "yes." He's forced to make that choice. Whether he SHOULD be put in that position is another question, the answers for which are likely to be all over the map.

That said, your clause "b" is badly written - another of those "you can't" things. The rules (broadly stated) already allow a stock adjustable pulley, since the first principle of IIDSYCYC presumes that SITO - Stock is Totally Legal. That's the presumption we tried to reinforce in this case.

Kirk (who wonders if the keyway in that replacement timing gear set has to be in the same place as the stock one, relative to the gear teeth indexing)

[JoshS]

... since the first principle of IIDSYCYC presumes that SITO - Stock is Totally Legal. That's the presumption we tried to reinforce in this case.

Of course, stock is not "totally" legal, because there are explicit rules that make people remove or disable stock equipment (like ABS & traction control).

Just nitpicking your choice of acronym there, not disagreeing with the principles at all.

[jjjanos]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

From the bible:
"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."

Hmm, clearly written by engineers and not english majors.

The metal replacement gear must be identical in design and dimensions, A plastic, adjustable timing gear is stock. Therefore, the replacement metal gear must also be adjustable - i.e. identical in design.

[jjjanos]

GREAT example, Jeff. Well litigated.

Under the current state of affairs, I think the answer to your question is "yes." He's forced to make that choice. Whether he SHOULD be put in that position is another question, the answers for which are likely to be all over the map.

Quick question - how can the replacement be identical in design, dimension and cam timing if

A - it's made of entirely different substance? Metal versus plastic
B - ignoring A, how can it be anything but adjustable if it is identical in design and dimension?

Seems to me that the first part of the rule is entirely invalidated by the second part.

Wouldn't two gears identical in design, by definition be of the same dimension?

As one who deals with federal regulations every week, I would take "Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock." to mean that you cannot use an adjustable timing gear unless the car originally equipped with an adjustable timing gear. Note the difference - "Adjustable gears are prohibited on all cars unless stock timing gears are used."

[GKR_17]

Hmmmm..to me whether they work or not seems irrelevant.

Let me throw out a hypothetical.

Car A comes with a plastic but adjustable cam timing gear.

Rules say:

a. You can change plastic cam timing gears to metal.

b. Except that you can't use adjustable gears unless fitted as stock.

Does this mean the guy with the adjustable cam timing gear LOSES this "stock advantage" if he switches to metal?

I would say no, and I think the same is true with the RR shocks.

That would be a good comparison if the old shock wording had said RR shocks are prohibited unless fitted as stock, but that's not what it said. It was very clear that replacement RR's are not allowed. There is no reason to change that. The legality of stock RR's was debatable, with the new wording, now that's clear.

As for the keyway on a replacement timing gear, if it doesn't match stock dimensions (including angular relationship to the gear teeth) it's not legal.

[lateapex911]

........The ITAC and CRB can't ban new technology at the same time that they are classifying new cars that come equipped with the exact new technology they are afraid of......

Which isn't what happened here. While I thought the rule was clear enough, (for me at least, LOL) there was some clear confusion among reasonable people about the actual meaning, so barring a rule change, it was written in a manner that makes the situation clearer.

Now, as stated, if the letter was requesting RRs be allowed across the board, that would be another subject. I can't tell you how it would result though...

One thing I'll say is that the RR thing really fires people up...and it's amzing that when you really dig into their position, you find it's often based on misconceptions.