Remote Reservoirs?

[Jason Saini]

Someone had told me they allowed Remote Canisters, and as such, we just went to rebuild a set of our customers (custom one-off Dynamic dampers that have been converted to non canister,) and I was going to have hoses and cans put back on them. So I came on here to look up the latest ruling, and find that the change was only to allow OEM remote canister dampers.

You have to be kidding me. This is one of the most vapid rules in the whole GCR. I figured that since cooler heads prevailed in Touring, they would prevail here too.

Let me break it down for those of you clinging to this completely ineffective rule:

- Remote canisters have nothing to do with damper price
- Koni 28's at $1000+/each are perfectly legal
- Penskes at $400/each, Motons at $900/each are not
- The Sachs through-rod dampers we run on our Speed Touring Car ($16k/set) could easily be converted to two-ways and be LEGAL for IT

Does anyone else see how crazy this is? Can we please think a little bit before missing a chance to not perpetuate a useless rule. Anyone who really believes that banning remote canister shocks keeps cost down really needs to re-read the above points.

Now we have to rebuild the dampers as-is, and then likely take them off again once the ITAC and CRB finally make the right choice and allow canisters.

Unbelievable. Really.

-Jason Saini . www.goteammer.com

[JeffYoung]

Yup, misguided rule.

[JoshS]

You have to be kidding me. This is one of the most vapid rules in the whole GCR.

"Vapid," as in, "bland?" Surprising to get so up-in-arms about something bland.

There was lots of discussion on this one, Jason. The rule was being reconsidered only because some cars come with these things as original equipment now, and the previous wording made it seem like even the original equipment wasn't legal.

The philosophy that the ITAC felt was right was that original equipment should almost always be legal. It's the nature of replacement parts that should be limited.

So, now that's fixed. The ITAC didn't set out to address the big picture item. Sorry to hear that someone misled you about the nature of the change.

[DavidM]

Now we have to rebuild the dampers as-is, and then likely take them off again once the ITAC and CRB finally make the right choice and allow canisters.

So why would you have to change them if the rule gets changed to allow remote reservoirs? The shocks are the same with or without the reservoirs, no? Or do you think having the reservoirs is an advantage? In which case you don't want the reservoirs because they're cheaper, but because you think they have an advantage.

The argument against is that if you can do the same thing without the remote reservoirs then why allow them. People then bitch that they have to spend more money to do the same thing, which is how we wound up with open ECUs.

I personally see no need to modify the rule. There's a thread on here somewhere with the big long debate.

David

[lateapex911]

Not sure if you saw the "opinion" thread I started jason, here it is:

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23691

I found the results...uhhhh...interesting.

[GKR_17]

I believe this is the same guy who wants to phase out the 1.6L spec miata motors while bringing in spec aftermarket ECU's. Maybe they need RR shocks, too?

[924Guy]

LOL... why do we get SM guys in here bitching about their ruleset, or our ruleset?

I have to agree, the answer is not so much to come here and vent, but to write a letter to the Comp Board.

Or do I misunderstand how the SCCA rule-making process works??

[Jason Saini]

According to Merriam Webster, Vapid can mean "Lacking Strength," and that's how I intended it.

I did read all the other threads and discussions on this site, before I posted. I think it's an important enough topic to bring up again.

The reason I would have to pull the shocks out again is that the are worn out, and need a rebuild now. Should the rule get reversed, I'd need to pull them out and get them upgraded.

And to the guy who said 'why do you need to upgrade them, doesn't that mean a canister is an advantage,' that is the problem. You are looking at this in a vacuum. Yes, the Dynamic shock in question would be better with a canister, but the Koni 28 or Sachs damper without a canister would be even better than the Dynamic _with_ the canister, and perfectly legal.

The rule doesn't make sense, period. Those of you clinging to it so dearly do not understand the first thing about race prep. Right now the _cost_ of dampers is what is keeping the spending in check, not the rule. There are shocks for $16,000 per set that are IT legal, but nobody is going to spend that much money on an IT car. Right now, there are people spending $4-5k per set for shocks on an IT car (Koni 28's, converted Dynamics, whatever.)

All the rule does is limit your choices - there are plenty of remote canister dampers out there which are much cheaper than Koni 28's, and if more people had access to them I would see parity getting better, not worse.

It's only a lack of understanding that keeps people clinging to this rule.

The reason an SM guy is in here is that he also happens to own a Prep shop and is working on an IT car. I also happen to have many years of autocross and race experience, so I know how this stuff works. I'm currently race in Speed World Challenge Touring, so I know how rules creep can effect a series.

However, there is NO effective argument that the remote canister rule in IT contains costs in any way. To the contrary, it increases costs for those looking for an optimum setup - and widens the gap between the haves and have-nots.

(FYI, I have written several letters about this in the past - especially concerning Touring... silly me to think that what might be good for Touring is different than IT. I had incorrectly assumed the logic would get transferred to IT. Now I see it's time for another letter.)

[JeffYoung]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

[JLawton]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

So the argument is: Has this not been changed to try and keep costs down or has it not changed to keep IT more stock? (or limit rules creep or whatever you want to call it) ???

Was there a survey that went along with the earlier discussion? (yeah, to lazy to look it up...)

[betamotorsports]

Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

Yes. And you can also spend more on RR shocks that perform even better. Containing costs by defining configuration rarely works in a race series. Its like banning assault rifles based on configuration (flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc.)

IMHO, SCCA is behind the curve regarding shocks. Shocks have become such an important part of suspension design and development that they need to be treated similar to tires as far as the rules are concerned. It might need to go as far as SCCA approving specific models from a number of manufacturers for each race series/category.

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, I think they were legal (meaning that shocks were free). Folks invested in them (Chet Wittel's group being one of them), and then after doing so, the rule was changed to ban them.

So I think a rule that allowed them that had been in place for a long time (shockers are free) was changed in order to try and control costs.

So the argument is: Has this not been changed to try and keep costs down or has it not changed to keep IT more stock? (or limit rules creep or whatever you want to call it) ???

Was there a survey that went along with the earlier discussion? (yeah, to lazy to look it up...)

[Jason Saini]

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23691

Is the survey, IMO it didn't have enough choices (or wasn't clear enough.)

I think it should have been more like this:

1. Leave rule alone, no RR, Double Adjustable Only
2. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (only if you use OE shocks), DA Only
3. Allow RR for cars which had it as OE (allow aftermarket), DA Only
4. Allow RR for all cars, DA Only
5. Allow RR for all cars, no restriction

The way that original survey was worded "Any damper may be fitted," was a sure way to get people to vote against that option. It _sounds_ too unrestrictive. It's important to restrict the number of adjustments, as that will control costs. I also believe there should be a rule that "No shock that was ever offered as a 3 or 4-way damper can be converted to 2-way."

That would make sense. Time for a new poll?

[Chris Wire]

Those of you clinging to it so dearly do not understand the first thing about race prep.

<snip>

It's only a lack of understanding that keeps people clinging to this rule.

Yeah, I'm also bitter, clinging to my guns and religion with antipathy toward people who aren't like me. Thanks, Barack.

I appreciate the 'enlightenment'.

As a prep shop owner, I'd think that the rule would provide you with an additional source of revenue from your IT customers. The more the shocks need to be rebuilt, the more work for you, no? Or.....maybe DavidM was onto something, and your ultimate goal is an advantage for your customer that you feel others might not exploit due to cost/complexity/etc. All cards on the table please.

Inquiring minds want to know....

[Jason Saini]

Yes. And you can also spend more on RR shocks that perform even better.

This is a false statement, there is _no_ correlation between canister/no canister and high price/low price.

I do agree that trying to control costs by specifying configuration does not work. I also agree, an exclusion list would potentially work - but would be very hard to manage and the SCCA is stretched thin already.

I am posting about all of this because I care - I want the rules to be smarter. I'm trying to educate people, not just vent.

[dj10]

Hold on a sec guys. No one is addressing Jason's basic point.

If the policy behind the ban on remote reservoir shocks is cost control, isn't that misguided? Can't you spend MORE on non-remotes now that perform BETTER?

Here we go again. I just bought a new & very good suspension for my car this year, the same suspension with 4 way adjustability & RR would have doubled the price.

[seckerich]

Careful what you wish for Jason. Those cool Dynamics were originally 3 way so it won't help you much if you add the extra wording. I have long stated that the RR shock ban does nothing to control cost. A very vocal group convinced they were getting beat by money forced the change in the first place. Two way RR shocks are just as cheap and more plentiful than what we run now. Not rule creep, just back to what we had originally. Glad someone else kicked that sleeping dog.

[Jason Saini]

Yeah, I'm also bitter, clinging to my guns and religion with antipathy toward people who aren't like me. Thanks, Barack.

I appreciate the 'enlightenment'.

As a prep shop owner, I'd think that the rule would provide you with an additional source of revenue from your IT customers. The more the shocks need to be rebuilt, the more work for you, no? Or.....maybe DavidM was onto something, and your ultimate goal is an advantage for your customer that you feel others might not exploit due to cost/complexity/etc. All cards on the table please.

Inquiring minds want to know....

Nice, very mature response.

The point you're missing is that the additional cost/complexity is already legal, just without a canister. I say again, $16,000 through-rod dampers are legal in IT, and you could revalve them every day if you wanted to spend the time/money and it would be perfectly legal.

If you actually bothered to read my statements above, I stand to make _more_ as a prep shop if the rule stays the same, because the shocks aren't bump adjustable and we'd have to take them off the car each time we wanted to change the bump valving.

By making inexpensive, remote canister shocks legal ($400/each for Penskes, $850/each for Moton/JRZ,) you now make it _easier_ for everyone to dial their shocks in.

It's like saying going to non-adjustable shocks would save cost (non adjustable must be cheaper, right?) But guess what - then you'd have people revalving them all the time, or keeping 10 different sets on hand with 10 different valvings and then having to swap them in/out.

I stand by my assessment that people standing by this rule don't understand shocks, and their opinions are based on misinformation and flawed logic.

All this makes me want to do is build an IT car with $16k through-rod dampers and go out and start winning some races. Maybe that's what it would take for people to understand that the current rule has no basis in reality.

[shwah]

The reasons stated above are why I voted 'allow any shock' in the pole.

It is a dumb rule. It was a bad deal the way it was handled to 'take away' the RR shocks after the fact. That doesn't mean it's too late to fix it.

Of course it won't affect what I do in any way, so I had pretty much stopped thinking about it after it died off last time.

[Jason Saini]

Here we go again. I just bought a new & very good suspension for my car this year, the same suspension with 4 way adjustability & RR would have doubled the price.

Re-read all of my posts in this thread - the suspension that _you_ bought has nothing to do with what is legal. You could have spent 10x more, and it still would have been legal. 4-way should never be made legal.