let's define "remote reservoir" dampers...

[Knestis]

From the GCR Glossary...

Remote Reservoir Shock Absorber - Any shock absorber or dampening device which uses an externally mounted (connected either by hose or “piggy back” design) fluid and/or gas reservoir.

[77ITA]

thanks, I updated my original post to include that.

So where exactly does that leave me if even the OE dampers are not legal? Does the simple fact that the car is classed in IT overrule the dis-allowance of external / remote reservoirs for the rear on this car in specific? Also, If I am able to find rear dampers that do not utilize external / remote reservoirs, would that constitute an illegal change in damper "type"?

Maybe I have to run the car without rear dampers!

[Greg Amy]

I think it's time to write a letter to the CRB...

Just about every shock has a reservoir of some kind, so it's not the existence of one that makes shocks illegal, it's the location. The Koni strut inserts I run, for example, have a co-axial reservoir, around the outside of the working cylinder. My reservoir is "remote" to the working cylinder but still legal, as it's not "external" (to what, I cannot explain).

Where the reservoir is located is a design issue of packaging, being able to fit as large a reservoir as possible within the space constraints allowed. Historically, shocks built with external reservoirs (external to the visible cylinder, i.e., you can actually see them as a separate part) were high-dollar, high-performance items; they were banned from IT due to being seen as far and above the spirit of the "low cost" rules. However, these days that's not the case; I can buy clearly-IT-legal struts from Koni for $1500 per corner that far and away exceed the performance of the ones I have now. That distinction of reservoir shocks being expensive and non-reservoir not is not only blurred, it's pretty much gone (I can buy cheap remote reservoir shocks off the IntarWeb that are total pieces of crap, and as described above I can buy non-reservoir shocks that are neat stuff).

What I'm trying to say here is the old boogity-boo about remote reservoir shocks - one that I personally supported ten years ago - is moot. Time to let that old prejudice die.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Greg, however most will cite 'rules creep' as an opposition. Plenty of good shock choices out there now without allowing RR units.

I do think a letter is in order however. The addition of "unless equipped as original equipment" would solve the issue.

[Gary L]

I'm firmly in the anti-creep camp, so I agree with Andy: "...unless originally equipped." is the way to handle this, IMO.

[Grumpy]

The key words here are "may be replaced". Therefore the OEM shocks are legal.

I thought direct replacement of OEM parts was OK in IT, but checking it, none of the references apply to IT. I withdraw my prior statement.

My interpretation for external reservoir shoks would be==> OEM - OK, direct replacement of OEM - NO, any non reservoir - OK. All else NO.

Just one opinion. I don't do SCCA tech anymore, but if I had to rule on a protest, just one opinon.

[JimLill]

Does the GCR need a general revision that says in effect when , for a specific car, an OEM off-the-showroom floor part or configuration conflicts with an item defined as not-allowed in the rules, that part shall be deemed as allowed. ??