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

[Andy Bettencourt]

"No RR dampers allowed at all, even if fitted as orig. equip."

How could anyone possibly see it fit to make a vote like this? I'd seriously like to hear your points of view.

If a car was designed and fitted with RR dampers from the factory, it was for a specific reason (e.g. space), thus any OE or quality aftermarket replacement is going to be of the same design. If someone has a problem with RR dampers even when fitted as OE, I would suggest that they spend their time trying to get the classification of specific cars rescinded instead of arguing semantics.

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

The space issue is a red-herring. Didn't someone provide a part number for a non-RR shock for the rear of an S2000? They aren't REQUIRED, are they?

[/devils advocate mode]

As long as the "2 adjustment max" rule stays in place, going to RR won't improve short term perfromance IMHO.

But I have to come back to the age old question: What problem is allowing RR shocks into IT trying to solve?

[shwah]

I won't be running them, but I voted allow any damper.

[lateapex911]

Andy, the answer to your question could be:

"because of the ease of packaging, RR dampers will allow the same performance as a high and non RR damper, but at a reduced price."

So, in summation, the answer could be, "more choices and lower price points"

Devils advocate hat OFf.

[spnkzss]

[devils advocate mode]

How about ABS? How about traction control? Both items fitted as OE but currently need to be removed or disabled.

[/devils advocate mode]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ABS and traction control get disabled without any out of pocket expense? In theory you can take a stock car and put it on the track with safety only. You don't "have" to replace the shocks to get started. Now you are saying you do?

I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

[lateapex911]

The philosophy in IT regarding dampers has been to allow upgrades from factory. In the case of the car equipped with RR dampers, they are essentially getting a line item exception that says they must either run stock, or...? (assuming there are no applications other than RR).

(Keep in mind that we need to think about these policies while considering all assumptions, such as the one above)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Koni has a Sport Yellow 8041-1279 application for the S2000. No RR.

Probably the same type of shock 90% of IT cars run with custom valving?

[erlrich]

Did something come out of the S2000 thread that I missed? (admittedly I didn't keep up with that one) As I read the rule now, it says "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." Was it decided that the rule only applies if you choose to replace the shocks?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is an interesting excesize in interpretation.

[GKR_17]

I don't think so. The rule says that you MAY replace your shocks and then give parameters about what you replace them with. I believe OEM RR shocks to be legal.

Interesting, you can read it that way since it's included in the part about replacing shocks. The line "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited." may not apply to OEM parts, however it is usually followed by "unless fitted as stock". Logically, class intent would allow the OEM shocks, but I also thought the same thing about ABS several years ago.