May fastrack is up

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Knestis]

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.

Fair point, as usual.

However, there's NO question in my mind that we'll be dealing with that issue before long. I've always believed that we SHOULD be able to run the cars in stock form if we want. It's part of that bolt-on philosophy that I still cling to - that a person should literally be able to replace parts as they want and be able to "get out there" with minimum hassle. And killing modern ABS is precisely that.

Jeff (ITA77) absolutely does have a point that there's a fear factor that plays a role in reluctance to accept new technologies. If one were to ask my PERSONAL view, I'd agree with him that RR shocks aren't going to turn a loser into a winner. Nor will ABS turn a wanker into the Stig.

Eventually, it's not about IF these technologies will make it into IT - it's about when, and the timing DOES matter.

K

[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."

[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.

[jimmyc]

while i think it is rather lame that RR aren't legal...

77ITA doesn't really have much of a valid argument.


Getting back to the RR thing. I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

[Knestis]

...I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

There's little question that the rationale for prohibition of RR shocks and struts was cost - that's a matter of recent memory. However, there are a lot of current ITAC members who don't adhere to the assumptions behind that logic. And the price of that technology has come down a bunch in the ensuing years. AND there are lots of ways to spend pee-lenty of money on shocks, even without buying RR units.

K

[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.

[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.

[erlrich]

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.

Took the words right out of my mouth... or off of my page as it were...

Conversly, if the rule said "cam timing gears may be replaced provided that the replacement gears (a) are of the same dimensions as the original, and (b) are non-adjustable" then he would be SOL.

Which brings up an interesting point - under the strict letter of the revised rule you cannot even replace the original RR shocks with new, OEM RR shocks. Think about it - using anything other than what originally came on the car constitutes replacing the shocks, at which time RR shocks are illegal.

[JeffYoung]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

[erlrich]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

The way I read it is that you can use the RR shocks that came on the car from the factory, or you can replace them with any non-RR shock. Minor, but important difference.

[GKR_17]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

No, if that's the way the rule read then aftermarket RR's would be legal if the car had RR's stock.

Stock shocks are legal but can only be replaced with non-RR's. Though I wouldn't go quite as far to say that a new OE units can't 'replace' the original set that came on the car. Now that's a strict read!

Also... back to the cam gears - stock (or metal replacement) adjustable cam gears are fine, but in that case anything other than stock cam timing is not legal.