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

[Bill Miller]

It's time for that rule to get changed, across the board in my opinion. If we want to control costs, put a claim price on shocks and struts. Everything else is just symbolism or deluding ourselves.

K

There's a new sheriff in town!

[mlytle]

There's a new sheriff in town!

naw...just one more new member of the police force.....

[rcc85]

We could use the example of dry sumps: "Dry sump systems are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment" (ITCS 9.1.3.h) and say that "Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited unless fitted as standard equipment".

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

P.S. Are there any IT legal cars that came with dry sump oiling systems?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob, that was my first take as well. However, is the intent for those with OEM RR shocks to keep the OEM units or to allow them to swap out to any RR unit that fits the other rules?

If its the latter, what is your suggestion on how to write it?

[JoshS]

I don't see any reason to change the rule. There are plenty of IT-legal shock systems for the S2000, even though the stock ones have external reservoirs ... for example: http://www.autoanything.com/suspensi...aspx?kc=ff2155

[Tak]

A couple thoughts on the rules:
1) Add a sentance to existing rule: "Stock OEM remote reservoir dampers are allowed"
or
2) "Dampers are free provided they have no more than 2 external adjustments"

Or 3
Anyone who can really tune a chassis with 3 or 4 way adjustable dampers should not be driving in IT. It's an entry level class remember?!

Last time I checked, 1980's vintage Formula Fords are still faster than any IT car (including ITR). Plus you get slicks and a real racing transmission. And you can run nationals.
Not fast enough? Try a DSR. Same good stuff plus downforce AND you get to rev to 11,000+ RPM. And still less costly than ITR...

Anyone who wants to learn to tune a chassis with multi-adjustable shocks should not do it in IT. The cars are too compromised by their street car origin and DOT race tires.

Tak

[JoshS]

WHAT??? In what world is DSR cheaper than ITR? At least to be competitive, not a chance. It would be at least double what I have spent thus far to be as competitive in DSR.

I also don't really quite buy that IT classes are always "entry level." Look at the number of people here on these forums for whom IT is a destination, not a stepping stone. Heck, as you know, I spent a lot of time in other classes before coming to IT.

[lateapex911]

yes, Porsche 911s come from the factory with essentially a dry sump system. A scavenge pump in the small crank sump, and a 12 quart tank, and a pressure pump, plus coolers and oil/air sperators make up the system. Stock on the 70s and 80s versions classed in ITS and ITR.

[lateapex911]

Regarding dampers on cars originally equipped with RR versions, it seems to me that the concept of the original rule was to allow cars to upgrade dampers, but originally, there were no RRs. I think allowing cars originally equipped with RRs to upgrade with other RRs is in line with original philosophy. I know i'll get $hit for this, LOL.

[JeffYoung]

I'd say to stay consistent:

1. Use the dry sump wording for RR shocks.

2. Make it clear this means OE/stock stuff ONLY. No OE equivalents. Isn't this what we do with dry sumps and crank fire? Those guys who have that stock can run it, but have to stay with the stock parts.

Flip is to do what Kirk says and what I agree with. One facet of what defines IT is essentially open suspension within the parameters of the stock suspension mounting points. I see no reason why remote reservoir, or triple adjustable, shocks are illegal. You can spend the same amount on double adjustable in body reservoir stuff.

Makes little sense to me banning those when one of the premises of the class is tune all you want on the suspension just don't move things.

[jlucas]

Well I was the one who wrote the request and provided some of the information to get the changed in Touring. From a $$$ standpoint, the old rule just doesn't hold water anymore.

As far as the S2000 goes, the stock rear shocks are really short. It's an "in wheel" suspension design so the geometry is really compact. For race spring rate amounts of shock travel I don't think it's that big of an issue other than fewer options but for the amount of travel needed for a street car spring rates that's where the problems start to come into play.