So, after remote resovoir shocks are allowed, what's next? ......... Custom fabricated suspension components? Non stock cams, injectors, intake manifolds? Where is the line drawn? We all have commonaly availble options, and if you want to sink big money, you can have somthing custom build. Hell, I could spend time on a shaker table to tune my koni's, how's that for a big dollar waster. You can't tell me that making RR-shocks avalible will make anything cheaper. That's nuts, because how much will it cost for the extra resovoir with a pressurized seal and a braded steel hose. Materally, it's got to cost more. Also, don't tell me that it can't be better than an integrated resevoir shock, because you've got a larger resevoir with more oil, the oil temp stays cooler, and shock resistance to movement is more consistant. ..............
James
James, James James....that's some apples to oranges comparisons going on there, but I guess I can see how you arrived at that point.
When the subject initially came up, I thought, "Again? This RR thing is sure controversial, what IS the truth on them?" (I wasn't convinced they were the be all end all of dampers but some sure think they are, and I wanted to learn more) So I did some research.
And you know what? It's like nearly anything, advantages and tradeoffs. Your "runs cooler" advantage, according to sources I contacted in the shock manufacturing world, is merely an old advertising ploy. More consistent? Again, there are companies that feel thats not limited to a RR architecture. It has been argued that some companies use the RR architecture as a crutch, because they don't have the manufacturing capability to make the dampers operate effectively, and adjust in a standard architecture. And, that an RR design can actually hurt certain aspects of a dampers performance.
So, I am not convinced that allowing the architecture (while keeping the two adjustment rule) is similar to opening Pandora's box, and I certainly think it's not in any way comparable to allowing cams or intake or injector changes. (Custom suspension components have been allowed for a looooooong time)
Now, I can see both sides of the issue, but I stop short in thinking that it will cost everybody money, because "the bar will have been raised". Critical thinkers will do their homework, and they will find that there's no simple trade....they won't send off a check for $4K, and bolt on 2 seconds of improvement. They'll find that it's way more complex...and smart money will look at the bigger picture, and find ways to spend that same amount more effectively.
The inverse is true too....the dumb money might just jump at the chance, and they will turn the same lap....which, to a guy like you, who spends his resources wisely, would be a good thing.
Bottom line, I don't buy the 'sky will fall' prediction, but......all rules changes have costs, and I realize there needs to be a strong motivation to change a rule, as the advantages need to be greater than the costs.
