Remote Reservoirs?

[trhoppe]

T2

Touring and IT don't have enough in common. Your shocks matter 10 TIMES as much when you are forced to run bullshit stock springs and stock swaybars, and have to use shocks and nitrogen to "replace them".

Having said that, I voted "allow whatever you want, limit it to 2 adjustments"

I just don't care enough to do anything else rather then just vote in a web poll, as I'm perfectly happy with the Koni 28s on my ITA car.

-Tom

 

[tnord]

so you can get non-canister units that function just as well as RR for the same price, and the benefit of changing the rule is to allow more options for people?

being a financial analyst, i tend to look at things purely in terms of cost/benefit. well, the potential cost of changing this rule seems pretty big with the unintended consequences, and the potential benefit seems pretty minimal.

leave it alone, we've already opened the door by allowing OEM RR stuff (one-off S2000 track package car anyone?).

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's another reason remote resovoir shocks are superior to integal resovoir; unsprung weight. The remote resovoir shocks don't need to carry the weight of the resovoir and extra working fluid. So, making remote resovoir shocks legal makes all the integral resovoir shocks obsolete, thus rasing costs because every one will need a new set of $10k RR shocks/struts instead of $3-$4k for a set that takes coil-overs. Maybe rules don't limit costs, but rule changes can be expensive, I spent $1500 on the extra door bar rule alone.

James

 

[trhoppe]

Here's another reason remote resovoir shocks are superior to integal resovoir; unsprung weight. The remote resovoir shocks don't need to carry the weight of the resovoir and extra working fluid. So, making remote resovoir shocks legal makes all the integral resovoir shocks obsolete, thus rasing costs because every one will need a new set of $10k RR shocks/struts instead of $3-$4k for a set that takes coil-overs. Maybe rules don't limit costs, but rule changes can be expensive, I spent $1500 on the extra door bar rule alone.

James

This is one of the dumber posts I have ever read. I am just blows away with your ignorance.

As a side note, I noticed today that our 4Runner has remote reservoir shocks

-Tom

 

[IPRESS]

What Jason is saying (as I see it) for us ....rather dense racers (only include yourself with me if you want) is:
A. RR or not RR shocks (either way) have no bearing on cost containment.
B. With RR shocks being more widely used, allowing them will give IT racers more shock choices. (IMHO, this MIGHT allow a person to have a better shock package for a cheaper cost.)
C. Rules Creep is not damaged by allowing RR shocks if you limit adjustments to the present 2.
D. SCCA's #1 problem is "WELL WE HAVE ALL WAYS DONE IT THIS WAY." (And actually no it wasn't always this way.)
E. Having the right shock package would be nice (just an opinion.)
F. Contrary to what some might think, JASON SAINI loves racing much more then the average Bear. He isn't out to gain anything for himself or his customers that anyone else can't use too. He has tossed this topic around a bunch and has told me many times that having use of RR shocks would allow me to have a cheaper and better set of shocks. I have debated spending the high dollars for monotube customs, but every time I just can't do it.
G. To some degree this IS like the ECU rule. Getting rid of the "in the stock box" rule gave EVERY IT racer more choices. I am happy as can be with my "poorman's custom ECU" and I don't see its low price being a competition factor. Likewise with the RR shocks, (as long as the adjustments are kept in line) choices will allow me or anybody else to shop around for better deals.

This one (change) makes sense.

 

[JeffYoung]

In post no. 2, I agreed. I agree again. Marc said it very well.

 

[lateapex911]

Mac....very well reasoned. no argument from me.

 

[IPRESS]

JAKE, This issue must be flawed if you think I used good reasoning!!!!!!!

But just the same it is nice to be in agreement with some of the El Jefe's of the class.

 

[DavidM]

How do you know allowing remote reservoir shocks isn't rules creep? Typically, the more options that are allowed the more creative people can get.

So far, here are the arguments for allowing RR shocks:

Cost - We've already established cost is not a reason to modify a rule.

More options - Bogus argument IMO. Let's apply that logic to some other things. I'd like more options for adjusting camber on the rear of my car. How about allowing an adjustable upper control arm. It's cheaper than the stock piece. I'd also like more options for the brake master cylinder. More options is not a reason to change a rule IMO.

Because the rule used to allow RR shocks - I don't care what it used to say. It doesn't say that anymore and has no bearing on whether or not we change the current rule.

Changing a rule on the basis of allowing more options for something sets a very bad precedence in my mind. If you can't get the right shock package without RR shocks then maybe you should look at other shock manufacturers. We all play within the same set of rules.

David

 

[trhoppe]

More options - Bogus argument IMO. Let's apply that logic to some other things. I'd like more options for adjusting camber on the rear of my car. How about allowing an adjustable upper control arm. It's cheaper than the stock piece. I'd also like more options for the brake master cylinder. More options is not a reason to change a rule IMO.

Those don't work. The rule would be "like" that, if we had stock shocks.

The remote reserviour rule would be similar to if you could use threaded adjustable upper control arms, but not allowing you to use eccentric bolts.

-Tom

 

[IPRESS]

Well.................Nevermind

 

[Z3_GoCar]

This is one of the dumber posts I have ever read. I am just blows away with your ignorance.

As a side note, I noticed today that our 4Runner has remote reservoir shocks

-Tom

Do I have to break out the quarter car model, and run a frequency response analysis? Trust me weight is much better placed moving on the chassis than moving with the wheel. Newton say so. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.


James

 

[lateapex911]

James, not to split hairs (and I admit I['m no expert) but I don't think it's black and white.

First, RR dampers require more components. All dampers already have a fluid chamber, but the RR dampers add an external one, plus requisite valving and plumbing. There is some duplicity there.

Second, the entire damper is not considered unsprung weight, to my knowledge, only a portion of it.

Now, the weight we are talking about here is rather minor, so we are splitting hairs when we look at the big picture, but I don't think you can make a statement that allowing RR dampers will "obsolete" the existing stock of dampers people run currently.

it's just not that black and white.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Jake,

You're right that it's not exactly cut-and-dried that remote resovoirs will be better in every situation. However, all it needs is to be better in one situation to disturb the ballance. Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.

The key to reducing unsprung mass is that everything connected to the suspension arm, moves at the motion ratio. Example, struts are typically better than a .9 motion ratio. In my case it's .92, that means for every pound mass taken off of the moving part of the strut has the effect of removing .92 pounds mass from the hub. Now here's a part where high pressure mono-tube remote resovoir shocks really shine because they can be mounted upside down. This means you take the heaviest, most complicated piece of the shock and instantly convert it to sprung weight because it's now afixed directly to the chassis. This effect can only be achieved with shocks thought because struts need the shaft to extend throught the upper bearing. So if a car has four wheel A-arm suspension, it benefits at all four corners. If it's got struts, sorry thanks for playing your SOL.

James

 

[lateapex911]

Jake,

Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.



James

Don't forget they use the RRs because their suspensions move through HUGE travels. A lot of fluid gets moved. Our cars have 1/10th of the travel requirements.

 

[trhoppe]

Jake,

You're right that it's not exactly cut-and-dried that remote resovoirs will be better in every situation. However, all it needs is to be better in one situation to disturb the ballance. Off-roaders have been using RR shocks for litterally decades. Where I am, I know there are probably 4-6 offroad racers for every road racer.

The key to reducing unsprung mass is that everything connected to the suspension arm, moves at the motion ratio. Example, struts are typically better than a .9 motion ratio. In my case it's .92, that means for every pound mass taken off of the moving part of the strut has the effect of removing .92 pounds mass from the hub. Now here's a part where high pressure mono-tube remote resovoir shocks really shine because they can be mounted upside down. This means you take the heaviest, most complicated piece of the shock and instantly convert it to sprung weight because it's now afixed directly to the chassis. This effect can only be achieved with shocks thought because struts need the shaft to extend throught the upper bearing. So if a car has four wheel A-arm suspension, it benefits at all four corners. If it's got struts, sorry thanks for playing your SOL.

James

Hey, you are being an idiot again.

Struts can, have, and will use inverted mounting whenever someone wants to make them.

-Tom

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Don't forget they use the RRs because their suspensions move through HUGE travels. A lot of fluid gets moved. Our cars have 1/10th of the travel requirements.

Sure under normal conditions we need less than 2 inches of travel, but what happens when you have to hit the curb hard every time to get the last few tenth's? I've got a lot more travel in my shocks and struts that what I normally need. Or a more likely senario is a lot of smaller bumps taken at speed, often in braking zones when traction is most important. The volume of fluid moved is equal to the volume of steel moved into and out of the shock/strut. Say your strut has a 5/8" shaft and moves an inch up and down over a dozen stutter bumps, you've just moved over 30 cubic inches of fluid into and out of the strut. That's 30 cubic inches of fluid that move through the orfices in the piston. That's the same as a 12 inch shock (with the same 5/8" shaft) moving through it's complete range of motion once.

James

 

[seckerich]

Hey, you are being an idiot again.

Struts can, have, and will use inverted mounting whenever someone wants to make them.

-Tom

Have to agree with you there. Now I have to go turn mine back over because they must not work. Book smart and real world challenged. I wish those that are so sure they are right would do a little research before they state "facts" to support an arguement. Only good point against RR shocks so far is the dreaded "rules creep" and that is pretty thin. It would scare some of these drivers to know what is really being done every day LEGALLY to an IT car.

 

[Gary L]

It would scare some of these drivers to know what is really being done every day LEGALLY to an IT car.

Speaking of which (going off topic a bit - but aren't we always ), you may just be the guy to ask, concerning something I observed on a particular ITS RX7 once upon a time. What would he have modified (legally or otherwise), that would make the minimum turning circle for the car at least 80 feet? Is this common with the 2nd gen car when lowered to typical IT ride height, er wut?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Speaking of which (going off topic a bit - but aren't we always ), you may just be the guy to ask, concerning something I observed on a particular ITS RX7 once upon a time. What would he have modified (legally or otherwise), that would make the minimum turning circle for the car at least 80 feet? Is this common with the 2nd gen car when lowered to typical IT ride height, er wut?

Gary,

I am assuming you are saying that is a lot of space. The way we run the brake ducts on our customer cars, coupled with the 225 series tires, we have to be very careful going even close to full lock or it chews up the ducting. If there was no ducting, we would be fine.