Remote Reservoirs?

[jjjanos]

Have I missed something? So far I know of one freaking car that is classes in IT that has stock RR shocks.
Give me less drama and give me some evidence that allowing RR shocks will make IT better in some way.
Without that why even bother to consider the change.

As far as RR shocks go, putting on my SCOTUS robes, I see no justifiable reason for the exception/carve-out prohibiting these shocks. Cost might have been justifiable at one time, but I think there's sufficient evidence presented that the prohibition does not control costs in an absolute sense - compliant shocks exceeding the cost of illegal RR's are available.

I don't see the logic behind allowing us to swap shocks, except NOT these kinds, nor do I see the logic behind allowing anyone to upgrade their shocks, except if you have these kinds.

We have one such car now. Given that technology advances and the tendency to add computer-controlled stability increasing devices, we'll start to see those too.

Prod went wrong when it said a 1956 car should be able to compete with a <insert a year 30 or more years later here>. They did it by allowing extra mods for the older car and not allowing mods for the newer cars. The first raised the cost of racing for existing drivers in the old cars and the second discouraged younger drivers/newer cars from even competing.

My gut feeling is that we are on the leading edge of a wave of techno bugaboos -traction control and active suspensions - that will be standard on most/all cars because their cost is dropping and litigation/safety regulations will mandate their installation. We can either embrace that technology with the rules applied equally for all cars (Everyone can swapout their Framinghanger Gear or NO ONE can) or, we run a significant risk of becoming the next production category lamenting how we aren't seeing new blood coming into the category to compete against our 40-year old cars.

That'll mean accepting that older cars will be made obsolete for anything other than vintage racing - as they should be.

 

[924Guy]

As far as RR shocks go, putting on my SCOTUS robes, I see no justifiable reason for the exception/carve-out prohibiting these shocks. Cost might have been justifiable at one time, but I think there's sufficient evidence presented that the prohibition does not control costs in an absolute sense - compliant shocks exceeding the cost of illegal RR's are available.

I don't see the logic behind allowing us to swap shocks, except NOT these kinds, nor do I see the logic behind allowing anyone to upgrade their shocks, except if you have these kinds.

We have one such car now. Given that technology advances and the tendency to add computer-controlled stability increasing devices, we'll start to see those too.

My gut feeling is that we are on the leading edge of a wave of techno bugaboos -traction control and active suspensions - that will be standard on most/all cars because their cost is dropping and litigation/safety regulations will mandate their installation. We can either embrace that technology with the rules applied equally for all cars (Everyone can swapout their Framinghanger Gear or NO ONE can) or, we run a significant risk of becoming the next production category lamenting how we aren't seeing new blood coming into the category to compete against our 40-year old cars.

That'll mean accepting that older cars will be made obsolete for anything other than vintage racing - as they should be.

Sorry, but I think that's a bad, bad, comparison. First and foremost - allowing THAT technology (traction/stability control, active suspensions) in really will create a world of haves and have-nots. Very few people out there have access to this technology, in such a way as to be able to use and tune it effectively for a race-prepped car. The guys with big money and/or factory connections will use those and really spread the gap. Maybe that belongs in Touring, but it's not a part of an Improved Touring I want to be a part of (despite the fact that I DO have access to the technology).

I do agree that trying to create a rule for one car is foolish and short-sighted. We need to be more forward-thinking than that.

But WRT RR shocks, I still see this as a philosophical question of where do we want to draw the bar for performance gains - not a matter of technology, so much as this ain't GT.

There has to be a limit somewhere on just how much you can do to the car. Otherwise what's the real difference between, say, GT and Prod? Is that not the most fundamental difference???

 

[dickita15]

jj much of what you say is well thought out and you make some good points about technology such as traction control and active suspension. These items will be a challenge for the class and the rule makers. Personally I am of the opinion that for the foreseeable future these need to be kept out of IT. For the reasons Vaughn points out these technologies are game changers.
I understand your frustration with a rule that you think is stupid. I have been on the other side of the fence. I lobbied for open wiring harnesses at least for carb cars. I could never understand why I had to put so much effort into repairing my harness when the whole damn race car runs on 8 wires, but I lost.
You and I are on opposite sides of the going national thing. I am not afraid of that for some reason.
In the end we are still at the same point. The rule is as it is now and I do not see any upside in changing it.

 

[jjjanos]

Stuff....

With all due respect, that's the epitome of prod-think. "This car/thing must be made illegal or uncompetitive otherwise we will be uncompetitive." As my father always says, thats ARE AY CEE EYE EN GEE.

The Have/have-not rebutal is a strawman, IMO. Anyone owning a car that comes equipped with TC/AS has access to that technology. In terms of optimizing the computers to a road racing environment - allow chip swapping. The market will create programmable chips and shops will program them. And if you don't allow swapping, you'll still get it but will be unable to enforce the rule. (See ECUs).

Those racing cars w/o TC/AS don't get it. It wasn't stock.

The classification process can add the weight needed to fit the car in the proper class.

At some point, we're going to have to do it anyway because most cars that anyone will want to race likely will have this on it anyway. At that point, we can either not classify them or we can force people to disable the system. IMO opinion, that'll put those who want to race these cars into a different sanctioning body or we'll begin to hear "Why should the Modern Car Category pull IT's fat out of the fire? If they just let me run my damn car with what it came with, I might run in both race groups, but I just don't see any reason to do it as long as I am confined by the limited-prep IT rules...."

But WRT RR shocks, I still see this as a philosophical question of where do we want to draw the bar for performance gains - not a matter of technology, so much as this ain't GT.

There has to be a limit somewhere on just how much you can do to the car. Otherwise what's the real difference between, say, GT and Prod? Is that not the most fundamental difference???

I don't know. From what I've read here, it sounds as if anything one can do with RR shocks, one can do with unibody shocks, but the unibody costs much more. Isn't lowering our cost a good thing?

If I can spend $500 on RR shocks that give me the same performance as the guy who already spent $3000, I not only get the same performance as him, but I've got an extra $2500 to spend on something else - like taking the missus somewhere nice.

 

[trhoppe]

He obviously can't find a flaw in my point so he's taken to directly insulting me. Besides if you're running them upside down, you've either relocated the springs to the bottom of the strut, which violates the ITCS, or you've built a kluge to make your mono-tube struts into de-facto double tube struts, which at least partially defeats the purpose of inverting them in the first place. Besides, you don't know my ratio of book to technical smarts.

James

Whoever said that the next thing you post is going to be dumber then the previous things you posted was correct.

You should stop typing and making yourself look even more ignorant then you already have.

 

[jimmyc]

YOU CAN NOT look at this rules like other rules. Much like the 'threaded shock body' rule that was revoked.

It is a attempt to control cost, that MAYBE made some sense at the time. NOW it makes absolutely no since.

Just like the ECU rule, removing the exclusion for RR, isn't going to increase the cost of racing. END OF STORY.

Now ill wait for z3_GoCar to make some more dumb comments.

 

[GKR_17]

At some point, we're going to have to do it anyway because most cars that anyone will want to race likely will have this on it anyway. At that point, we can either not classify them or we can force people to disable the system.

We're past that point and the ban is already in the rules. It's not like the ECU rule because computerized dynamics (TC or ABS) aren't required to make the car fucntion. Vaughan is right, opening that up would be a massive mistake.

If we were starting from scratch I might allow RR's, but like many others I don't see how that will improve anything today. I seem to see a lot of folks who claim that RR's aren't really any better, but are more than willing to scrap whatever they have now to bolt them on.

Grafton

 

[dickita15]

I find it a very compelling argument when someone this is the way it is END OF STORY.
Of course following up with a personal insult always makes the case better as well.

 

[rsportvolvo]

Resurrection

I agree that the current technology available makes the RR rule seem like a cost adder. But folks who would fork out the change for a RR damper years back will most likely do the same for a modern IT legal damper. So it's sort of a moot point.

SCCA is a stubborn group that doesn't necessarily follow reason or logic at times, but we're all guilty of that. I suggest using the technology available and hope for the rule change.

I posted a list of IT legal non RR dampers here:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24898

The Penske VPB-45 is a 2-way adjustable non-RR damper that costs more than most cars + their running budget. This is now the spec damper for the A1 GP series.

One good recent development for IT folks is Koni's deal with Grand-Am, Koni Challenge. Now there will be a huge influx of Koni 28 series dampers that us lowly IT folks can now get our dirty paws on for a reasonable price. Unfortunately the Koni service tools cost more than the dampers. Oh and don't mention the huge pile of RR dampers laying around now.

Some insight into coping with this rule can be gleaned from NASCAR. They banned RR dampers there awhile back, but the clever folks at Penske developed the 7300 damper (Ohlins and Bilstein followed suite). It operates the same way as the RR Penske's only in a more compact and legal package. The RR uses a CD drum and the 7300 uses a head valve. This same damper is offered with 3 different adjustment types: LSR, HSR, LSC. So one could taylor a very nice damper package that is very tunable and serviceable. And I'm not even mentioning the main piston options either. Colin Harmer has taken advantage of a more affordable option with the Penske 7500's on his ITA Miata. The 7500 doesn't have the head valve, but it does have the same adjustment types.

The big problem with RR dampers is ignorance induced fear. Most folks are not aware of what the current technology actually is and many don't care to learn. RR's were and are primarily used for cooling to improve damper consistency. It is after all a friction damper. High pressure deCarbon's (mono-tubes for the non-damperphiles) were the cat's meow, now it's back to low-pressure twin-tubes (TT). In fact there are different opinions on that too. Koni and Penske prefer the high frequency responsiveness of main valve damping where Sachs and Ohlins now prefer the wide adjustment range of solid pistons w/ spool valves in a low pressure TT for better initial grip. JRZ/Moton have a slightly different twist with the large diameter damper shafts. The technology battle will continue, as it always has. As a result grassroots racing folks can get good quality dampers for a very reasonable price. Not to mention they are user serviceable unlike the popular Bilstein and Koni dampers used by most folks here. Since IT is all about corner speed good dampers should be on the top of the list. Instead we're chasing small gains with aftermarket ECU's and such. Dampers are a better bang for the buck.

The bottom line with dampers isn't really cost or features, but knowledge and experience. Smarter folks will be in a better position to beat the less smart folks, that's racing. That may be bad news for some, but the good news is that dampers are still a bit of a black art (i.e. empirical vs. theoretical). So anyone with the desire to learn can catch up on the basics pretty quick. The next learning phase will cost a pretty penny as damper dyno's and shaker rig time are required in addition to track time.

With all that in mind how many folks get their dampers serviced? Penske recommends basic seals and fluid change at 30 track hours or yearly. Other brands have similar recommendations. Damper performance degrades gradually and is very difficult to notice. A good damper service routine will increase a cars handling consistency.

Sorry, but it's a boring rainy night here in South Korea and this gives me something to do.

 

[jimmyc]

I agree that the current technology available makes the RR rule seem like a cost adder. But folks who would fork out the change for a RR damper years back will most likely do the same for a modern IT legal damper. So it's sort of a moot point.

It isn't a cost adder. The koni 2812 costs >= a JRZ or moton clubsport 2 way.

One good recent development for IT folks is Koni's deal with Grand-Am, Koni Challenge. Now there will be a huge influx of Koni 28 series dampers that us lowly IT folks can now get our dirty paws on for a reasonable price. Unfortunately the Koni service tools cost more than the dampers. Oh and don't mention the huge pile of RR dampers laying around now.

Umm it is the OTHER way around.

BEFORE Koni signed up with GA the 28 series shocks was MUCH cheaper. Now that they are signed with GA the shocks are MUCH MUCH more expensive, and from my experience with 4 cars that run them the quality has gone down. Kinda seems on par with the way things go once something is spec'd. "Increase price decrease quality"

Some insight into coping with this rule can be gleaned from NASCAR. They banned RR dampers there awhile back, but the clever folks at Penske developed the 7300 damper (Ohlins and Bilstein followed suite). It operates the same way as the RR Penske's only in a more compact and legal package. The RR uses a CD drum and the 7300 uses a head valve. This same damper is offered with 3 different adjustment types: LSR, HSR, LSC. So one could taylor a very nice damper package that is very tunable and serviceable. And I'm not even mentioning the main piston options either. Colin Harmer has taken advantage of a more affordable option with the Penske 7500's on his ITA Miata. The 7500 doesn't have the head valve, but it does have the same adjustment types.

Yep learn from NASCAR that rules can't control costs. NASCAR says "hey no adjustable shocks" so what do the teams do? they carry around 40 to 100 different sets of shocks with different valving. Yep that SURE controlled cost.

Speaking of that, I know of two teams that now carry around 2 sets of koni 2812s with completly different valving. This means that they also now carry more spares. This all equals more $$$.

Why do they carry around 2 sets with completly different vavling? Because the 2812 doesn't have the adjustment range their previous shocks did. So now they had to purchase 16 new shocks.

 

[Tak]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.
If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

Tak
#29 ITA SFR SCCA

 

[lateapex911]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.
If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

Tak
#29 ITA SFR SCCA

That (the part I boldened) is A major key to the controlling of costs, BTW..

So, Tak, your last line left me wondering..."simple"...is the car simpler with or without RR dampers? Or does it matter at all? Is the number of allowable adjustments that draws the line between "simple" and "silly"? Or??

And, at this point, I think we've gotten far enough in this conversation (both in specifics and larger picture) that nobody will fall for the red herring that limiting the choice to non RRs will save money.

 

[rsportvolvo]

It isn't a cost adder. The koni 2812 costs >= a JRZ or moton clubsport 2 way.

My point is a racer willing to buy a (brand here) race damper will pay the extra money regardless as they see it as a requirement for being fast. The price differences between similar dampers is not what I was getting at.

Umm it is the OTHER way around.

BEFORE Koni signed up with GA the 28 series shocks was MUCH cheaper. Now that they are signed with GA the shocks are MUCH MUCH more expensive, and from my experience with 4 cars that run them the quality has gone down. Kinda seems on par with the way things go once something is spec'd. "Increase price decrease quality"

I agree that RR dampers from Koni Challenge are now cheap and plentiful, that doesn't help folks with the current ITCS regulations. That only helps the economics argument. The Koni 28 cost is high now, but in a few years the market will be flooded and the cost will go down. Right now the Koni 28 is a decent ITCS legal damper. Not to mention the knowledge pool is quite large and growing quickly. Too bad the Koni quality is suffering.

Yep learn from NASCAR that rules can't control costs. NASCAR says "hey no adjustable shocks" so what do the teams do? they carry around 40 to 100 different sets of shocks with different valving. Yep that SURE controlled cost.

Speaking of that, I know of two teams that now carry around 2 sets of koni 2812s with completly different valving. This means that they also now carry more spares. This all equals more $$$.

Why do they carry around 2 sets with completly different vavling? Because the 2812 doesn't have the adjustment range their previous shocks did. So now they had to purchase 16 new shocks.

I was pointing out a technical solution to the rule. The technical solution found in the 7300 is good for our current situation. Additionally it breaks down the RR is a better damper.

Good points on NASCAR and Koni Challege. The cost cutting effort only increased cost. Until folks in IT do the same the CRB probably won't buy it.

My guess is you're a JRZ/Moton guy. Those dampers are great for our cars. The adjustment range is so wide that just about any driver in any car can feel the changes. You can do the same thing with other brands, but you will have to revalve them. It's all part of the game.

 

[rsportvolvo]

Um, this is IT folks. Entry level class. 6 -30 year old chassis with 8 point cages that can't properly stiffen a chassis. DOT tires.

Entry level classes have competitive participants. Those folks will continue to develop their cars to go fast. Upgrading an existing car in your current class can be cheaper than jumping to a higher level class.
I think you discount too many of these parameters. IT chassis' can be made quite stiff legally. Tires are always a limiting factor regardless of the class.

If you can afford all the testing, chassis development, tire bills, shock dyno service, and more testing to sort out more than a double adjustable shock, you really ought to go play in production, GT, sports racer, or formula car. You'll go a lot faster for similar dollars.

No one can afford all of the testing they want including NASCAR and F1. A few have an open budget, but most folks work hard to make it happen. I would say that you are basicaly summing up the challenges faced by all who compete in motorsport.

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

To some folks IT is a destination class. They enjoy the competition and can't/don't want to afford a more expensive motorsport hobby.

Never confuse limited prep racing with simple. Limited prep means the development is more focused as less options are available. Racing is never simple, even if the cars are older.

The only way to control cost is to do just that. Set a price for all competing cars and owners can't refuse a buy out. That rarely works out long term.

 

[JoshS]

Keep the cars SIMPLE. IT needs to be a learning driver development class, not a destination class.

I agree 100% with "keep the cars simple." To me it's a bolt-on ruleset, not a fabrication ruleset. RR shocks don't change that one way or the other for me.

But I disagree about the second sentence. All regional racing is driver-development racing. Actually I'll bet Randy Pobst would say that all racers at all levels are still developing, but anyway. Also IMO *any* class can be a destination class. I consider IT to be a destination class for me. Let's talk about it in person at Thunderhill, this is a great paddock or walk-the-track subject!

 

[Knestis]

Josh makes a very important point. We can't make decisions for IT presuming any particular "purpose" for the category. There are as many different sets of goals, priorities, objectives, desires, needs, and wants among the membership, as there are individual drivers.

To some, IT is a stepping stone. Personally, I stepped on it the first time years ago, wandered around, and ended up back here - probably to stay.

K

 

[shwah]

I'll just repeat that as far as I'm concerned limit it to 2 adjustments, stock location and let folks run RR if they want.

 

[SPiFF]

Considering how long it took to the change the lame threaded body shock rule, RR shocks will prolly be legal some time 2050-ish.

 

[Tak]

Jake, David, Josh, and others,
On re-reading my post, it comes accross as rather insulting...wasn't meant to be that way.
I really do believe the philosophy of the class needs to remain limited prep, to keep it a beginner class. In IT drivers need to learn race craft, car control, managing tires and brakes, some basic car setup (alignment, tire pressures, sway bars, springs, corner weights, ride height, DA shocks), and managing the driver.
Full disclosure, IT has become a destination for me, and I am one of the 'old men' of IT in the SFR. And I still think it needs to remain a beginner class.
Regarding chassis stiffness, the 8 point cage is good at stiffening the rear suspenstion up to the bulkhead. Stiffness from the bulkhead to the front suspension is dependant solely on the original chassis stiffness. And in most IT eligible cars, that is poor. Really sophisticated shocks will only work well on the select few cars with good stock chassis stiffness. Everyone else will be largely chasing their tail. That's why I think we need to draw a line on damper legality. From a rules enforcement perspective, I think the most reasonable line is at double adjustable shocks.

Tak

 

[lateapex911]

Tak, I generally agree with your post, especially regarding the chassis stiffness comments. I'll NEVER let pressure sway me to allowing the rules to add strut to cage bars.

Anyway, so, you draw the line at double adjustables. But, just curious, are RRs cool with you if they are limited to two adjustments?