Remote Reservoirs?

Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.
 
Nobody is ever going to get "special treatment" in IT - as long as this ITAC is around - in the sense that someone gets something that isn't allowed on other cars. What I think Jake is trying to get at, is what is the general sense of folks in terms of what the rule should be for everyone...?

** Current rule, with no-RR restriction and limit to 2 adjustments

** Remove no-RR restriction, retain 2-adjustment limit

** Allow RR units with more than 2 adjustments

** All only non-RR units but allow more adjustments

** Run whatever the heck you want

KK
 
rsportvolvo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually I have always ran on Koni's, first the re-valved sports and now 3011's.

And i was a huge supporter of the 2812 it was a GREAT bang for the buck. IMO it was probably THE BEST bang for the buck. But now that prices have almost doubled.

And there are other/better "bang for your buck" options.
 
Tak said:
Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.
Click to expand...

Hey Tak, could you shoot me an email ? Got a question for you. Thanks!
 
I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.

I personally would love to hear some real solutions to keeping costs down on shocks instead of this type of arguing.

For instance, what if we just limit the brands and models of shocks? It doesn't seem hard for the board to occasionally check and see how much shocks are selling for. Seems easy enough to limit the base cost of a shock to say $500 each. You'll never be able to keep people from spending man-hours on things, but at least you'd have a chance at limiting the base cost of the shock. The rest of the rules stay the same. Just restrict certain brands and/or models.
 
Tak said:
Hi Jake-
I just don't see the point in RR for a DA shock (The mechanical engineer in me speaking). Even if there is not a 3rd (or 4th) external adjustment, an RR shock is capable of superior low velocity damping control--and an element of tuning that I don't believe belongs in IT.

However, I suspect the current request for RR is from people with cars where the length of the damper is THE restriction in lowering the car. And no, I don't think they should get special treatment.

Tak.
Click to expand...


There are many other advantages of having a RR shock over a single mono-tube design, Coming from my mechanical engineering background and my previous off-road racing experience. list of benefits independent of the amount of adjustments.. mostly

-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
-allows for more diverse mounting
-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock

Coming from the off-road world, standard non-RR shocks wouldn't not last a whole season.. the shocks would get hot to the touch with no ambient heat to heat them other than the heat generated form the piston itself. when the shock got too hot over whoops section if the oil were to foam in the shock damping would be extremely erratic.

I have run a few different shocks on my race quad. I loved my ohlins but they were sold with the old quad. My current shocks are Custom Axis DA RR fronts and SA (rebound) rear.
 
Scooter said:
I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.
Click to expand...

You can spend more on non-RR shocks then you can on RR shocks.. yes but that is mostly apples to oranges. If you find a shock A that is available in both RR and non-RR. I haven't seen the case of a RR being cheaper, not saying that it is not out there, jsut wouldn't make sense for it to be if the shocks are identical and the RR are better, and cost more to manufacture for them to be cheaper.
 
Scooter said:
I think that the argument FOR RR shocks is not really a good one. All Jason really said is that you can spend a lot on non-RR shocks, too. So why change it then? Everyone already has non-RR shocks. Leave it please. Don't mess with all of our current setups that we've already spent money on.

I personally would love to hear some real solutions to keeping costs down on shocks instead of this type of arguing.

For instance, what if we just limit the brands and models of shocks? It doesn't seem hard for the board to occasionally check and see how much shocks are selling for. Seems easy enough to limit the base cost of a shock to say $500 each. You'll never be able to keep people from spending man-hours on things, but at least you'd have a chance at limiting the base cost of the shock. The rest of the rules stay the same. Just restrict certain brands and/or models.
Click to expand...

Limiting things often has the opposite effect. Only Koni dampers allowed? Koni might be wise to raise the price. But, more than that, we have 300 plus cars listed in the ITCS. I can't see how the ITAC could find time to go out and research what each car has in the way of fitment options, then cross reference costs and possible common models, etc. The work required to do that is ridiculous.

And, even if it were possible, what happens when we add a new car to the class? What if brand X doesn't have a fitment for that car? Do we not list it?

The genious in the IT rules that makes spending money on dampers silly after a certain point (AKA 'cost control") is the cage rule. I often read how people wish they could tie in the front of the chassis to the cage...but guess what? THAT is the reason nobody is going to get good return on the investment in mega dollar dampers....the chassis is the undamped spring!

That one simple part of the rule saves us all the silliness of listing "cost controlled" dampers.

Also, if you are thinking "But I see them limit dampers in pro racing", well, think again. Yes, the Koni challenge series runs on Konis, but the number of models listed for competition is small, and koni is onboard and makes fitments for those models..they are a sponsor of the series. That's not the case here in club racing)
 
How about a claim rule for shocks? You can buy anyone else's shocks for $2,000 after any race.

I would certainly sell mine for that!
 
Claim rules work in non mixed marque racing, where everyone is racing a narrow range of products. You often find a claim rule in circle track racing where everyone uses a Chevy 350, for example. It's entirely possible that in mixed marque racing, it could be used vengefully. For example, a guy loves the Borgward Special GT, and decides to race it, but then finds that nobody makes a damper fitment for it. So he contacts Super Dampers LLC, and they fab up a set for him, and yea, he's hit hard ...they're double adjustable, fit the tight confines of the Borgard suspension, and cost him a pretty penny and then some. Claiming those would cost him a bundle, and could cause him to miss races merely because of timelines to get new ones fabbed.
 
quadzjr said:
You can spend more on non-RR shocks then you can on RR shocks.. yes but that is mostly apples to oranges. If you find a shock A that is available in both RR and non-RR. I haven't seen the case of a RR being cheaper, not saying that it is not out there, jsut wouldn't make sense for it to be if the shocks are identical and the RR are better, and cost more to manufacture for them to be cheaper.
Click to expand...

koni 2812 is $1,000 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $4,000 for a set.

Ohlins TX36 is $899 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3596 for a set.

JRZ RS Pro is $925 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3,700 for a set.

Moton club sport $930 per sock for the typical honda/acura so $3,720 for a set.

All of those shocks perform around same.
 
jimmyc said:
koni 2812 is $1,000 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $4,000 for a set.

Ohlins TX36 is $899 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3596 for a set.

JRZ RS Pro is $925 per shock for the typical honda/acura so $3,700 for a set.

Moton club sport $930 per sock for the typical honda/acura so $3,720 for a set.

All of those shocks perform around same.
Click to expand...


I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.

My point is you can't compare any one of the quality non RR shocks you mentioned to say a cheap japanese ebay RR coilover that is cheaper..
 
quadzjr said:
Coming from .....my previous off-road racing experience. list of benefits independent of the amount of adjustments.. mostly

-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
-allows for more diverse mounting
-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock

Coming from the off-road world, standard non-RR shocks wouldn't not last a whole season..

I have run a few different shocks on my race quad. I loved my ohlins but they were sold with the old quad. My current shocks are Custom Axis DA RR fronts and SA (rebound) rear.
Click to expand...

I was going to not respond, but just to provide a different light....

-helps eliminate shock oil foaming
Click to expand...
True, but volume of fluid and travel have a major effect as well
-allows the tuning of the shock via gas pressure
Click to expand...
also available on non RR dampers
-allows for more travel for a given shock body length (what you said)
Click to expand...
-
allows for more diverse mounting
Click to expand...
-allows for additional cooling due to the increase in surface area to cool the shock
Click to expand...
True, but, keep in mind some of those advantages are very minor in our world, compared to your off road background. Where your shock travel is sometimes measured in feet, ours is measured in inches...maybe two ro three. It's much different.

Again, mono tube, twin tube, inverted, remote reservoir...they ALL have advantages and drawbacks. Each unique application might need the advantages offered by one type of damper over another. (The S200 is a case where Honda went RR because of limited real estate )
 
quadzjr said:
I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that. After talking with a guy inside Koni, I know that they think their damper has advantages over an RR design, while also maintaining superiority of some RR strengths..but...it costs a lot to build such a trick pony. I think he said they could do RR, but they'd give up some advantages, while not gaining others. He inferred the cost for such trickness was pretty high, and the cost for the reservor units would be a wash. As they felt the result would be a lesser damper, they have decided to persue their route.
 
lateapex911 said:
I wonder about that. After talking with a guy inside Koni, I know that they think their damper has advantages over an RR design, while also maintaining superiority of some RR strengths..but...it costs a lot to build such a trick pony. I think he said they could do RR, but they'd give up some advantages, while not gaining others. He inferred the cost for such trickness was pretty high, and the cost for the reservor units would be a wash. As they felt the result would be a lesser damper, they have decided to persue their route.
Click to expand...

Jsut curious...What advantages other than weight and packaging does a non-RR have over a RR shock?

I know most of my points are not as important in road racing.. though it would be cool to be about to adjust low/high speed damping that is position sensitive..

445tubepiggybackbypasss.jpg
 
I'm going to have to beg off on the specifics for now. In doing the research on this issue when it frst came up to the ITAC a half year or so ago, I contacted people much smarter than me, and the result of those conversations was that it seemed rather gray...each design had its strenghts and weaknesses. I've shot a note out so that I can speak semi intelligently about the specifics. I think my basic point was that it's not totally balck and white.

That thing looks like a F1 technology fuel dump can!
 
lateapex911 said:
I think my basic point was that it's not totally balck and white.

That thing looks like a F1 technology fuel dump can!
Click to expand...

Yeah.. nothing is "Totally" black or white.. however with the original intent of the rule it still seems to me to weigh heavily to one side.

In my opinion.. worth all of 2 cents maybe 3.. the Fox shock is the way to go right now for truck offorad racing (PEP has a great shock with decent support if you can afford it for you ATV guys).. .. If you can afford a triple bypass 4.5" diameter shock.. I hope your driving ability and crew can match your wallet!
 
Last edited:
quadzjr said:
I wasn't questioning the price.. from one brand to another.. my statement was general..

Lets single one out.

If Koni offered the 2812 shock in a RR version, the RR version would cost more.

My point is you can't compare any one of the quality non RR shocks you mentioned to say a cheap japanese ebay RR coilover that is cheaper..
Click to expand...


Im not. I am comparing them to other quality products.

You do know JRZ, moton, Ohlins, are really good quality shocks right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top