Remote Reservoirs?

Teh intent of the rule was to lower the cost on money.. which in the idea of IT it makes sense.

Yes.. I am missing your point.. I used to run Ohlins.. I am aware of there quality.. my point is and remains that when comparing apples to apples (i.e. take a shock A of any make and compare it to shock A that is available in RR configuration) The RR version of the same shock will cost more. This does not include special trick prices attached to convert a shock from RR to Non-RR and vice versa.

I had this conversation with Ohlins and JRZ at the Performance Racing Industry (PRI) show in orlando. Mostly on the price to build there RR shock into a non-RR shcok.. and additionally cost added to make it a strut type. (which the final price was well above the off the shelf price of the RR shcok.. I think it was in the range of 2 grand a corner) I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.
 
Also of interesting note...

Several professional huge dollar teams who were/are sponsored by a remote reservoir company have switched to non-remote reservoir shocks this and last year.

They all went fast, and they now have to pay for the new non-remote reservoir shocks.


I completely agree with jake, in that mono tube, twin tube, inverted, non-inverted, remote reservoir, non-remote reservoir. They are all different and all with there pluses and minuses..
 
quadzjr said:
I had this conversation with Ohlins and JRZ at the Performance Racing Industry (PRI) show in orlando. Mostly on the price to build there RR shock into a non-RR shcok.. and additionally cost added to make it a strut type. (which the final price was well above the off the shelf price of the RR shcok.. I think it was in the range of 2 grand a corner) I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.
Click to expand...


Correct, because JRZ doesn't make/isn't set up for non RR shocks, so of course it is going to cost more.
 
That can't be used as a valid argument that someone converted.. some didn't, some decided the gains of reduction in weight (applied mathmatically as 1/2 sprung weight) was sufficient to go non-rr. or maybe it was other beneifits.. This topic should have nothing to do with what shock is better or why.. it is price. The shocks and benefits and especially PRICE of the shocks that you are mentioning in my opinion should we well outside the relm of IT anyways.

Jimmy I have no idea why you are argueing with me.. when we seem to be in agreement. Especially when Jake's comment that yoru are in agreement with is a continuation of my post he was responding to.
 
Last edited:
jimmyc said:
Which is a stupid idea, excluding RR shocks doesn't lower the $$


In fact i just showed how it now in this day in age INCREASES the cost.
Click to expand...

The 28 series shock is on the higher end of the scale for koni shocks for sports cars compared to the three others you mentioned within their respective company. That argument and yours is based on opinion.. for your arguement to be held true it woudl have to be that the koni is equal to performance as the JRZ,Moton,Ohlins.. which is based on opinion.. therefore an arguement cannot be won or lost.
 
quadzjr said:
Teh intent of the rule was to lower the cost on money.. which in the idea of IT it makes sense.

I was hoping to get with Lee grimes of Koni, however they didn't have a booth.
Click to expand...

Quick history lesson, Steve, maybe you weren't around back 'in the day' when this went down.

The original rule allowed any damper that attached at the original mounting points, essentially. Gabriel Adjustamatics may have been the choice back then, who knows! Time and progress march on, and damper technology trickles down, and eventually, there are these "Remote Reservoir" things that fit IT cars, but jeeez, they were expensive. And, perception was that they were THE hot ticket. Some guys run them, and sure enough, win the ARRCs. (Nevermind that those same guys probably had 400 dyno runs on their engine, years of chassis development, and dozens of testing days and countless races under their belts) the general perception was that the situation was out of control, and the PTB decided to ban the uber expensive RR units. Nevermind that Penske could be hired to build you a non RR unit...who would do that!?

So they get banned. Obviously, some people are pissed, others breath a sigh of relief. I was among the latter initially, but talking to more involved parties and looking deeper and critically converted.

Now, time has continued to march on and manufacturing efficiencies, along with the trickle down effects of CAD/ CAM have reduced prices of lots of things and now we see the original premise, which was to eliminate a single technology sector on the basis of cost, has ceased to be relevant. Simply put, a RR damper might be the right solution for car A, but not car B. Cost isn't nearly as black and white as it once was, and it's arguable if they ever truly represented the technological high ground everyone perceived they occupied.

now..fast forward. The IT community has invested in non RR technology. Therefore, allowing RRs will have a cost...all change does. Some subscribers will perceive that it is a required change to keep up, or get ahead of the Jones. Some will do critical thinking and make their own calls based on their needs, the advantages of different designs, and the cost involved. For new builds, such an option opes up possibilities. I'd seriously consider RRs if I were to build a 911. The method of (legally) cornerweighting that car is extremely painful and time consuming, and using high pressure gas RRs (like a neat and not too pricey set that Moton builds) would be sweet, and a great time ....and money saver.

But, the bottom line is this, to change the existing rule, the ITAC has to consider whether they represent a true cost issue, whether true cost control is actually possible or desirable, and whether the cost of change to the membership, whether it's perceived or real, is worth it.

(Your talk with Lee would have been illuminating.)
 
Thanks Jake,

I was not around during those days, I have only been apart of the IT community since 2004ish.. and mostly crewing for people. (I was too busy either driving in straight line, or dodging trees).

I cannot argue the benefits.. going to RR brings.. they speak for themselves and are extremely nice.. on a 911 they might save you time, but are we now thinking that time is money?

I do admit the logic for the rule is sketchy.. people are reactionary.. that is human nature. There are alot of weird rules in IT, (washer bottle, rim width, door glass, etc..) that might not makes sense to some but they are the rules.. and that is IT.. play if you want. However I do 100% believe that IT needs to grow and evolve over time. However I think there is better places to allow the group to evolve than to worry about RR or non RR.

Personally, and I admit that it is my opinion so it is worth what you paid for it. The people that seem to fight for the RR's are people that can financially afford them (otherwise why bother?).. Not the people running tokico, koni, and kyb adjustable "sport" shocks. Their point is that you can spend more money on a fully built non rr shock.. True.. and If you think that you need that extra something, regardless you are going to get it. I mean the additional cost is a dime in the bucket compared to the amount of hours spent on the dyno, the amount of money spent to build an "IT" legal motor, yaddaa... yaddaa.. yaddaa. In my eyes this will not only alow the "cheaper" solution with RR's but will also allow the significantly more expensive shocks that are not cheap and the bar will be raised just that much more... taking just a bit more of driver out of the equation (provided he/she is smart enough or has crew that are smart enough to utilize them) and add more wallet to win. Additionally, it will create a larger gap between the guys out there having fun hoping to get a podium, and the guys that have a good chance of winning if they show up.

I rest, or atleast I am going to attempt to. I don’t even have a IT car, we have been campaigning a Prod car for the last two years.. I just like the IT guys much better, (a lot of national Prod guys are just too.. well… better left unsaid. maybe it is all the decaying British stuff that makes them loopy? :D) my dad is going to be driving an ITB MR2 in a year or so.. This topic no matter which way it goes, has no affect on us. (Total budget for the car is around what the price of a set of these RR shocks are going for).
 
Last edited:
I have another idea to lower costs.

How about if you have to get a shock qualified before you can use it?

The ITAC would have a general rule that shocks should not cost more than say $500 each and be non-RR. Then if you want to use a shock model, if it's not already classified, you have to submit it for approval.

If that model shock costs $1000 a corner, then they tell you no. If that shock costs $550 a corner, and that's the only kind they make for your Humber Super Snipe, then they say yes. Or if RR shocks are the only things that work on your car and using non-RR shocks would force you to spend $1000 a corner, then they say ok for that model shock. (If it turns out that that model shock also works on a different car, then fine I guess?)

It would be a lot of shock classifying at first, but then it would probably get to be a much simpler process. And people would probably get a little mad about this or that classification like they always do. But it would actually limit what people could spend on shocks.
 
Sorry.

While I appreciate the motive, it's just not workable. Offer anyone who builds a GRM "$2009 challenge" car $2009 for their car and they'll laugh in your face. We set a price of $500 and all of a sudden, everyone is getting their shocks for, uh, $499.

It's just not workable.

The ONLY way that we might directly control costs is with claim rules but the culture will never go for it.

K
 
There are 361 cars in the ITCS.

There are what, 7 or so shock manufacturers?

And there are how many different "models" from each manufacturer? Let's say 2.

So, 7 * 2 = 14, 14 * 361 = 5054 facts to check. yea, you could probably find a way to whack that down, probably to a manageable level of, oh, say 2000?

Now pricing....gotta call the retailers to get the "street pricing"...., some retailers will sell for more, or less than others...so, that's ....well, forget the math...that's an insane amount of fact checking.

Hey, if we were Speed World Challenge, and we had, oh, 8 cars classed, that might be manageable, but .......

I agree with Kirk, it's a valiant ideal, but it's far from workable.
 
I'm still in the camp that the justifiction for ADDING complexity to the rule (when the shock configuration limitation language was included) was not valid. Thus I don't see why we don't take it back out and leave the simpler any shock with up to two adjustments is allowed.

I won't be changing my shocks, but I like simpler rules.
 
Knestis said:
Offer anyone who builds a GRM "$2009 challenge" car $2009 for their car and they'll laugh in your face.
Click to expand...
Same thing I was thinking of.

Nice thought, but unworkable. NASA tries it with additional prep points for shocks that cost "more than $xxx". Problem is, what if you build them yourself? For example, Kessler fab'd the struts on my NX2000; the 8611 inserts cost (I think?) $200 each, who's to say Kessler did all the other work for "free"? So now I have a set of struts that he won't make for anyone else for anything less than ~$2000 per set, yet mine are listed for $800?

As Kirk noted, a claim rule would address this, but it's not in the culture. - GA
 
tell me !

given the ok , we will go back to reservoirs for our shocks.one of the adjustments is in the "cans" , the othe other on the shock. without the "cans" all we have is very high dollar single adjustable shocks. so to rules makers , tell me , yes we can or no we can't use the remote reservoirs that came with our shocks. maybe some day ..... ralph
 
racingralph said:
given the ok , we will go back to reservoirs for our shocks.one of the adjustments is in the "cans" , the othe other on the shock. without the "cans" all we have is very high dollar single adjustable shocks. so to rules makers , tell me , yes we can or no we can't use the remote reservoirs that came with our shocks. maybe some day ..... ralph
Click to expand...

Keep your eye on Fastrack.
 
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...

Tak,
Your thinking on damper adjustment shaft velocity ranges is incorrect. Damping tuning in the lower shaft velocities is more beneficial. High speed adjustments are good for curbs and other large imperfections (overly simple examples). The damper spends most of its time in the lower shaft velocity ranges. To back my arguement up take a look at a damper histogram. It looks like a flattened bell curve (er, should). So having the low speed adjustments is what you want. Why have an adjustment that effects 25% of your overall damping?
____________________

Additionally most folks look at RR's, adjustments, mono-tube, twin-tube, triple-tube etc. in isolation. The damper is a system in itself and must be looked at with that understanding. Additionally there are different operating principles that various manufacturer's prefer. Some work best with a RR and some don't.

Damper tuning is emperical engineering and not theoretical engineering. So formulas, degrees and such don't mean as much as a good testing regiment. The best sedan damper guy I've worked with only has a HS diploma, but he works magic on chassis setups.

Bottom line is if you don't corner balance your car regularly and change setups at the track you're wasting time and money on adjustable dampers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top