Remote Reservoirs?
- Thread starter Jason Saini
- Start date
seckerich
New member
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?
Hi Gary
As Andy said we have a very hard time getting room to run the brake ducts because the unibody is very wide just in front of the tire area. Takes some creative ducts and never go near full lock or they get ripped out. Nothing illegal that stands out. After a big oops on track you usually need some racer tape to continue. It is just entertaining when guys get on here and tell me what we have done for 10 years is impossible.
I will say I have a lot more in my shocks now than before we converted them back from RR. I also ran close to the same lap times with Koni Yellows at some tracks. Go figure.
You could keep saying that over and over and over and over again, and he would probably just sound dumber and dumber and dumber.
on rr-ax.com Lee Grimes reported that several teams have saved more then 15lbs in unsprung mass as compared to the RR shocks they ran previously. (they switched from RR to koni 2812s.)
Really EVERY SINGLE post on here that is against RR being allowed is ripe with the reasoning embedded in FEAR. And the people are FEAR full because they are very VERY uneducated on the matter.
This rule is like the Bullshit "no adjustable shock rule" in NASCAR. It doesn't saved ANY team ANY money. They just carry around 50 sets of shocks and swap them out.
Same thing here, a bunch of people who are completly uneducated on the subject of RR, are afraid of them being allowed.
If you didn't spend 5,000 dollars on shocks with the current rule, the addition of RR WOULD NOT make you magically have to go spend 5,000
OK.
ITAC members. WHAT are the successful arguments that are used to add a level of technology to the ITCS???
Here's ones that come to mind:
1) Enforcement - can't effectively enforce it out - so we have custom ECUs, for example.
2) Safety - the #1 benefit of adding such a technology improves safety (using race seats may be a good example?)
Is there any good examples in there where cost is the primary reason, and performance improvement comes along for the ride?
Is this even a valid way of approaching the issue? Define the criteria RR shocks would have to meet, then assess whether or not they do meet them?
Personally, I'm not all that convinced they'd add much to our racing experience, any more than, oh, say, allowing larger brakes... However, I'm not all that satisfied with the discussion here as far as convincing me otherwise... lotta name-calling, not as much clear scientific evidence as I'd like to see...
ITAC members. WHAT are the successful arguments that are used to add a level of technology to the ITCS???
Here's ones that come to mind:
1) Enforcement - can't effectively enforce it out - so we have custom ECUs, for example.
2) Safety - the #1 benefit of adding such a technology improves safety (using race seats may be a good example?)
Is there any good examples in there where cost is the primary reason, and performance improvement comes along for the ride?
Is this even a valid way of approaching the issue? Define the criteria RR shocks would have to meet, then assess whether or not they do meet them?
Personally, I'm not all that convinced they'd add much to our racing experience, any more than, oh, say, allowing larger brakes... However, I'm not all that satisfied with the discussion here as far as convincing me otherwise... lotta name-calling, not as much clear scientific evidence as I'd like to see...
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I am personally on the fence on this one. I truly believe that AS LONG AS we keep the 'two-adjustment max' rule, RR shock pose no threat to cost/technology/speed creep.
So having said that - I am for their inclusion - but then I ask myself these two questions: is there really a need - and does it create a perception that IT is getting out of control and you HAVE TO have them in order to compete?
What are the REAL benefits? More choices? Bah. Plenty of choices now - even for the S2000. Is Koni gonna lower their prices if we allow this? Nope.
*I* think there isn't a problem but is the small amount of upside here worth the perception issues? Your call.
So having said that - I am for their inclusion - but then I ask myself these two questions: is there really a need - and does it create a perception that IT is getting out of control and you HAVE TO have them in order to compete?
What are the REAL benefits? More choices? Bah. Plenty of choices now - even for the S2000. Is Koni gonna lower their prices if we allow this? Nope.
*I* think there isn't a problem but is the small amount of upside here worth the perception issues? Your call.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Vaughn, you're a brake engineer, so I'm diving in a deep pool, but....
I think your comparison isn't entirely appropriate.
While bigger brakes have their drawbacks (rotational and unsprung weight to start with), they also have major benefits for many in racing. I just don't see RRs as having the same advantage/disadvantage balance.
My take is like Andy's. His comments, though, have flipsides. We have choices. On the other hand, it won't hurt to have more...
The perception of IT getting out of control. On the other hand, many think we're afraid of the sky falling, and we're becoming irrelevant. Perceptions....
I can't, and won't, support rules because some people, who don't do their homework, and attain a level of critical thinking, feel they "must" have them. bah. Let them buy them. And if that were a large issue, we'd see lots of guys with 8K tied up in their dampers, standing around reading the manuals, and scratching their heads.
In the end lots of rules have been created for cost control and convenience. Heck, the allowance to run any spring, sway bar and 2 way dampers helps control the suspension, reducing tire abuse, making a better car that can operate in the range it needs to. SS guys spend BUCKETs of money on dampers, because they are spring limited, and they HAVE to...they have no other way. Making allowances can actually give people options, and options can reduce costs.
Of course, we can't legislate on cost alone, if somebody really wants to pay McLaren to prep their IT car, licking the undercoating off at $400 an hour, they can, but I feel that well written rules will provide reduced benefit from higher expenditures. The SS guys, I predict, would love to replace their mega $ dampers with $50 springs. In our case, we have chassis that flex, and a 2 adjustment rule. no matter what you do, those limitations aide to keep things in check.
Times change, and the rules have to adapt. Maybe today isn't the day for RR allowance, but predict it will come.
I think your comparison isn't entirely appropriate.
While bigger brakes have their drawbacks (rotational and unsprung weight to start with), they also have major benefits for many in racing. I just don't see RRs as having the same advantage/disadvantage balance.
My take is like Andy's. His comments, though, have flipsides. We have choices. On the other hand, it won't hurt to have more...
The perception of IT getting out of control. On the other hand, many think we're afraid of the sky falling, and we're becoming irrelevant. Perceptions....
I can't, and won't, support rules because some people, who don't do their homework, and attain a level of critical thinking, feel they "must" have them. bah. Let them buy them. And if that were a large issue, we'd see lots of guys with 8K tied up in their dampers, standing around reading the manuals, and scratching their heads.
In the end lots of rules have been created for cost control and convenience. Heck, the allowance to run any spring, sway bar and 2 way dampers helps control the suspension, reducing tire abuse, making a better car that can operate in the range it needs to. SS guys spend BUCKETs of money on dampers, because they are spring limited, and they HAVE to...they have no other way. Making allowances can actually give people options, and options can reduce costs.
Of course, we can't legislate on cost alone, if somebody really wants to pay McLaren to prep their IT car, licking the undercoating off at $400 an hour, they can, but I feel that well written rules will provide reduced benefit from higher expenditures. The SS guys, I predict, would love to replace their mega $ dampers with $50 springs. In our case, we have chassis that flex, and a 2 adjustment rule. no matter what you do, those limitations aide to keep things in check.
Times change, and the rules have to adapt. Maybe today isn't the day for RR allowance, but predict it will come.
Last edited:
I believe you may have framed the arguement incorrectly.
The question isn't why RR should be legal. The question is why they should be illegal.
Allowing these isn't an exception to a rule - we already are allowed to substitute shocks. Outlawing these is the exception.
Entire Rule: Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting points. The number and type (e.g., tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers shall be the same as stock. The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock absorbers is permitted. Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited. External adjustments of shock control shall be limited to two (2). No shock absorber may be capable of adjustment while the car is in motion.
The Rule: Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting points.
(except) The number and type (e.g., tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers shall be the same as stock.
(except) Remote reservoir shock absorbers are prohibited.
(except) External adjustments of shock control shall be limited to two (2).
(except) No shock absorber may be capable of adjustment while the car is in motion.
(useless special allowance already allowed under replacement) The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock absorbers is permitted.
Now ask, why there was an exception carved out to prohibit RR shocks?
Was it to limit cost? If so, is the rule effective in controlling cost?
Was it to limit performance? If so, is it working and why limit performance?
I think the absolute answer to the first is no. Those with the $ can get super expensive custom jobs. Then it becomes a question of how effective is the rule? Are we talking about 99% of racers not spending the dough or 70%?
Not sure about the second because I'm not certain why one would want to limit performance as part of a performance-enhancing rule (allowing non-stock shocks).
dickita15
New member
This may just prove me to be one of the ignorant ones, but the rule is where it is today for whatever reason. I would need a compelling reason to support change. If was the decider I would have it demonstrated to be how this change would help the class. Lacking convincing evidence of a benefit to the class overall I do not think a change is warranted. Arguing it will do no harm just does not do it for me.
Z3_GoCar
New member
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.
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
Z3_GoCar
New member
I agree with you on this Dick. There must be a good reason, and so far I've not heard any, otherwise we become a mod of the month class. This month RR-shocks, next month wings or maybe composite body panels. After all the cars still got to weigh the same anyway.
James
seckerich
New member
Wrong again James. Keep quessing and when you get it right come back and argue your point. My springs are right where they always were and legal. I just stated what you claim as fact is not. You still do not get it and I am sorry I do not have the time or inclination to educate you. Every point you make gets shot full of holes in one post. If you are insulted by that being pointed out I am sorry. Say you just dont want to buy them and be done with it. We get it.
Wasn't it you that whined for months that your Electromotive had to be made legal?? Different when it was what you already had and wanted it legal now wasn't it?
Last edited:
If I am reading the thread correctly, and I might not be, RR were legal at one time(?) and made illegal because, at the time, they were considerably more costly than non-custom, non-RR shocks. I'm infering that either custom, non-RR shocks were either unavailable or so costly that it was felt that few would or could purchase these. I.e. custom, non-RR cost = $$$$$, RR cost= $$$ and non-custom, non-RR cost=$.
If that is indeed the case, then the reason for the initial change no-longer exists.
Hasn't there already been one special case to the IT rules for the S2000? If I remember the rule correctly, they either must run the stock RR or non-RR shocks. That's a car specific change to the class philosophy - both in terms of allowing RR and in prohibiting a like-body for like-body swap. Smells production rule-like to me. "We'll allow the different throttle body, but we're talking away the cloaking device."
WTF are we going to do if someone asks to get a production car classified and the stock shocks allow for 4 adjustments? Maybe one hasn't been built yet, but give it time. Ban the car? Completely throw out the philosophy that stock parts always are legal as long as you meet the cage/belt/seat rules?
JoshS
New member
I'm actually pretty clear on what we would do in that case.
The car would be just like the S2000. Its original equipment is absolutely legal to run. But if the owner wants to substitute some non-OEM equipment, then the replacement equipment must be legal to the rules.
Sure, you can frame the question why they shouldn't be allowed, but that's the question everyone here's been answering, for the most part. I'm coming from the same place as Dick P - we have a functional, stable, and yes, GOOD ruleset. You need to be a lot more convincing to convince me to change it.
Oh, yeah - my struts are DEFINITELY what you'd call "upside-down" - and the springs are where they belong. Can't get 'em anymore, but my teammate just got equivalent struts, only cost about $280 ea... Somedays I'm glad I race a VW...
Oh, yeah - my struts are DEFINITELY what you'd call "upside-down" - and the springs are where they belong. Can't get 'em anymore, but my teammate just got equivalent struts, only cost about $280 ea... Somedays I'm glad I race a VW...
seckerich
New member
And you can count on Honda exploiting that one liner in the future. We can deal with it when it happens but the stock RR should have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
I think that goes hand-in-hand with the mistake they made in trying to keep 40 year-old cars competitive with modern cars. That's exactly what we are doing in IT by prohibiting modern, RR-equipped cars from replacing their stock equipment with like equipment. EVERYONE gets to replace their shocks EXCEPT for modern cars.
BTW: When the SCCA "updates" the GCR and says the update is through TB 08-06, shouldn't the revised GCR include all of the changes made in the TB's issued since the last revision?
The link on SCCA for the revised GCR (Through TB 08-06) doesn't appear to incorporate the changes in TB 08-05.
dickita15
New member
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.