May fastrack is up

[erlrich]

That would be a good comparison if the old shock wording had said RR shocks are prohibited unless fitted as stock, but that's not what it said.

Took the words right out of my mouth... or off of my page as it were...

Conversly, if the rule said "cam timing gears may be replaced provided that the replacement gears (a) are of the same dimensions as the original, and (b) are non-adjustable" then he would be SOL.

Which brings up an interesting point - under the strict letter of the revised rule you cannot even replace the original RR shocks with new, OEM RR shocks. Think about it - using anything other than what originally came on the car constitutes replacing the shocks, at which time RR shocks are illegal.

 

[JeffYoung]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

 

[erlrich]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

The way I read it is that you can use the RR shocks that came on the car from the factory, or you can replace them with any non-RR shock. Minor, but important difference.

 

[GKR_17]

Um, guys, didn't we just CHANGE the rule to read that RR shocks are illegal, unless fitted as stock??

No, if that's the way the rule read then aftermarket RR's would be legal if the car had RR's stock.

Stock shocks are legal but can only be replaced with non-RR's. Though I wouldn't go quite as far to say that a new OE units can't 'replace' the original set that came on the car. Now that's a strict read!

Also... back to the cam gears - stock (or metal replacement) adjustable cam gears are fine, but in that case anything other than stock cam timing is not legal.

 

[Knestis]

Of course, stock is not "totally" legal, because there are explicit rules that make people remove or disable stock equipment (like ABS & traction control).

Just nitpicking your choice of acronym there, not disagreeing with the principles at all.

Fair point, as usual.

However, there's NO question in my mind that we'll be dealing with that issue before long. I've always believed that we SHOULD be able to run the cars in stock form if we want. It's part of that bolt-on philosophy that I still cling to - that a person should literally be able to replace parts as they want and be able to "get out there" with minimum hassle. And killing modern ABS is precisely that.

Jeff (ITA77) absolutely does have a point that there's a fear factor that plays a role in reluctance to accept new technologies. If one were to ask my PERSONAL view, I'd agree with him that RR shocks aren't going to turn a loser into a winner. Nor will ABS turn a wanker into the Stig.

Eventually, it's not about IF these technologies will make it into IT - it's about when, and the timing DOES matter.

K

 

[RacerBill]

The way I read it is that you can use the RR shocks that came on the car from the factory, or you can replace them with any non-RR shock. Minor, but important difference.

That's the way I read the rule. Actually, I see a contradiction in the rule. On one hand it says that any replacement must be of a non-remote-reservior design, and at the same time must be the same number and type as stock. How can a replacement be the same and different at the same time?

 

[JoshS]

Fair point, as usual.

However, there's NO question in my mind that we'll be dealing with that issue before long. I've always believed that we SHOULD be able to run the cars in stock form if we want. It's part of that bolt-on philosophy that I still cling to - that a person should literally be able to replace parts as they want and be able to "get out there" with minimum hassle. And killing modern ABS is precisely that.

Jeff (ITA77) absolutely does have a point that there's a fear factor that plays a role in reluctance to accept new technologies. If one were to ask my PERSONAL view, I'd agree with him that RR shocks aren't going to turn a loser into a winner. Nor will ABS turn a wanker into the Stig.

Eventually, it's not about IF these technologies will make it into IT - it's about when, and the timing DOES matter.

K

100% in agreement.

That's why all of the ABS equipment (other than the wheel speed sensors) is still present in my car.

 

[Knestis]

That's the way I read the rule. Actually, I see a contradiction in the rule. On one hand it says that any replacement must be of a non-remote-reservior design, and at the same time must be the same number and type as stock. How can a replacement be the same and different at the same time?

Tube or lever, you mean? RR shocks aren't lever shocks.

K

 

[jimmyc]

while i think it is rather lame that RR aren't legal...

77ITA doesn't really have much of a valid argument.


Getting back to the RR thing. I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

 

[RacerBill]

K - the rule says "(e.g. tube, lever, etc.)". The 'etc' says that the type is not limited to tube or lever. Isn't a rr shock a type of shock?

BTW, my vote is to allow cars with RR shocks to replace with alternate RR shocks on the corners where they were stock.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

K - the rule says "(e.g. tube, lever, etc.)". The 'etc' says that the type is not limited to tube or lever. Isn't a rr shock a type of shock?

I do not think so. The double adjustable Motons are mono-TUBE with a 'seperate reservoir'. Still tube-type IMHO.

I personally do not think that a 2-way adjustable RR shock provides any significant advantage (if any) over an internal rez shock made up of equal quality components.

 

[dj10]

I do not think so. The double adjustable Motons are mono-TUBE with a 'seperate reservoir'. Still tube-type IMHO.

I personally do not think that a 2-way adjustable RR shock provides any significant advantage (if any) over an internal rez shock made up of equal quality components.

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.

 

[Knestis]

...I think people from the ITAC have stated, that RR like other things (threaded body shocks), was put in place to control costs.

There isn't any real costs to control, we are talking about small amounts of money.

But then it is pretty hard to write a convencing argument to the ITAC about costs.

There's little question that the rationale for prohibition of RR shocks and struts was cost - that's a matter of recent memory. However, there are a lot of current ITAC members who don't adhere to the assumptions behind that logic. And the price of that technology has come down a bunch in the ensuing years. AND there are lots of ways to spend pee-lenty of money on shocks, even without buying RR units.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.

I agree - but remember, we are limited to 2 adjustments only.

 

[lateapex911]

Honestly, I'd vote to allow RR shocks in a heartbeat, if I was voting from pure greed. Why?

Because some Most) of my competitors have finite amounts of money...and if some of them spend lots on blingy shocks, the less they spend on lapping, racing, driver training, testing, and the things that actually make 'em go fast, which means they spend more time in my mirrors.

Have at 'em boys.

 

[lateapex911]

AB, I would think that the high speed adjustments that the RR's are able to provide (4 way adjustability) would be an advantage as well as some additional cooling. But I will admit that I have not had the good fortune to test any so this is IMO only.

When this came up, I decided to inform myself...there was so much conflicting hype going around, so I did some research on the whole "IS a RR damper intrinsically better then a non RR damper, and if so, why?" question and learned that no, there are trade offs and advantages to the different architectures. One is not always better than the other.

Now, we limit dampers to two adjustments, which eliminates many RR designs, and we have free spring rates, and we have limited caged cars, ...so when you compare apples to apples, the "RR is better" case is really looking bad. And cooling? According to those who design dampers, that's a sales line from the early days, but has little to do with the real world today.

 

[dj10]

When this came up, I decided to inform myself...there was so much conflicting hype going around, so I did some research on the whole "IS a RR damper intrinsically better then a non RR damper, and if so, why?" question and learned that no, there are trade offs and advantages to the different architectures. One is not always better than the other.

Now, we limit dampers to two adjustments, which eliminates many RR designs, and we have free spring rates, and we have limited caged cars, ...so when you compare apples to apples, the "RR is better" case is really looking bad. And cooling? According to those who design dampers, that's a sales line from the early days, but has little to do with the real world today.

Thank AB & Jake, I ready didn't realize we are limited on 2 adjustments. That seems to defeat the purpose of the RR Shocks, doesn't it? Why would I waste my money if I'm not going to get all the adustability the RR's have to offer? Also we have to look at the the newer cars coming out with RR as OEM. If they start offering 4 way adjustments they will open up a a can of worms and if they have them, I better be able to use them too. Time will tell.

 

[lateapex911]

I can't think of any car on the market today with manually adjustable shocks...one way two way or four way.

I tend to doubt that this will happen, certainly not in large numbers, if only because of the liability questions that would arise.

The two adjustment rule exists to limit the "craziture"*. It's a good line to draw in the sand.

Craziture= Craziness of expenditure of time, effort and funds'

I ready didn't realize we are limited on 2 adjustments

I hope your super jammy new DTM suspension doesn't have more than two! That would suck!

 

[Knestis]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I don't think that containing costs is any more valid a rationale for the "2-adjustment" rule, than it is for the "architecture" rule.

I believe we just have less collective angst about this other technology because (1) the voodoo factor is lower (you can't see the cool functionality of 4-ways like you can those reservoirs and braided lines!), and (2) few enough people understand how to manage all those adjustments, that there's some recognition that results aren't automagical.

K

 

[shwah]

Also we have to look at the the newer cars coming out with RR as OEM. If they start offering 4 way adjustments they will open up a a can of worms and if they have them, I better be able to use them too.

Yeah!

And I want a 16V head too, because there are other cars that have better flowing stock heads than mine, and I want to share that advantage. I want to install double wishbone suspension too, because it's not fair that some cars have better suspension geometry than me...

:026: