yes, i know this isnt the place to get an official answer about rules and i should go straight to the race organization for the definitive answer, but im really not interested in the "official" answer (seeing that im not really racing at the moment), just bringing this up FOR DISCUSSION.

so in BOTH ITA and HC the shocks are generally "free" except remote reservoir and >2 adjustment restrictions.

but does that restrict the swapping of the lower front shock fork? with either from another car model from the same manufacturer, or totally aftermarket. is that piece part of the "free", or part of the chassis that cannot be changed.

i suppose this is somewhat similar to the extended top hat rule. iirc, there are still some ppl that disagree with the use of them.

why am i asking? i dunno, just seems like ppl are casually swapping out the smaller EF/DA front fork with the larger EG/DC fork that allows for using EG/DC shock applications on their EF/DA where there are no current EF/DA applications. and seeing what others think, in regards to the rules.





Modified by Tyson at 12:42 AM 12/14/2005

 

Techniclly the shock fork thing maybe illegal, but is there really anything gained in performance when switching to the EG/DC fork?


and about the TOp hat thing, its stupid and impeads non-strut cars even more. On a strut car you can run camber plates and you ARE moving the shock around, and moving the mounting point in the same way that you are on a honda when using the top hats.

 

and what if you used those suspension techniques drop forks?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
but does that restrict the swapping of the lower front shock fork? with either from another car model from the same manufacturer, or totally aftermarket. is that piece part of the "free", or part of the chassis that cannot be changed.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I almost had to do that for my Production INtegra, and my opinion was

1) It is part of the shock assembly. It mounts to the stock location (LCA). Only counter argument is that when you buy shocks you don't normally replace this part.

2) If you swap an EG for an EF fork, the only difference is the size of the upper mount/cup. Nobody would notice anyway.

That being said, I would say if you put an aftermarket one on there... were blatenty pushing the line of the rule, and get noticed, you risk getting protested, and you may lose.

But if you're swapping stock for stock I wouldn't worry about it.

-k

 

the difference in forks between EF and EG are easily identifiable by the two embossed letters.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so in BOTH ITA and HC the shocks are "free" with remote reservoir and +2 adjustment restrictions now.

but does that restrict the swapping of the lower front shock fork? </TD></TR></TABLE>

IMHO, The shock is the shock, and the lower fork is the lower fork.
If it doesn't say you can...

$.02

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the difference in forks between EF and EG are easily identifiable by the two embossed letters.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah but even still, who is going to notice? And then protest? Visually they are nearly identical.

If you keep it low-key I wouldn't worry about it.

Especially if you aren't a front-runner.

 

well, honestly, im not asking for myself. but you do have interesting advice and perspective.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rotten &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yeah but even still, who is going to notice? And then protest? Visually they are nearly identical.

If you keep it low-key I wouldn't worry about it.

Especially if you aren't a front-runner.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Kris,
So, you're saying it's okay to cheat?

If you plan on racing with us next year, you might want to know that a few of your compeditors read this stuff and will take notes.
Just trying to help.

 

Ride him hard John.

Kris, We like legal cars at both ends of the field and in the middle too.

Rick

 

Sorry, Miss read


Modified by CRXSiR71777 at 2:21 PM 12/14/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johng &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Kris,
So, you're saying it's okay to cheat?

If you plan on racing with us next year, you might want to know that a few of your compeditors read this stuff and will take notes.
Just trying to help.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No I don't cheat--in fact ask all the guys--I'm always saying "wish I could be it wouldn't be legal". I've also gone on record as stating that we will never intentionally break a rule.

I'm saying that it is a gray area, that it is not totally unreasonable to consider the fork as part of the damper. It provides no competitive advantage, isn't noticible and noone would pitch you **** over it.

I personally was in this exact same spot, and I didn't go that route on the Integra and had the dampers custom made to fit the Integra sized forks. I follow the rules to the letter, or even on the conservative side.

But my point is that I've rarely seen someone protested, and it has always been someone who was at the front of the pack. So somethign like this, a low key part that is functionally identical, running mid-to-back of the pack is not going to protested. Period. Like it or not, that is the reality. It may not be right, but it is the situation.

Edit: You know what. You guys are right. Cheating is cheating. Even though it won't determine the outcome of the race and nobody would ever protest it. Get different shocks, or make a decision to go with a less restrictive class.



Modified by rotten at 7:21 AM 12/14/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Techniclly the shock fork thing maybe illegal, but is there really anything gained in performance when switching to the EG/DC fork?


and about the TOp hat thing, its stupid and impeads non-strut cars even more. On a strut car you can run camber plates and you ARE moving the shock around, and moving the mounting point in the same way that you are on a honda when using the top hats.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The aftermarket A-arm top mounts such as TEIN's "pillow ball mounts" are designed to remove the stock unit's compliance and to reduce binding by including a spherical bearing through which the damper shaft is located. The top mount position isn't movable like in the usual camber/castor plate for a strut car, which makes sense since you are not changing camber on a A-arm suspension at the shock mounts.

 

well regardless of the top hats, thats another discussion.

are we all pretty much in agreement, that in either HC and IT changing out the lower shock fork is illegal?

(despite whether its noticable or acheive any direct gains)

 

I say legal in H1; illegal in H2-5

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thawley &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I say legal in H1; illegal in H2-5</TD></TR></TABLE>

whats the reasoning behind this?

 

Try asking at improvedtouring.com.

I think it's part of the shock, so is legal to change.

 

I would say if they detail the upper shock mount as something noteworthy then the fork would be mentioned if it was changable.. Thus I, coupled with Logic, conclude its not legal.. Sorry

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thawley &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I say legal in H1; illegal in H2-5</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bosco500 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">whats the reasoning behind this?</TD></TR></TABLE>

H1 is a hybrid class: allows for mixing/updating/back dating of engine, trans and brake parts. Technically, there is no legal provision for swapping suspension parts, but I think its just an oversight. There have been a few cars with five-lug ITR hub and suspension swaps. Same kind of thing, me thinks...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Try asking at improvedtouring.com.

I think it's part of the shock, so is legal to change.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Dude, this is probably the first time I've strongly disagreed with you in the last 4-5 years. You've GOT to be kidding me!

The lower fork is NOT "part of the shock". The shock only attaches to the lower fork. If that's your logic, the lower fork attaches to the lower control arm, so if the fork is part of the shock, so is the control arm.

A shock is a shock -- a lower fork is a lower fork.
$.02

 

So then why is the upper hat different? That attaches to the shock too.

 

I know that ITA RX-7s add spacers between the McP strut housing and the lower control arm to correct suspension geometry. As long as the spacer is attached to the strut housing (welded or bolted) so that it can be removed with the strut (and not attached to the LCA or an independent item) it is legal. I would think replacing or modifying the fork would be the same as far as the rules are concerned.

http://www.gforceengineering.net/products.htm
Scroll down to "billet turn-in spacers"

The only issue may be the IT rules explictly allw McP cars to replace the entire housing. No such explicit language exists for non-strut cars. So, it would come down to whether or not the fork is part of the "shock" or not.

 

What upper hat? I'm talking about Tyson's initial question regarding the lower fork.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johng &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A shock is a shock -- a lower fork is a lower fork.</TD></TR></TABLE>
God, you're so literal. Can't you try to be just a little more open minded...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johng &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What upper hat? I'm talking about Tyson's initial question regarding the lower fork.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

The upper hat that the spring sits on, and it bolts to the chassis. There's no specific allowance for it in the IT rulebook and they pass through tech/teardown without protest.

If those are illegal, why isnt changing the shock fork?