Jump to content

H1 S2000 Shock Question


pinkyemmcee

Recommended Posts

I have remote resevour shocks for my s2000 and I would like to run at the up coming sears point event in H1.

 

Can I run in H1 with non-legal shocks and not get screwed out of my finishing position?

 

Who would I talk to in norcal about running the event and nasa licensing procedures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would love you come out to run. I think it would be great to have a S2K out in NorCal.

 

That being said, you would not be able to run for points if you have an illegal car or a car that is overprepared per class rules. You can do a 'fun run' with the HC race group. You still pay race entry fees. You still have to have the comp license. You do need to declare a 'fun run'. If you win the race, you still won, just not as a 'HC' car. You won't be scored any points.

 

Here is the official stuff: Alternatively, you could run try to run for points. However, the rules dictate that, if a competitor knows or knows of, a car that is illegally prepared they should mention it to the competitor and/or mention it to the official. The idea is that the competitor would correct the illegal item(s) before competition. If the car is found to be illegal, you can regulated to a lower placing or disqualified at the discretion of the race director and/or series group leader. (cliff's notes version of rules)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to be a consistant competitor or are you just comming out this one time? I hope you will continue, especially in a TRUE H1 car. When you come out find my Boss, Barry Hartzel and show him your car. I have been making headway in convinceing him to prepare an S2K. Or just come find me and I'll show him if you don't mind. You can find me around the GOTO:Racing rig which is the big green endevour motorhome and three red/whuite/black HC cars.

 

Yeap, thats right Three. My dad is planning on running the CRX in H5 against one of the team continental guys that said he was going to make the trip. Now you have to come H5 TC car!

 

Mike Lock

GOTO:Racing Fabrication

#45 H4 Del Sol si

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not define the S2000 OE rear shock as "remote resevoir". They are however, not mono-tube. There used to be some text in the original ECHC rulebook about the S2k rear shock, but I think the text in the National Rules covers it just fine.

 

Any single bodied shock absorber may be used. The number and type shall be the same as stock.

 

It is a single body, aka both parts are attached to the same shock and are in the same location. A true remote resevoir shock, where the 2 tubes are connected by a long line and are not in the same location, is a bit different and clearly not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

remote reservior which is integrated into the same body

 

It is integrated into the same body, therefore it is not remote. The stock shock has an attached reservoir. The way the rules read that would be ok to use that type of system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you going to look at that way a Bi-Tube Shock Absorbers (which is a single bodied shock) would be illegal because it has a reservoir to store fluid "out of the way". The fact is the stock shock still has the reservoir atached to the body, I would call this an external reservoir(not remote). Just becouse Honda went for this design for a street car does not mean you have to use the same design in a race car. they are just a diffrent design. Both design have there pros and cons.

 

So I could take a remote resv shock (moton, jrz, penske) and put a short hose on it and hose clamp the resv to shock body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am happy to help as well. Your stock S2000 shock is LEGAL. If you are in NorCal I suggest hooking up with Mike Quan as he is a fantastic resource. Currently a Moton, Penske, etc designed as a remote reservoir would not be legal. I may be incorrect, but I don't think the OEM S2000 shock is adjustable which significantly limits its benefits when comparing to a Moton that has adjustable Nitrogen Can pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something strange about this thread...

 

Yeah.....

 

I would not define the S2000 OE rear shock as "remote resevoir". They are however, not mono-tube. There used to be some text in the original ECHC rulebook about the S2k rear shock, but I think the text in the National Rules covers it just fine.

 

Any single bodied shock absorber may be used. The number and type shall be the same as stock.

 

It is a single body, aka both parts are attached to the same shock and are in the same location. A true remote resevoir shock, where the 2 tubes are connected by a long line and are not in the same location, is a bit different and clearly not allowed.

 

So these would be legal? Its not remote reservoir by that definition.

 

http://tein.com/rsdamp.html

 

rs.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what was fishy was the magically dissapearing post I made! Let's try this again...

 

1. Whether or not a shock has a remote canister has nothing to do with whether or not it has adjustable nitrogen pressure. I'm quite surprised that nitrogen pressure was described as a reason for disallowing canister shocks, as Koni 28-series shocks have adjustable nitrogen pressure as well, yet are completely legal for HC.

 

2. Whether or not a shock has a remote canister has nothing to do with it's price. A set of alloy-bodied Koni 28-series, double adjustable dampers are over $6000 per set, depending upon what brackets are necessary. They are perfectly legal for ANY HC class, right down to H5. It's a loophole in the rules that many are unaware of. It unfairly disallows ALMOST ALL comparable shocks to the Koni-28's, while doing nothing to control costs.

 

3. It's a flawed rule... it's flawed in HC and USTCC, it's flawed in SCCA IT and Touring. I don't have the answer on how to keep shock costs down, but most certainly the current rule does nothing. In stock-class Solo2 racing, this debate raged a couple years ago, and it was decided that it's impossible to write a rule to keep shock costs down, so they allow any shock absorber. The concensus is that any person with money can afford the big dollar shocks, but very few can properly tune them - they are not the magic bullet that most would like to believe, and allowing remote canister shocks in NASA racing will only open the fields up to more competitors and more potential sponsors.

 

4. Especially in H1, where $50k cars can be built in without batting an eyelash, and people spend more than $6k in dynotime, and where you can run a $150k-plus racing NSX - it's silly to not allow remote canister shocks. In my opinion, advanced shocks FIT the class, as it's the pinnacle of Honda sedan racing. I feel they should be allowed in H1 and probably H2, and then the rule should be rewritten in H3-5 to keep people from running the Koni 28's. If nothing is done to control the high-dollar Konis, then remote canister should be allowed in all classes.

 

I hope that this time my post will live so that an open debate on the subject can be had. It's a rule who's time has come and gone. What do others think?

 

-Jason Saini

http://www.over6racing.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what was fishy was the magically dissapearing post I made! Let's try this again...

 

1. Whether or not a shock has a remote canister has nothing to do with whether or not it has adjustable nitrogen pressure. I'm quite surprised that nitrogen pressure was described as a reason for disallowing canister shocks, as Koni 28-series shocks have adjustable nitrogen pressure as well, yet are completely legal for HC.

 

2. Whether or not a shock has a remote canister has nothing to do with it's price. A set of alloy-bodied Koni 28-series, double adjustable dampers are over $6000 per set, depending upon what brackets are necessary. They are perfectly legal for ANY HC class, right down to H5. It's a loophole in the rules that many are unaware of. It unfairly disallows ALMOST ALL comparable shocks to the Koni-28's, while doing nothing to control costs.

 

3. It's a flawed rule... it's flawed in HC and USTCC, it's flawed in SCCA IT and Touring. I don't have the answer on how to keep shock costs down, but most certainly the current rule does nothing. In stock-class Solo2 racing, this debate raged a couple years ago, and it was decided that it's impossible to write a rule to keep shock costs down, so they allow any shock absorber. The concensus is that any person with money can afford the big dollar shocks, but very few can properly tune them - they are not the magic bullet that most would like to believe, and allowing remote canister shocks in NASA racing will only open the fields up to more competitors and more potential sponsors.

 

4. Especially in H1, where $50k cars can be built in without batting an eyelash, and people spend more than $6k in dynotime, and where you can run a $150k-plus racing NSX - it's silly to not allow remote canister shocks. In my opinion, advanced shocks FIT the class, as it's the pinnacle of Honda sedan racing. I feel they should be allowed in H1 and probably H2, and then the rule should be rewritten in H3-5 to keep people from running the Koni 28's. If nothing is done to control the high-dollar Konis, then remote canister should be allowed in all classes.

 

I hope that this time my post will live so that an open debate on the subject can be had. It's a rule who's time has come and gone. What do others think?

 

-Jason Saini

http://www.over6racing.com

 

True dat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just over $20k total invested in my ECHC S2000 .... and that includes the $125 of dyno time that it has seen.

 

I am comfortable with the rules the way they are..... i would possibly have to ditch my Tein RA's (YA BABY) and go spend a bunch of $ for new shit.... not interested... current stuff is good.

 

Scot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Jason, please correct your overpriced koni 28 series for the s2000 to reflect their true cost. Under $3500. They do not cost $6000 unless you're talking about something other than a off the shelf/custom valved setup you can pick up at pro-parts or even koni usa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... my point was that if you get some super-custom, inverted, aluminum bodied Koni-28's you could spend close to $6000 for them and they would still be perfectly legal. My point still is, and always has been - that the rule as it stands now does NOTHING to limit what people can spend on their shocks.

 

So - that being the case, as I've said before - either let the other manufacturers play too, or change the rule to actually serve the intended purpose of holding down costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... my point was that if you get some super-custom, inverted, aluminum bodied Koni-28's you could spend close to $6000 for them and they would still be perfectly legal. My point still is, and always has been - that the rule as it stands now does NOTHING to limit what people can spend on their shocks.

 

So - that being the case, as I've said before - either let the other manufacturers play too, or change the rule to actually serve the intended purpose of holding down costs.

 

all it takes is a big racer with $$$ to step into the series to actually spend the money to do what you're talking about, it's common in solo2, but not in honda challenge until it gets more popular and gets more coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... my point was that if you get some super-custom, inverted, aluminum bodied Koni-28's you could spend close to $6000 for them and they would still be perfectly legal. My point still is, and always has been - that the rule as it stands now does NOTHING to limit what people can spend on their shocks.

 

This point doesnt make sense, because you can spend a nearly infinite sum of money on a club race car, no matter what you're building.

 

There is a point at which your return on investment becomes very, very small and those shocks I'm sure fall on the other side of that for 99.5% of the competition. If someone is running them and winning, it probably isnt because of the shocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... my point was that if you get some super-custom, inverted, aluminum bodied Koni-28's you could spend close to $6000 for them and they would still be perfectly legal. My point still is, and always has been - that the rule as it stands now does NOTHING to limit what people can spend on their shocks.

 

This point doesnt make sense, because you can spend a nearly infinite sum of money on a club race car, no matter what you're building.

 

There is a point at which your return on investment becomes very, very small and those shocks I'm sure fall on the other side of that for 99.5% of the competition. If someone is running them and winning, it probably isnt because of the shocks.

 

the point jason is making is simply this, if someone wants to come in and "clean house" with $$$ and some talent driving, they can. Of course the latter is required, but he's trying to say there's nothing stated in the rules that doesn't allow that happen even though the series is geared towards lower budgets. That'll always be the case and will spark rules changes. There's only so much the rules can cover until something happens and they will have to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...