TT Shock $$$ ???

[JamesL]

It is pushing November... any updates on what the new shock rules will be? Or at least an idea of when we might be able to expect them?

 

Ive been holding off on rebuilding my suspension in anticipation of these new rules

[Trevor57]

They came out in January last year.

[Bryan @ JRZ]

here is something i put together for another class.

 

this information comes from Lee Grimes, who works at Koni NA

 

Quotes from Lee Grimes of Koni NA about the myths of RR being better than non-RR dampers All quotes were taken directly from http://www.roadraceautox.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in a discussion about why RR dampers shouldn’t be allowed.

What does a RR do differently than a non-RR.

Lee Grimes-“On the remote reservoir racing shocks, it is a different theory entirely and they meter the displaced oil as it travels into the reservoir and then put and adjuster at that point to change forces.

 

From a KONI point of view (for information but not trying to lobby for favorable rules), we do not need or use remote reservoirs because those things inside the shock body that the other brands are going outside the body to accomplish.”

A statement to one of the benefits of RR being extra cooling

Lee Grimes-”Although everyone points to improved cooling as a prime stated reason for remote reservoirs, it is a total misconception. Yes, there is more oil in the whole package but it is not a circulating system like your radiator. The oil in the shock body at the piston (area where the most heat is generated) stays in the shock body by the piston except for the volume that is displaced by the piston rod entering and exiting the body (look at the volume of 1/2 or 1 inch of your pinky finger for an idea). The oil in the reservoir basically stays in the reservoir. Same situation as if your brake calipers are running hot so you put a bigger cup on your master cylinder. It doesn't work because the brake fluid doesn't circulating through the hot and cooler places”

Down fall of RR: mounting and weight

Lee Grimes- “What many people don't realize is that remote reservoir shock by design typcially weigh about 50+% more, have greater mounting issues for locating the reservoir (I can tell some funny stories), and especially add a great deal of signal lag and low speed compression loss making them inherently less reactive with longer lines making it worse.”

Conversation between Jake Gulick (JG) and Lee Grimes (LG)

JG-“ Lee, if I read between the lines, I think I hear you saying that Koni doesn't build RR units because they think they can build a better shock in a monotube design.”

LG- “We can do it with mono-tubes and twin tubes. The only reason to go outside the body of the shock to add your bump damping adjustment is if you can't already add them inside the shocks body. Adding them outside the body on a reservoir adds weight and lag/signal loss and that is why many reservoir shocks added a second bump adjustment (low speed) as they are trying to gain back some of the low speed signal that was lost by having the reservoir there in the first place. If you can't have the bump adjustment in the shock body, go outside the shock body. KONI can do it inside the shock body so no need to go outside and add weight, lag and more parts.”

Mid-Ohio test with TRG-Andy Lally JRZ vs Koni 2812

Lee Grimes- “We did testing at Mid-Ohio with two identical TRG cars, one on the JRZs that they had developed over time and were highly dedicated to and a brand new set of KONI 28s that they had never seen before. They made both cars as identical as they could to make it as much of a head-to-head comparison as they could. On the first day and with one basic valving change on the rear shocks, Andy Lally was just iunder two seconds per lap faster in the KONI equipped car and their paying gentleman driver was over two seconds per lap faster in the KONI car. From that single test, they ordered 28s for all of their cars and they ran KONIs exclusively on their cars the rest of the year.”

 

Yes he is most likely biased, but the facts are still the facts. Koni could build RR shocks, they don't because there isn't a need to, for them.

 

We - as representatives of our employers - must be biased. Given that statement, I'll try and be objective.

 

Your last statement is very true in that damper manufactures make things that they need, for their intended purposes and theory of application. Note that there are "many ways to skin a cat" in vehicle damping. Many approaches are used, several successfully.

 

On The OP:

 

In the context of the OP and some of the comments by NASA, it's going to be very hard to make a suspension rule thats fair to everyone. I would not want that job. Different dampers work different ways and different cars want different things. Unfortunately there is no right answer because its too difficult to determine what actually gives a performance advantage. This advantage isn't directly tied to MSRP, number of adjustments, spring rate, or anything else. Rather the package is what's important. Custom valving certainly isn't a determinant of maximum performance from a basic design and configuration from a damper manufacturer. A dealer could take a perfectly good baseline and valve it to complete junk with minimal physical changes.

 

On remote reservoirs:

 

The argument rages on as to what design is the best. Some damper manufacturers will work almost exclusively with the piston design and claim that the response of that design is the best for the application. Others will forego the piston altogether - substituting a solid disc - and use remove valves packaged into the housing. These can be used with a piston rod that passes through the oil volume completely, such that gas pressure effects on the piston rod are deleted (note: this can be done in most applications as well). Others will use some piston damping and some degree of compression damping from the remote reservoir. Some incorporate the reservoir/compression head into the main body of the damper, in either a mono tube or twin tube design. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, as any other physical system. In fact, all of these designs have been used competitively in professional racing. The knowledge of the people and/or companies applying these technologies to your car is what will make the biggest difference. We all feel our application to be the best.

 

Cooling added by reservoirs is not necessarily because the oil pumps through the damper and there is a large oil volume. Rather cooling is improved because there is more surface area for heat to escape the system. Well placed canisters can be of great assistance.

 

One factor not mentioned is the gas volume within the reservoir, be it inside the damper or in the canister. This is a very important part of the dampers design and influences how you use the piston rod, how gas pressure builds with temperature, and what "spring rate" is added to the system by the gas. We use a large gas volume, which is one of the reasons why we have canisters.

 

On Lag/Hysteresis:

 

The above comments mention a lag in the dampers response and that low speed adjustments are added to supplement this characteristic. Every damper design has lag, in fact, every design is intended to make use of lag, whether to decrease it or have a certain degree of it. We do not have low speed adjustment to gain response lost from our canister. rather our 2 way has no low speed adjustment (the low speed is basically full stiff in a 2 way) and our 3 way only allows one to soften the response past that. Similar companies have the same application.

 

Notice that many mention lag and hysteresis contributing no substantial information as to what degree of this is best and why. I am not saying that high levels of lag and hysteresis are desirable, because its not. Instantaneous response is not of desire either, given that the tire has its own lag/hysteresis. As does every other part of the car. In fact the lag characteristics are driven by the track and vehicle configuration. The frequency demands of the system - throughout the range - also drive the desired lag effects. For example, high levels of response in low frequencies (roll, pitch) may be favorable whereas low response at high frequencies (tire vibration modes, small road surface irregularities) may be desirable. This is not a rule in any way, only an example. So then we must evaluate not only the damper curve shape, but the system's response levels. We pay careful attention to this topic and we make good use of it.

 

On track results:

 

I can't comment on the back to back test since I have no knowledge of it. If KONI did actually find time we didn't, more power to them. I will say this about TRG, the cars that won daytona and came in second in 2009, on JRZ. The third place car (Wright Motorsports), on JRZ. The 2009 champions (Farnbacher Loles) ran JRZ as well. This is in the GT class. In the KONI challenge series (GS class), TRG runs KONI dampers - because they have to - like every other competitor in that class. I'll leave it to the individual to speak with the engineers and crew chiefs to get their commentary of the specific product in the KONI series.

 

At a test, canisters were added to a monotube damper for a current spec damper sportscar series. The car went faster.

 

I hope that this information is useful.

 

Best,

 

Bryan

[AZELISE]

A lot of the responses seem to reinforce the idea that price seems to not be the biggest factor in lap time improvements. It seems just having a good upgraded suspension is what helps. Since the rules are currently written to assign the points based on the biggest improvement the change could make on any model of car, I stand by my suggestion.

 

OEM non adjustable optional shock +3

 

Aftermarket shocks with up to two adjustments or revalved shocks +6 or 7

 

Any shock with remote resevoirs or more than 2 adjustments +10

[JamesL]

A lot of the responses seem to reinforce the idea that price seems to not be the biggest factor in lap time improvements. It seems just having a good upgraded suspension is what helps. Since the rules are currently written to assign the points based on the biggest improvement the change could make on any model of car, I stand by my suggestion.

 

OEM non adjustable optional shock +3

 

Aftermarket shocks with up to two adjustments or revalved shocks +6 or 7

 

Any shock with remote resevoirs or more than 2 adjustments +10

 

I take it you drive a Lotus, yes? I can understand why you would be an advocate of the above point distribution. A Lotus with the optional "Track Package" can be a potent track car. But, a good portion of cars... Id venture to say more than half, do not have the option of "OEM non adjustable optional dampers". In order for them to take advantage of "a good upgraded suspension" system, they would, by default, have to take at least +6/7 points... even if they are using dampers that aren't any better than the ones found in the OEM "optional suspension packages" for certain cars.

 

In other words, while that point distribution may work well for some cars, it gives those certain cars the advantage of having a finer resolution by which to tune their points totals vs modifications. ie: an unfair advantage.

[AZELISE]

I take it you drive a Lotus, yes? I can understand why you would be an advocate of the above point distribution. A Lotus with the optional "Track Package" can be a potent track car. But, a good portion of cars... Id venture to say more than half, do not have the option of "OEM non adjustable optional dampers". In order for them to take advantage of "a good upgraded suspension" system, they would, by default, have to take at least +6/7 points... even if they are using dampers that aren't any better than the ones found in the OEM "optional suspension packages" for certain cars.

 

In other words, while that point distribution may work well for some cars, it gives those certain cars the advantage of having a finer resolution by which to tune their points totals vs modifications. ie: an unfair advantage.

 

I agree, a Lotus Elise/Exige would be potent with the Track Pack. Under my system it would be a +10 shock (and +2 for the springs). The track pack comes with remote reservoir Bilstiens.

 

The reason for the +3 non adjustable OEM shocks would be for many sports cars that are available with "sport" dampers. Those drivers would take a big hit if they received +6/7 points for stiffer dampers. If they don't want to take the hit, they can replace the dampers with the OEM base versions, exactly like they would under the current points system.

[kbrew8991]

aannnd the points values can probably be tweaked once we have an idea that "works".

 

:beatingadeadhorse:

[Kubs]

I too am holding off on suspension until the new rules come out.

[Mrsideways]

I wonder if Greg could give us a hint as to what's atleast going to stay untouched for those of us just sitting waiting on building.

[JamesL]

I wonder if Greg could give us a hint as to what's atleast going to stay untouched for those of us just sitting waiting on building.

 

Especially since the 2010 schedules are starting to be posted.....

[AZELISE]

Jan 9-10, 2010 is the first event in AZ.

[cuonice]

Wow. I'll be shoveling snow while you're on track; what a sad realization

[Joshua]

Our first event in the Florida region is also on 9-10 Jan. Instead of shoveling snow, come on down and enjoy the southern-most racetrack in the USA at Homestead-Miami Speedway!

 

Last January we used the 2008 rules since the 2009 rules were not out yet. I would not be surprised if the same situation occurs again. It really would be nice to have an idea about any substantive changes to the shock rules for planning purposes.

[Tirewarmer]

So for those of us that are presently taking +3 for a cheap, single adjustable aftermarket shock, will we most probably be assessed more, less or the same number of points next year?

 

Anyone have a crystall ball?

[BlkGt3]

So for those of us that are presently taking +3 for a cheap, single adjustable aftermarket shock, will we most probably be assessed more, less or the same number of points next year?

 

Anyone have a crystall ball?

 

My vote is all of the above.

 

Peter

[Tirewarmer]

So for those of us that are presently taking +3 for a cheap, single adjustable aftermarket shock, will we most probably be assessed more, less or the same number of points next year?

 

Anyone have a crystall ball?

 

My vote is all of the above.

 

Peter

 

I vote Motons +30

[BlkGt3]

So for those of us that are presently taking +3 for a cheap, single adjustable aftermarket shock, will we most probably be assessed more, less or the same number of points next year?

 

Anyone have a crystall ball?

 

My vote is all of the above.

 

Peter

 

I vote Motons +30

 

Only if stock shocks start at +25

 

Peter

[Greg G.]

So for those of us that are presently taking +3 for a cheap, single adjustable aftermarket shock, will we most probably be assessed more, less or the same number of points next year?

 

Anyone have a crystall ball?

I vote for same number.

[Kubs]

I vote for same number.

 

I second that. If I have to take more points for a non-adjustable custom valved shock I will be bumped from TTA to TTS which I dont want to do.

[Greg G.]

Actually, mine was a hint rather than a vote

[RACER-X]

Actually, mine was a hint rather than a vote

That's not much of a hint. 3 points, MORE, LESS OR THE SAME.

[Greg G.]

3 points

[Shawn M.]

I think it should be 2 points. Plus a bonus point.

[tinman7]

Maybe 2.7 points rounded up?

[Tirewarmer]

3 points

 

Thanks Greg.