Anybody know what actually constitues a remote res shock? I spoke to a local Moton dealer and they said they can just put a T elbow on the shock and hook the res right to the shock so its not "remote" per say. Anybody know if this is legal?

Prob still illegal since the rules don’t say you can do it - therefore its illegal. I assume you have clubsports on your car now. If you do, you could sell them and go to single adjustable Ohlins from RRT. They seem to be growing in popularity and for good reason.

Uh oh...

Dampergate!

D'oh. I bought a set of used Motons earlier this year before I got interested in possibly running in prepared. Ah well...

I might be looking for a Moton type setup...PM me if anybody is selling anything.

It still has a remote reservor with a hard line. This has been brought up in SCCA and it won't be legal. Or else everyone in IT would be running them.

The Honda S2000 has a piggy back rear shock similar to the Ohlin picture below and the S2000 is considered to have a remote reservor shock.

The no remote reservor rule is stupid because the Koni 28 series costs just as much as Moton, JRZ, Ohlins, etc and it would be the only legal high end shock. If someone wants to spend $5K+ on shocks, they still can. In fact, I am going down this road. :D

Bill

Ohlins makes a shock with out a "remote" reservoir, but its external. Hystersis problems are reduced as well as weight and mounting issues.

Krisko call RRT for Ohlins.
http://stasisengineering.com/images/b6racecar/100605/sDscf0032.jpg

Steve, after looking at that picture I went back and read the rules. The rules state that any external resevoir shock is not allowed after 05. I assume that resevoir pictured would be considered external?

D'oh. I bought a set of used Motons earlier this year before I got interested in possibly running in prepared. Ah well...


Martin, strip that POS of yours & run in Mod!!!!!!!!!!!

:redspot :alright :lol

Anything with an external, additional, resevoir would be considered remote based on the way the rule has been interpreted in other organizations and based on my understanding of the intent of the 05 rule (to get rid of the high dollar racing shocks that are/were on the market like Motons, Ohlins, JRZ's, etc). I'm not sure how the presence or lack of a hose would matter. Your Moton guy should know better than that (unless it's just an inexperienced vendor).

Besides, such a setup wouldn't work in the front anyway unless it was something very custom.

Yes, illegal.

Rules like that (which seem to be intended to reduce costs) never work as intended. It will be as bad as the "no adjustable shocks" rule in some stock car series. The fast guys will be the ones with 400 sets of "non-adjustable" shocks all with different valving.

Better yet, if someone like moton decides to build their resevoir into the top of the shock body directly, its no longer an external resevoir shock. Wouldn't matter if its more expensive or anything else, it'd fit the rules.

Just seems like a not-so-well-thought-out rule to me.

No more than one external resevoir, and nothing that connects the two dampers might be worthwhile rules.

Money buys speed...learn the hardway:)

Rules like that (which seem to be intended to reduce costs) never work as intended. It will be as bad as the "no adjustable shocks" rule in some stock car series. The fast guys will be the ones with 400 sets of "non-adjustable" shocks all with different valving.

That's obviously a possibility, but less likely in BMW CCA Club Racing...heck, at this point, it's not even a problem in the much more competitive SCCA IT classes. The rule made sense when it was written and gave people who were using the remote res shocks plenty of time to phase them out. Now, in Pro racing, obviously teams are going to push for something else to be developed or purchase multiple sets of differently valved dampers to take advantage of the wording of the rules.

People in BMW CCA club racing are the "bolt-on" types for the most part. Further, most people understand the spirit of the rule and adhere to it.