PDA

View Full Version : Cam Timing



Ron Earp
09-19-2004, 10:19 AM
Jeff and I worked a little on the JH motor yesterday and found it has poor compression on 2 cylinders, so, I'll have to re-ring it at the least. No telling what else.

However, I did notice that the car has position adjustable cam timing gears. There are marks, of course, for various timings but you can change them. Stock US timing was each one at the 100 marks. But, I can advance and retard them slightly.

Now, stock timing is to be used, but, I noticed that in the GCR if the car has adjustable gears they can be used. So, I can set it at one of the other positions? Advanced about 6 degrees would be, from my engine simulations, slightly advantageous and I can almost get that. I would think this completely legal, but I'm the newbie and cautious so I wanted to ask.

Thanks,

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Bill Miller
09-19-2004, 11:03 AM
Ron,

There's nothing that _requires_ stock timing, per se. If you mill the head on an OHC motor, you're _allowed_ to use an offset key, to return the cam timing to the stock setting, but there's nothing that _requires_ you to do so. So, you can use any cam timing that you can achieve via legal means. And as you said, the ITCS allows adjustable timing gears, if they're stock equipment. So, go for it!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

apr67
09-19-2004, 08:31 PM
Hmm.. Bill I don't disagree with this being SOP, but.

Rules nerd alert.

Where does it say you can change the timing? Even if you allowed adjustable timing gears, the only thing they are allowed to do is return timing to stock.

If it doesn't say you can...

Bill Miller
09-19-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Hmm.. Bill I don't disagree with this being SOP, but.

Rules nerd alert.

Where does it say you can change the timing? Even if you allowed adjustable timing gears, the only thing they are allowed to do is return timing to stock.

If it doesn't say you can...



Hmmm.... Interesting perspective. On further review of the ITCS, I'd have to say that you're right. My bad, and I apologize for giving Ron bad information.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Ron Earp
09-19-2004, 09:00 PM
Not sure what to do then. If I mill the head, which will happen if I have to tear this POS down, then, according to my calulcations, the positions I can put this thing back in will not yield a stock timing. They are not infinitely adjustable, just fit into slots on the back of the gear. The closest, after milling I think, would be about 3 degrees advanced or somewhat the same retarded. The belt is toothed, the gear is toothed too to the cam. But, I need to think on it some, seems I should be able to make it work right.

And, it begs another question. I have one set of good cams. I need another set for a motor I got off Ebay to build as a spare, but it has no cams. JH is out of business and the only cams available, if you call Lotus the company that made the engines, are different than what was offered in 1974. So, what does one do here? I've heard of a similar situation with VW Rabbits that run a different grind cam than what was made back in the day, since what was made back then is no loger available.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 19, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 19, 2004).]

JeffYoung
09-19-2004, 10:13 PM
Guys, not to disagree...well, I'm going to disagree....if the stock car has adjustable cam timing, and timing is free, why can't he change the cam timing? Aren't 240zs set up this way? I know at least a few Zs that I consider to be very legal and I know they adjust the cam timing.

In other words, if a car came with something, anything, that is adjustable "stock," isn't adjusting it within the stock range of adjustment, stock?

Whoa...that is a mind bender, sort of, but I think it is correct.

Greg Amy
09-19-2004, 10:29 PM
I lean towards Jeff's position. Let me restate it, with IIDSYCTYC in mind.

First, the stock cam timing gear is adjustable. Thus, it is legal to have an adjustable gear on that car as specifically allowed in the rules.

Second, however, comes the question of "how much adjustment is legal?" Absent any allowance in the regulations, the only approved adjustment is as specified in the workshop manual (or appropriate documents) and within the allowable range. For example, is the WS says, "0 degrees +/- 10 degrees" then you can put it anywhere within that range using any allowable W/S techniques.

After all, cam timing must be stock, correct? And that range as specified in the W/S manual is stock, yes? Thus, adjustment within that range is perfectly legal.

Even better, if allowed engine modifications do not allow you to bring the car within those specs using teh adjustable gear, I suggest that you can even add an offset key AS WELL as use the adjustable cam gear...

Ron Earp
09-19-2004, 10:34 PM
To complicate things even further - there are many cam timings that were "stock", that is, mentioned in the manual depending on year, month, and country of sale. This was deep in the emissions time, so, it was probably cost effective for JH/Lotus to do this. 100, 110, 115 are just a few of which were available in a single 9 month time period, all of which are available with my cam gears.

And, to muddy it even further, the first batch of JHs with Lotus motors off the line had no adjustable gears at all since this was 1973 and they had not run afoul of their emissions exemption at that point.

R

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 19, 2004).]

Geo
09-19-2004, 10:39 PM
I agree with Greg. I think he has it front to back, top to bottom.

The only other thing I'd say is perhaps a letter to Topeka is in order. If the factory adjustable cam gears allow timing outside that called out in the FSM, I could see a case still being made that you can use the adjustable gears to full effect. But I would definitely get a rulling from Topeka before taking this advantage.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

dickita15
09-20-2004, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
To complicate things even further - there are many cam timings that were "stock", that is, mentioned in the manual depending on year, month, and country of sale. This was deep in the emissions time, so, it was probably cost effective for JH/Lotus to do this. 100, 110, 115 are just a few of which were available in a single 9 month time period, all of which are available with my cam gears.

just make sure the specs you are using from the manual are for a year on the cars spec line in the gcr
dick

Bill Miller
09-20-2004, 07:03 AM
Jeff,

Where in the ITCS does it say cam timing is free? I know it says ignition timing is free, but the only references to cam timing I've seen talk about it being stock, or returned to stock.

I agree w/ Greg, that if there's a set range in the FSM, you are allowed to adjust w/in that range. And, if you can't do that after you mill the head, you are allowed to use an offset key, but not required to use one. And there's a sticky point, if you can't use the adjustable gears to get the cam timing back to stock, and you don't use an offset key, is it legal?

George,

I'd love to hear the logic behind why you should be allowed to adjust to a cam timing outside of what's called for in the FSM. The ITCS says that if you replace plastic/phenolic timing gears w/ metal ones, cam timing has to be stock. If you use an offset key because you milled the head, you have to return the timing to stock. Is your arguement that, by virtue of having the adjustment, you're allowed to use it?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
09-20-2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I'd love to hear the logic behind why you should be allowed to adjust to a cam timing outside of what's called for in the FSM. The ITCS says that if you replace plastic/phenolic timing gears w/ metal ones, cam timing has to be stock. If you use an offset key because you milled the head, you have to return the timing to stock. Is your arguement that, by virtue of having the adjustment, you're allowed to use it?



OK, first of all, keep in mind I think it should be run past Topeka before setting outside anything called out by the FSM.

Notice that all references to stock timing are all preceeded by an if statement. If A, then you can do B to return to stock timing. Find me a place in the ITCS that flatly states cam timing must be stock.

I could see a case being made that if the adjustment is there in the stock engine, you can use it even if it falls outside the FSM spec. I'm not saying I believe this is the case, only that I can see a case being made. Therefore, rather than just assume, I'd personally write the letter. That was my point Bill.

Regarding your question of non-stock cam timing being allowed if you mill the head and don't use and offset key...

The rule says an offset key may be used, not must be used to return timing to factory spec. By my reading of that, it's perfectly fine to go without the offset key even if the timing is out of factory spec.

edited for formatting
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 20, 2004).]

JeffYoung
09-20-2004, 08:45 AM
Hmmm...if the cam gears have a range of adjustment, isn't that "range" stock so that any setting within it is permissible?

joeg
09-20-2004, 10:55 AM
This discussion is somewhat silly. Obviously, if you have OEM adjustability built into an OEM component, use the adjustability.

Some of these "no can do if not specifically allowed arguments" get ridiculous because we are not talking about "modifying" a component; just using built in adjustability.

Where, for (silly) example, does it say tire pressures are "free"; or if your car has OEM adjustable spring perches, you can't corner-weight because to do so would be a non-stock adjustment.

Cheers.

Banzai240
09-20-2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Hmmm...if the cam gears have a range of adjustment, isn't that "range" stock so that any setting within it is permissible?

It's my opinion, based on what I read in the rules, that if my car has something on it that is adjustable (camber, timing, rear-view-mirror...), I'm adjusting it within it's range to optimize my setup...

I don't find anything in the rules that requires that the timing, cam or otherwise, be set to "FSM" specs... It says that a offset key "may" be used to return to cam timing to factory spec... it doesn't say you have to, which means the rules don't care if it's factory spec or not, just that the stock cam-gears are used...

We've had philisophical discussion concerning a similar topic, valve adjustments, and how the ITCS addresses what is acceptable... Again, I see nothing in there that keeps one from using the full range of factory adjustments, but others see this differently...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 20, 2004).]

apr67
09-20-2004, 01:03 PM
So lets say a cam gear has extra sets of holes it in. I can use them anywhere I want? Afterall that would be built in factory adjustment, right?

So since the Miata cam gears are identical on the intake and exhaust, but use different holes, I could reverse them and get a little better racing profile for IT?

Hmmm..

Me thinks not.

Alan

JeffYoung
09-20-2004, 01:56 PM
Alan, correct, you can't switch the gears but that's really a straw man on the issue of can you make cam timing adjustments if the stock cam timing gears allowed.

We aren't talking about switching an exhaust and an intake gear, we are using built in adjustability.

Ron Earp
09-20-2004, 02:22 PM
Although more of a stretch, people don't disable VANOS and VTEC, correct?

Obviously, VANOS and VTEC are what Lotus would have liked to have had 33 years ago when they designed the motor, but, that technology didn't exist at the street car level. But, adjustable timing gears did and provided a small amount of added performance benefit for the cars, although I think the real reason was to meet emissions allowing owners to easily go back to a more agressive timing.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Greg Amy
09-20-2004, 02:38 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Although more of a stretch, people don't disable VANOS and VTEC, correct?</font>

It would be legal if - and only if - it is controlled by the allowed alternate ECU. If it's a mechanical mod, not legal.

Ron Earp
09-20-2004, 03:40 PM
Which of course, opens up a whole different topic of advantages with ECUs that the computer controlled cars get that their non-computer controlled competitors do not.

I can understand running a stock ECU with a different program loaded, but an entirely different standalone ECU from a different company without using the stock system at all? Odd rules policy.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Greg Amy
09-20-2004, 03:44 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...entirely different standalone ECU from a different company without using the stock system at all?</font>

Ron, just to make sure you're clear, alternate ECUs are allowed if they fit in the stock unmodifed housing using the stock unmodifed wiring harness.

Of course, that restriction does not stop some folks from using high-tech aftermarket systems, such as MoTec, but that's another story... GA

Tom Donnelly
09-20-2004, 04:07 PM
So, a person can sell their ridiculously expensive remote reservoir shocks (which aren't in the spirit of IT) and use the money for a SMALL down payment on a MoTec system (laptop not included).

It all makes sense to me now. Especially since threaded body shocks are going to be legal. Was it those nifty remote reservoirs that caused the rucus?

It just irritates me because the major rant against RR shocks was price. Anyone priced a MoTec system lately?

Go look on their website. Why aren't you as adamant about this as you were about RR shocks Geo? I'm not angry but we really butted heads about this a couple years back. I just don't see much difference except MoTec is about 4x as pricey.

Sorry about stealing the thread. If I remember correctly we all just agreed to disagree. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Tom

Greg Amy
09-20-2004, 04:15 PM
Tom, I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with you, even within those that use MoTecs. However, in order to be competitive in certain ranks, you gotta run it, 'cause others will.

If it makes you feel any better, I honestly do not believe that those who wrote that rule ever considered someone would spend thousands in order to fit a MoTec system into a stock ECU housing using an unmodified wiring harness. In fact, I'd wager that they worded the rule this way INTENDING to disallow such systems. Ah, but therein lies the folly of trying to micro-manage your rules: there's just too many clever folks out there and someone will drive a truck right through the loophole you thought you just closed...

Tom Donnelly
09-20-2004, 05:18 PM
Greg,

Yep, I figure you're right. You know that since the RR shocks discussions I have trouble resisting the temptation to pick on George. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I met you and the other "yankees" at the ARRC last year but Geo wasn't there. Any chance this year? These discussions are more fun (and less serious/angry/violent!) since then. JMHO.

Tom

Bill Miller
09-20-2004, 05:26 PM
Find me a place in the ITCS that flatly states cam timing must be stock.


I already did George, it's the section that allows you to switch out plastic/phenolic timing gears for metal ones.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Cars originally equipped withe plastic/phenolic timing gears may substitute metal gears, provided that the design, dimenstions, and cam timing remain as stock. Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock.</font>

Says right there, in black and white, that cam timing will remain as stock.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
09-20-2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Says right there, in black and white, that cam timing will remain as stock.



Well, actually, it only says that for "Cars originally equipped with plastic / phenolic timing gears" who are substituting metal gears... AND, it's only saying that IF they replace those plastic gears for metal ones... AND, this says nothing of the "cam gears", which may be considered separate pieces on my car from the "timing" gears, though this could be argued to be considered part of a "timing set" of gears... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

Additionally, I think the case in point, namely the gentleman with the factory adjustable timing gears, is covered with the "Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock." Since they are stock, and they are adjustable, they must have been intended, by the factory, to BE adjusted, and therefore, are allowed to be adjusted... anywhere within the factory provided adjustment range...

So, I really don't see, with the exception of the limited case above (phenolic gears being replaced with metal), where we are limited to "stock cam timing" when using the legal stock cam timing gears...

I spent over two hours with a timing wheel and about 8 different sets of stock gears before I came up with the combination that gave me the cam timing I wanted to try, and I simply don't see anything in the rules that makes this against them...

Just my take... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 20, 2004).]

Bill Miller
09-20-2004, 06:21 PM
Darin,

I was simply showing George that the ITCS did indeed say cam timing must be stock.

You said you tried 8 different sets of stock timing gears on your car. Is there that much variation between gear sets?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
09-20-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
It just irritates me because the major rant against RR shocks was price. Anyone priced a MoTec system lately?

Go look on their website. Why aren't you as adamant about this as you were about RR shocks Geo? I'm not angry but we really butted heads about this a couple years back. I just don't see much difference except MoTec is about 4x as pricey.

Hey Tom, don't throw anything at me on this issue. I'm with you 100% on the ECU rule. If my name were Bernie and my lawyer friend Max and I wrote the rules I would require the stock circuit board be used. This would allow replacable chips and modifications to baords with soldered chips to be modified to accept sockets for replacable chips.

I'll do anything I can to get rid of the Motecs and similar stand-alones in IT. I don't think they belong for a heartbeat.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-20-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
You know that since the RR shocks discussions I have trouble resisting the temptation to pick on George. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

MOMMMMMMM! He's looking at me! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
I met you and the other "yankees" at the ARRC last year but Geo wasn't there. Any chance this year? These discussions are more fun (and less serious/angry/violent!) since then. JMHO.

Well, that may be a possibility, although I won't be racing if I come. The car I was borrowing is totally torn down being converted to EP, and I doubt my car will be ready yet. Even if it is, I'll either still be unemployed and have no budget to race, or freshly employed with no chance of getting off.

If I'm still unemployed I'll probably drive out and stay with my buddy Tim in Sugar Hill (assuming he'll put me up) and come drink your beers, er, I mean bring the beer. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-20-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Says right there, in black and white, that cam timing will remain as stock.



Bill, all the rules sections you quote involve specific cases. There is NO place in the ITCS that says "Cam timing will remain stock." Instead it deals with specific cases where cam timing may be altered in some way. The adjustable gear rule does NOT say that the cam timing must remain within FSM specs and it doesn't say that cam timing MUST be set back to stock if the head is shaved.

Cutting hairs, but sometimes that is what must be done.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-20-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I was simply showing George that the ITCS did indeed say cam timing must be stock.


Actually it doesn't Bill. As I said, it covers specific cases only.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Ron Earp
09-20-2004, 07:03 PM
The way I read it is that yes, if you change gears the timing must remain stock.

It also says that, unless fitted from the factory, adjustable gears are not to be used. We have adjustable gears fitted from the factory, therefore, they are allowed. And, if allowed, then it does not say that they cannot be used. In fact, it singles them out explictedly. I would imagine that if they wanted no adjustments then the rule would be written "No adjustable gears can be used at all. Cars with them at the factory must be fitted with non-adjustable gears and timing must remain at factory specified settings."

I think I'll write them on this one and keep it in my back pocket.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Banzai240
09-20-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I was simply showing George that the ITCS did indeed say cam timing must be stock.

I know... I was just having some fun with the ITCS language... Kind of silly, don't you think? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by Bill Miller:

You said you tried 8 different sets of stock timing gears on your car. Is there that much variation between gear sets?



I found enough variation that I could actually SEE the difference on some gears when lining up the keyways on the bench... The wheel showed as much as a 3-4 degree difference in some cases... Multiply that times two gears and I was able to get a split that we thought might be favorable...

Haven't had a chance to play on the dyno, but it seems to run pretty strong... Would love a chance to play around with it...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
09-20-2004, 08:05 PM
I think Ron's on solid ground with his adjustable valve timing parts but...

JUST so I have this straight, did I just read that it has been suggested that (a) if I change my cam gear, then the timing has to be stock but, (B) if I DON'T, or if I have a 'pulley' instead of a 'gear,' then I can change the cam timing??

K

apr67
09-20-2004, 08:36 PM
Darin, I don't buy your interptation of the rule.

No where in the ITCS does it say you can change cam timing. Regardless of the fact that the rules are poorly written, we are bound by "if it doesn't say you can, you can't".

I'd like to see a protest to solve thisone.

Alan

Bill Miller
09-20-2004, 11:17 PM
Alan,

It doesn't say that you can change cam timing, in so many words. However, since it says you're allowed to return the cam timing to stock, via an offset key, if you mill the head, it is impled that, since you are not required to use the offset key, you are allowed to change the cam timing by whatever amount you get through milling the head.

My take on the intent of the rule, is that they don't want us to be able to change cam timing. But that's nothing more than my opinion.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
09-20-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Darin, I don't buy your interptation of the rule.

No where in the ITCS does it say you can change cam timing. Regardless of the fact that the rules are poorly written, we are bound by "if it doesn't say you can, you can't".

I'd like to see a protest to solve thisone.

Alan


Good think my opinion isn't for sale... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

There may be nothing in the ITCS that says you can change cam timing, but it DOES say I'm required to run stock gears... If the timing changes as the result of using a completely stock gear, are you suggesting that is illegal?

I think not... I have completely stock gears, both on the intake and exhaust cam, and NO offset key, and my cam timing is NOT factory spec stock... We simply matched gears that were created, by the factory, at different ends of the machining tolerances...

All of this is for not, as there is no requirement for the ignition timing, valve clearances, cam timing, piston clearances, ring gaps, etc., etc, etc. to be factory spec... I'll go back and read through again with all of this in mind, but I just don't think it's there... so this is a silly arguement...

Again, if the car came with adjustable timing gears, then they can be adjusted, per the ITCS, which specifically allows adjustable gears that came stock on the vehicle...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
09-22-2004, 10:02 PM
Darin,


Again, if the car came with adjustable timing gears, then they can be adjusted, per the ITCS, which specifically allows adjustable gears that came stock on the vehicle...




Glad it's just your opinion. And the ITCS says the gears are allowed. It does not say anywhere that you can adjust the cam timing. If you look at things in context, instead of in isolation, IMHO, the intent is to run stock cam timing.

Let me ask you this. Having the ability to adjust your cam timing would be considered a competitive advantage, wouldn't you say? Do you think the cars that have these gears were given an 'adder', because of them?

I think the reason they are allowed on cars that came w/ them stock, is that it's entirely possible that a non-adjustable gear is not available. Would you want to not let a car run, just because it has adjustble cam gears, stock?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quickshoe
09-22-2004, 10:08 PM
Jumping into this one a little late.

I believe the entire intent of allowing offset keys was that so you are able to return the cam timing back to stock specs after milling the head.

Perhaps, back in the day, someone milled their head to the maximum allowed. Only to find that their cam timing was out of factory spec with no provision in the rules to return it to stock.

Further, I believe it says "may use" instead of "must use" because there are probably instances where factory adjustable cam gears can bring it back to spec without the use of an offset key.

Strange to see those "IIDYCTYC" banner wavers that I argued with many many threads ago about "...only if it provides a competetive advantage" now saying that it is okay because it is implied because of the word "may".

I'd argue that "may" means allowable as opposed to prohibited. Not "may" as in if you wish to, but you don't have to.

As far as the MIATA cam gears. They aren't different parts. They are the same, they are only marked with one set of installation holes for use on the in and one for the ex. If cam timing is free with stock cam gears, then why not? The gears are not different, nor are they being modified. They are just being bolted on utilizing existing mounting holes intended for that purpose.


------------------
Daryl DeArman

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited September 22, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
It does not say anywhere that you can adjust the cam timing. If you look at things in context, instead of in isolation, IMHO, the intent is to run stock cam timing.

NO, I disagree... COMPLETELY!

The ITCS does NOT tell you you can adjust your ignition timing, your tire air pressure (would you argue that you have to run the stock, FSM recommended air pressures?), your belt tension, etc., etc...

The intent is to run the engine as it was designed from the factory, with the exception of allowed deviations...

If my car comes from the factory with adjustable cam timing, I'm adjusting it, just as I would with ignition timing, valve adjustments, etc.

I can be swayed to buy into an argument the other way, if someone can quote DEFINITIVELY from the ITCS anywhere where it says I must run the factory specifications for these items...

Again, just my opinion...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
09-23-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I believe the entire intent of allowing offset keys was that so you are able to return the cam timing back to stock specs after milling the head.

I hope so since there is no provision for using them for anything else.


Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I'd argue that "may" means allowable as opposed to prohibited. Not "may" as in if you wish to, but you don't have to.

Nah. If "may" meant you had to, the people who wrote the rule were flat out stupid since may means may (as in optional). Must means it's required.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Quickshoe
09-23-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Nah. If "may" meant you had to, the people who wrote the rule were flat out stupid since may means may (as in optional). Must means it's required.

George I am not suggesting that "MAY" meant you "had" to. Only that there use is allowed under certain circumstances. I am not suggesting that they mean "MUST" because there are instances where it is not needed to bring things back in time.

lateapex911
09-23-2004, 12:32 AM
Methinks this is a case where the IIDSYCYC is in conflict with the rules as written. I suspect the better phrasing would have been: "Offset cam keys shall be used to return cam timing to stock tolerances except where stock adjustable gears can be used to the same effect."

I think a letter is well founded, and I suggest a slight rewording of the rule is in order.

Darins example is similar to the old Kim Baker showroom stock Chevy motor builds where he was sponsored by Chevy, who shipped him hundreds of pistons, rods, cams, and yes, cam gears no doubt, to build a motor that fell at the sweet end of the tolerances. But the difference is that Darin sees no reason that using stock parts that result in a situation where the timing is out of spec is illegal.

And from the information I read here, it would be tough to prove either way.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe
09-23-2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
NO, I disagree... COMPLETELY!

The ITCS does NOT tell you you can adjust your ignition timing, your tire air pressure (would you argue that you have to run the stock, FSM recommended air pressures?), your belt tension, etc., etc...

The intent is to run the engine as it was designed from the factory, with the exception of allowed deviations...

If my car comes from the factory with adjustable cam timing, I'm adjusting it, just as I would with ignition timing, valve adjustments, etc.

I can be swayed to buy into an argument the other way, if someone can quote DEFINITIVELY from the ITCS anywhere where it says I must run the factory specifications for these items...

Again, just my opinion...




Darin and Bill,

I am with Bill on this one. Not that it matters a damn bit. We don't know what the original rule writers' intent was unless we were one of them.

This is one of the fundamental problems with the ITCS and GCR. It has been mentioned here several times, unless you can go back and rewrite the whole thing starting with a clean slate we will have conflicts in rule writing style.

We agree we are allowed to adjust ignition timing outside of factory specs because it says it is "free". It doesn't say that about "cam timing" so if that is what the intent is why doesn't it say so?

If we expect it to tell us everything that we can do, where does it stop? Air pressure free? Oil viscosity free? Oil level free? Fuel level free? Belt tension free? (ask old Vee guys about that one). You get the idea.

Because of the VTEC/VANOS/VVTI etc systems and the ECU rule I would certainly support a rule to allow open cam timing, but I don't believe it is currently legal.

------------------
Daryl DeArman

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The ITCS does NOT tell you you can adjust your ignition timing,

I need to correct myself here... the ITCS DOES say that ignition timing is free...

As for the rest of it... I'll stick by my position that if it's factory adjustable, I'm allowed to adjust it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
... but I don't believe it is currently legal.



But that's the crux of all this really... I can't SHOW you that it's legal, and you can't SHOW me that it's not...

All I'm required to do is use stock, enabled, unmodified, unaltered components.


ITCS 17.1.4.B Intent
Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.


If I order a set of cam gears and install them per factory methods (i.e.: no way to adjust them, no keyway modifications, now offset keys, etc...), and the resulting timing is other than "blueprint" specs... I'm still perfectly legal, even if it results in a less than optimum spec...

What you guys are trying to say is that I'm REQUIRED to search through ALL of the replacement cam gears I might find and ONLY use those that result in straight up, factory spec cam timing... The rest I have to throw away, even though they are stock, unmodified, unaltered, and fully enabled, etc...

Sorry, I just don't buy that. After all, "Blueprinting" is ALLOWED... It's NOT REQUIRED...

If I purchase a bone stock car, put a cage in it, race it in IT, and later check the cam timing and find that it's other than "factory spec", even though the engine has NEVER been opened, adjusted, or otherwise touched by human hands since it left the factory, is the motor illegal??? That would be SILLY...

Again, if something is FACTORY adjustable, as is the case with the situation that started this thread, AND the ITCS ALLOWS you to use this factory adjustable piece, as the ITCS does in the same situation, then the piece is allowed to be adjusted, as the factory intended. If not, the ITCS would specify that "factory cam timing must be within FSM specs", or something to that effect.

Otherwise, show me where the ITCS disallows a factory adjustable piece to be adjusted within it's normal range of adjustment... I just re-read the ITCS and I just don't see it in there...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

lateapex911
09-23-2004, 01:42 AM
Well....and I write this knowing that intent has nothing to do with what the rules say and don't say, but here is an interesting line that certainly speaks to the presumed intent of the rules makers to retain stock cam timing:


On engines with dual overhead camshafts, this key shall be installed on the crankshaft only.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
09-23-2004, 06:49 AM
Jake,

That's why I said what I did about reading things in context vs. in isolation. If there were no other statements about cam timing, I'd go w/ the 'adjust it to whatever you want' theory. But since there are other (more than one) statements that talk about stock cam timing, that's where I see the intent.

Darin,

You didn't have anything to say about competitive advantage, and how the adjustable gears factored into the spec. weight.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

You didn't have anything to say about competitive advantage, and how the adjustable gears factored into the spec. weight.



It's been stated numerous times and should be rather obvious... HP potential is considered stongly in the process...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
09-23-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
George I am not suggesting that "MAY" meant you "had" to. Only that there use is allowed under certain circumstances. I am not suggesting that they mean "MUST" because there are instances where it is not needed to bring things back in time.

Ahhhhh. Got it. Had to drill through my thick skull.

You may be right. However, I will go back to what I've said many times - intent is irrelevant. What is written is what is relevant.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-23-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Again, if something is FACTORY adjustable, as is the case with the situation that started this thread, AND the ITCS ALLOWS you to use this factory adjustable piece, as the ITCS does in the same situation, then the piece is allowed to be adjusted, as the factory intended. If not, the ITCS would specify that "factory cam timing must be within FSM specs", or something to that effect.

I'm with Darin. This falls under "If it says you can, you bloody well can." The ITCS says you can use them so you can. It places no restriction on them so there is none.

If it says you can, you bloody well can.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-23-2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You didn't have anything to say about competitive advantage, and how the adjustable gears factored into the spec. weight.


First there is the fact that we were not given all the the history behind what was done in the past.

Second, this is another tempest in a tea pot. How many cars with factory adjustable cam gears are dominating IT? Hell, how many cars in IT have factory adjustable cam gears?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
09-23-2004, 11:41 AM
Darin sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The intent is to run the engine as it was designed from the factory, with the exception of allowed deviations...</font>

He also sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...then the piece is allowed to be adjusted, as the factory intended. If not, the ITCS would specify that \"factory cam timing must be within FSM specs\", or something to that effect.</font>

The factory never intended for this adjustable cam sprocket to be used to adjust the cam timing outside the FSM-specified values. The FSM specifies the factory intentions with something to the effect of, "adjust the cam to these values."

Thus, absent any ITCS allowance outside the factory tolerances (as with *any* FSM tolerance, such as is done with blueprinting) the cam timing must be within FSM values.

The tire pressures thing is a silly red herring: alternate tires ARE allowed, and the tire pressure are recommended by the tire manufacturer. I would wager that most FSMs (or owners manuals) likely refer the the reader to the tire manufacturer for pressures.

George sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The ITCS says you can use them so you can. It places no restriction on them so there is none...If it says you can, you bloody well can.</font>

George, you've always been the big cheerleader about IIDSYCTYC. However, your statement above disregards that. Let's take a stroll down Logic Lane:

- ITCS says the factory adjustable cam sprocket is legal.
- ITCS also says IIDSYCTYC.
- ITCS does NOT specify that the camshaft timing can be adjusted outside of specs.
- Thus, is it not legal to adjust the cam timing out of specs.

If one were to take your position on this - that since it's adjustable, and since the ITCS allows it to be adjustable, and since the ITCS does not limit that adjustability - how far can one go with that logic?

For example, MANY things are "adjustable" on the car, such as internal engine tolerances (remember, "adjustable" has no specifics on the "ease" of doing so); therefore, since the factory made these dimensions "adjustable" (with tolerances listed in the FSM) and since the ITCS does not limit these tolerances specifically, can I therefore under the "blueprinting" allowance adjust them to where I wish?

Yes, George, you bloody well can, as long as it says you can. However, nowhere in the ITCS does it say you "can" adjust ANYTHING to the physical limits of its adjustability. Those limits are imposed by the FSM.

GA


[This message has been edited by grega (edited September 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by grega:
For example, MANY things are "adjustable" on the car, such as internal engine tolerances (remember, "adjustable" has no specifics on the "ease" of doing so

That's BS... Internal engine tolerances can only be changed by "altering" parts (machining block, crank, etc...) and by removing/adding material... both of which are CLEARLY spelled out as being illegal in the ITCS... or by mixing and matching factory components, a situation that I described above (cam gears) and which you guys are still claiming would result in an illegal engine.

A better example would be alignment... The ITCS clearly allows methods to adjust the alignment, but nowhere does it say that the specs for this are "free"... How many of you are adjusting your camber and toe to the factory specs? On the ignition example, the ITCS clearly states that timing is free. Since it doesn't say this for alignment, using the logic you guys are presenting, do these settings have to be set to FSM specs?

In my opinion, the allowance to run a part that is adjustable, implies that adjustment of the settings controlled by that piece is allowed within the range of the adjustment. If someone has another example where this is not the case, please provide it, because, again, I just don't see it.

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Greg Amy
09-23-2004, 12:49 PM
"Bullshit", Darin? I fully accept that you may disagree with others' position, but I'd hardly call those opinions that differ from yours "bullshit".

The suspension alignments are yet ANOTHER "Darin Red Herring". Where the ITCS rules deviate from IIDSYCTYC is when a modification or substitution is specifically allowed. When any modification or substition is allowed, the premise moves from IIDSYCTYC to "subject to the limitations specified, you can do anything you want with this" (witness spherical bearings and MoTec ignitions). Since virtually all suspension-related components (and many suspension locating devices such eccentric bushings, camber bolts)are allowed to be modified and/or replaced, the alignment specifications of such parts are also allowed to deviate from the FSM specs.

On the other hand, in our particular debated example, there are no ITCS allowed modifications in regards to factory-installed cam gears or camshafts, thus all components must meet FSM spec, including the factory-authorized cam timing specs.

Next red herring?

Darin, if it is your position that anything that CAN be "adjusted" is not in any way limited to the specifications in the factory workshop manual, then I'd *LOVE* to make that official as I have some very clever things I'd like to try (especially when we start debating the definition of "adjustable"...)

GA

lateapex911
09-23-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... or by mixing and matching factory components, a situation that I described above (cam gears) and which you guys are still claiming would result in an illegal engine.


Well, I think it could result in an engine that fails to meet factory specs, dependant on those specs and tolerances, but the resolution is unclear, as the word "may" has been used in reference to the method of correction for out of spec cam timing.

The suspension example is not comparable as the ITCS states that you may use those parts to adjust camber and caster and/or toe, so thats an allowance, and it says you can, so you can.



In my opinion, the allowance to run a part that is adjustable, implies that adjustment of the settings controlled by that piece is allowed within the range of the adjustment.

Whooooa..."implies"???? Doesn't it also imply that the timing should be stock by the reference to the plastic gears matching factory timing specs, AND by the comment that dual cams use ONE offset key to reset cam timing to factory scpecs? Thats TWO implications that they want the specs to meet factory tolerances...so you prefer your "implcation" over two others that are contrary? Can't blame you for wanting that to be the case! But George is right...intent and implication are not the proper tools to use when reading what the book says. I still think a clarification is needed to resolve what I see as a written conflict.

I am still thinking that the ITCS has forbidden adjustable cam gears for those cars not originally equippped, and those cars originally equipped can use those gears in leau of an offset key to acheive factory specs. The Jensen is lucky in that so many specs may exist for that car, and the best one can be chosen from the appropriate assembly on the spec line.

So, IMHO, choose the best specification that fits the hardware configuration that you are working on and adjust to that. But remeber the specifications may be appropriate only to whole assemblies, and mixing and matching isn't allowed.

(In the Jensen's case, the factory probably put the adjustable gears in because they: couldn't make accurate parts?..or they hadn't figured out what the specs should be?...or they figured it was the easy way to have the car meet the emission requirements in different markets. I doubt that they included it with a note in the owners manual or the FSM..."Have fun guys, the engine really rips at 10 degrees after"!)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by grega:
...I'd hardly call those opinions that differ from yours "bullshit".

Good Point... I'll retract the BS statement and replace it with "I Disagree..."


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> The suspension alignments are yet ANOTHER \"Darin Red Herring\".</font>

BS!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif It's a perfect example that illustrates the point... Just because you happen to disagree with my point of view on that does NOT make it a "red herring"... (touche' http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif )


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Where the ITCS rules deviate from IIDSYCTYC is when a modification or substitution is specifically allowed. When any modification or substition is allowed, the premise moves from IIDSYCTYC to \"subject to the limitations specified, you can do anything you want with this\" (witness spherical bearings and MoTec ignitions). Since virtually all suspension-related components (and many suspension locating devices such eccentric bushings, camber bolts)are allowed to be modified and/or replaced, the alignment specifications of such parts are also allowed to deviate from the FSM specs.</font>

So, do you realize you are saying here that if you DON'T "modify or replace" these components, i.e.: don't add camber plates or offset bushings, the settings MUST meet FSM specs?? Is that REALLY how you think the ITCS should be interpreted? I shouldn't be able to set my camber outside of the factory specs with existing adjustments on the car??? That's the argument you are making, and I definately disagree with this point of view... Mostly because it's simply wrong...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...there are no ITCS allowed modifications in regards to factory-installed cam gears or camshafts, thus all components must meet FSM spec, including the factory-authorized cam timing specs.</font>

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAKING "MODIFICATIONS" HERE!! Again, go back to the situation I described above where the installation of a factory component results in timing outside of the FSM spec (due to whatever variances in production parts that happen to exist)... These are STOCK, UNMODIFIED pieces... Is the engine illegal because of them? The parts and assembly meets the letter of the rule, and THAT is what matters.

The case in point is a completely stock, factory piece, that is specifically allowed by the ITCS. You state that "When any modification or substition is allowed, the premise moves from IIDSYCTYC to "subject to the limitations specified, you can do anything you want with this" WHY does his only apply to "modifications" or "substitutions"??? WHY would it not apply to parts that are simply "allowed" as well???

I just don't see the logic in that interpretation...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Greg Amy
09-23-2004, 02:56 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...you are saying here that if you DON'T \"modify or replace\" these (suspension) components...the (alignment) settings MUST meet FSM specs??</font>

No, absolutely not. I do not understand how you interpret that in any manner. What the rules say is that "these specific modifications/replacements" are allowed in any form, and in any combination thereof in whole or part. Thus, even if I do NOT replace any suspension components, I am still allowed to use the extent of the physical suspension adjustments because they are a portion of the allowed modifications.

Same goes for tire pressures: even if I choose to run the stock Continental Radialectomies on my car, I can still use any tire pressure I wish because they are a portion of the allowable modifications for tires.

However, on the cam timing gears, there is no allowance for any modifications from stock to the cam timing gear, thus all stock specifications - including cam timing - apply.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAKING \"MODIFICATIONS\" HERE!!</font>

Exactly. So what makes you think that you are allowed to use a non-factory specification regarding the installation of that supposed-to-be stock part?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...installation of a factory component results in timing outside of the FSM spec (due to whatever variances in production parts that happen to exist)...Is the engine illegal because of them?</font>

Of course it is! If you believe this is not the case, what keeps me from claiming that, for instance, that "whatever" part that I installed is simply a production variance? Would a receipt from the dealer (for instance, a Datsun 510 camshaft) suffice to prove it's a legal part?

The very fact that a part's specs don't match the FSM numbers is de facto proof that is illegal under ITCS. How else would you define "illegal"?

(Edit: in re-reading Darin's question, I'm inferring he's leading me down this path: if the cam timing is out of spec because of an allowed head shaving, would the car be illegal? My answer is "no" because that out-of-spec cam timing is as a direct result of an allowable modification, and the rules state "may" versus "must" on the use of an offset key to correct that condition. Further, but not necessarily relevant, on most engines this will result in an undesired condition of retarding the timing.

However, if the builder chooses to use the allowed offset key to adjust the cam timing, it is their responsibility to return the timing spec to within the FSM values.)


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">WHY does his only apply to \"modifications\" or \"substitutions\"???</font>

Because, Darin, "if it doesn't say you can" deviate from the factory specifications "you cannot."

Plain and simple.


[This message has been edited by grega (edited September 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Because, Darin, "if it doesn't say you can" deviate from the factory specifications "you cannot."

Plain and simple.

The rules say you CAN use an Adjustable Cam gear if it was "fitted as stock".

It says you CAN... Plain and simple...


Since you guys can't seem to provide the hard evidence to refute my case, I decided to stop playing devil's advocate and do it for you. This both proves that the adjustable cam gears are allowed to be adjusted, and that "exceeding" the FSM specs for otherwise non-adjustable parts (my cam gear case above) is not allowed...


2003 GCR Section 22 - Definitions

Blue Printing -
The practice of engine improvement achieved by the use of selected standard parts and/or by optimizing the factory machined surfaces of stock engine components to achieve the most advantageous specifications within the normal range as defined by the manufacturer for that engine.

Within the above definition of blueprinting, any procedures that involve the following are NOT permitted unless specifically authorized:

a) The addition of material of any kind to any component (this includes, but is not limited to, the addition of sleeves/bushings and the application of anti-friction, oil shedding and thermal barrier/retention coatings).

B) The machining, tooling or any other physical or chemical modification, etc. etc...

c) Mixing/Matching of parts from any other year, make, model or type of vehicle or engine.

d) Balancing procedures that involve spot machining of ALL rotating and/or reciprocating parts (i.e.: on rod/piston assembly must remain untouched).

NOTE: Under no circumstances may any factory spcification be exceeded as a result of any permitted blueprinting operations(s) (i.e.: compression ratio, valve lift, bore, stroke, etc.).



I would have to say that the note at the end there would be sufficient to make a case for the illegality of my cam gear scenario metioned earlier.

However, the opening statement, specifically, the part about achieving "the most advantageous specifications within the normal range as defined by the manufacturer for that engine", would help prove a case to allow adjustable cam gears to be adjusted "within the normal range" as defined by the slot in the cam gear, which was designed and defined by the manufacturer of that engine...

So, I'll conceed that all other cases must meet an acceptable range for factory cam timing specs. BUT, the allowance of adjustable cam gears is an allowance for them to be adjusted within the limits they were designed to be adjusted within, or so me thinkist... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Geo
09-23-2004, 03:40 PM
Gadzooks!

Looks like we got us a bonide Holy War!

OK, as brief as possible....

First of all, a letter to Jeremy is probably in order to settle this. It's becoming quite circular.

Second, I would submit that specifications and settings are regulated through parts NOT through limits on adjustments.

What limits lift and duration? The fact that the stock cam must be used.

What limits your alignment settings? The extent of the adjustment of stock parts, or legal aftermarket parts, or legal modifications.

Reasonable people may disagree and I'm sure some or many of you may disagree with this. It's my take. But I'll bet that a letter to Jeremy would allow stock adjustable cam gears to be adjusted to their limit.

There is no place in the ITCS that states cam timing MUST be stock. If I shave the head on an OHC engine it will alter the cam timing. I MAY return it to stock using an offset key. It doesn't say I MUST.

Greg, you mentioned I am a proponent of IIDSYCYC. True. That's what the rule book says. But I've ALWAYS put for the saying "If it says you can, you bloody well can."

Where the ITCS specifically states you may use stock adjustable cam gears and doesn't place any limits on those adjustments, I believe you can use the full measure of the adjustment allowed by the part (see above).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-23-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
So, I'll conceed that all other cases must meet an acceptable range for factory cam timing specs. BUT, the allowance of adjustable cam gears is an allowance for them to be adjusted within the limits they were designed to be adjusted within, or so me thinkist... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

No. If you shave the head and it alters the cam timing there is absolutely nothing requiring the cam timing to be reset to stock.

If you believe that allowable specs are dicated by parts, factory cam gears that are used in such a fashion to create more advantageous (or not actually) results would be entirely legal. I would suggest this is absolutely OK. I will continue to believe this until someone shows me where the ITCS governs specs and adjustments in any way other than governing the parts.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:

BUT, the allowance of adjustable cam gears is an allowance for them to be adjusted within the limits they were designed to be adjusted within, or so me thinkist... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



You know... I've thought this over a little more, and I'm going back to my original position... The mere allowance of a stock adjustable timing gear... the fact that it's seperately addressed in the first place, means that it can be "used"... Why would you allow an adjustable piece but not be allowed to adjust it???

There is some validity to the arguement that the specs must fall into those defined by the manufacturer, per our "blueprinting" rules, but even this could be argued to be overruled by the specific allowance for the adjustable piece in the first place...

I'll tell you what... if it's important you you all... I'll write the darn letter myself...

Or, I suppose I could just bring it up on Monday nights ITAC con-call... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Where the ITCS specifically states you may use stock adjustable cam gears and doesn't place any limits on those adjustments, I believe you can use the full measure of the adjustment allowed by the part (see above).




Yah... that's what I was trying to say! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Ron Earp
09-23-2004, 04:02 PM
(In the Jensen's case, the factory probably put the adjustable gears in because they: couldn't make accurate parts?..or they hadn't figured out what the specs should be?...or they figured it was the easy way to have the car meet the emission requirements in different markets. I doubt that they included it with a note in the owners manual or the FSM..."Have fun guys, the engine really rips at 10 degrees after"!)


Interestingly, in the manual there are six specifications given. The gears have 3 marks apiece and they listing timing data and ingition timing data for six combintions, although there are more combinations than this. Now, not all Jensens had this adjustability, late 73s and 74s seem to, 75s seem not too.

Still, I like the other question better - what happens if I need new cams? JH no longer exists. Lotus does. Lotus built the motor and if I call Lotus and order cams for my JH I will not get the same cams that I got back in 1974 because the manufacturer has superceeded these cams with a modern design. Is this legal? I understand in VW land Rabbits do this with some sort of G-grind cam in a similar situation. I don't need cams right now, but I will for my spare motor. My first motor is getting run as is, I'll be the limiting factor anyhow, now motor power production!!! ;-)

As for timing, well, I'm going to run the car and run the timing IN THE MANUAL that feels best.

And, from doing a lot of work on the JH I feel JH put them there to meet emission requirements. This was in the dark ages of emissions and I think the reason they specify different timings is so the things would pass emission but allow the owner to revert them to actually make a little power. For example here are three from the manual:

36 BTDC
56 ABDC
66 BBDC
21 ATDC

26 BTDC
66 ABDC
66 BBDC
26 ATDC

21 BTDC
71 ABDC
71 BBDC
21 ATDC

You'll notice this is all with the same two cams of course, just different factory spec timing. And, there are different cams depending on engine serial number, and different gears too, to make matters more complicated.

It is commonly accepted the cars never made the 140hp they were supposed to, but only around 125hp or so. Therefore, I don't think I'll be passing any of you fellows so don't worry.


Ron

Geo
09-23-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Still, I like the other question better - what happens if I need new cams? JH no longer exists. Lotus does. Lotus built the motor and if I call Lotus and order cams for my JH I will not get the same cams that I got back in 1974 because the manufacturer has superceeded these cams with a modern design. Is this legal? I understand in VW land Rabbits do this with some sort of G-grind cam in a similar situation.

Since you asked, IMHO the cams for the JH are simply NLA.

Also, the legality of the G-grind cam is still in question IMHO.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Ron Earp
09-23-2004, 04:46 PM
Sorry, new here. NLA? Not Legal At All? Not Legal Anywhere? Not in Los Alamos?

R

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Sorry, new here. NLA? Not Legal At All? Not Legal Anywhere? Not in Los Alamos?

R

No Longer Available...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
09-23-2004, 05:20 PM
Ron,

NLA = No Longer Available.

George,

You really are funny. Once again, ITCS says that you have to use stock timing if you swap phenolic/plastic gears for metal ones. Yep, special case, but it does state that you have to use stock timing.

Interesting position that you have on using stock parts. What happens if you buy stock valves for your car and they happen to be slightly larger/smaller than the specified valve size? And when I say 'slightly', I mean .001-.002 of an inch. Keep in mind that when there are no specific tolerences mentioned, specified dimensions are absolute.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Bill Miller
09-23-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
It's been stated numerous times and should be rather obvious... HP potential is considered stongly in the process...




No Darin, what's been stated is that you guys are using a 'Miller ratio' for each class, and an appoximate 'hp gain' for an IT prep. I don't think you or any one else on the ITAC, have come out and said that you look at each marque/engine on a case-by-case basis. But it's no surprise that you just try and blow over the issue rather than addressing the question at hand.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Ron Earp
09-23-2004, 05:52 PM
So if it is no longer available what do I do? Use what Lotus sends me?

Geo
09-23-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
So if it is no longer available what do I do? Use what Lotus sends me?

You scrounge for NOS (new old stock) which would be unlikely, or you look for serviceable used cams. Or I suppose you decide to be a cheater.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-23-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

You really are funny.


Yeah, but looks aren't everything.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Once again, ITCS says that you have to use stock timing if you swap phenolic/plastic gears for metal ones. Yep, special case, but it does state that you have to use stock timing.

I agree. If you swap phenolic/plastic gears for metal ones they must use stock timing. Never debated that.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Interesting position that you have on using stock parts. What happens if you buy stock valves for your car and they happen to be slightly larger/smaller than the specified valve size? And when I say 'slightly', I mean .001-.002 of an inch. Keep in mind that when there are no specific tolerences mentioned, specified dimensions are absolute.


Well, if there is no tolerance spec'd in the FSM I'd say you are illegal since valve sizes are specifically called out in the ITCS. Of course, if I were building an engine I'd check to make sure the valves weren't illegal before I installed them in the engine (well, head to be specific).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

JeffYoung
09-23-2004, 06:41 PM
George, you are knowledgeable and I enjoy your posts, but sometimes, your attitude pisses me off. Ron is new to this and just seeking some advice -- the "decide to be a cheater comment" was not called for. I've watched him build this car and he is dedicated to making it legal.

Ron, check the GCR but I think you can ask the SCCA to, in the case of NLA parts, run the cams Lotus would supply you. It has (if I remember correctly) happened before with the VWs and the Datsun 510s.

Jeff

Geo
09-23-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, you are knowledgeable and I enjoy your posts, but sometimes, your attitude pisses me off. Ron is new to this and just seeking some advice -- the "decide to be a cheater comment" was not called for. I've watched him build this car and he is dedicated to making it legal.

Jeff, relax. He asked what the options were and I told him. Some people would indeed decide to cheat. It's amazing what attitudes are out there. I said it the way I did to be direct. Cheating is cheating. I never ever ever said Ron was a cheater. Go back and read it.

Could I have chosen different words? Sure. I could have sugar coated the option of running an illegal cam. Wouldn't that still be cheating?

I meant no, none, nada, zero disrespect to Ron. Never have. Ron, if you were offended, please accept my apology because if you are, it was purely a misunderstanding.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Tom Donnelly
09-23-2004, 06:51 PM
I don't understand the argument here. If a cam comes stock with adjustable gears, why is it illegal to adjust it? If a car comes with adjustable timing (ie the distributor) then you adjust it. How many cars are running with the FSM recommended advance?

And is a regrind cam illegal? You can take a stock cam and have it reground to factory specs? Or at least I thought you could. Same lift, same duration, same overlap. Just reground to get rid of bad spots. Or am I missing something here. Lots of rebuilt engines have a regrind.

My motor was done by an engine builder, so I bypassed all these questions and bought a professional and legal engine.

Tom

JeffYoung
09-23-2004, 07:21 PM
George, my bad and my apologies. I overreacted.

Jeff

Ron Earp
09-23-2004, 07:23 PM
George,

What is NLA? No longer available. When it is no longer available do you use what the manufacturer suggests? That is the question, no more, no less. And no, I will not become a cheater if you're wondering. I would think from the short time on this board and the questions I air in public people would have figured that out by now. Cheaters don't ask "can I????", but people trying to learn and follow the rule do.

I have four sets of cams now - only one pair is worth a darn and it has a crack on one exhaust lobe, but I think runnable. I believe I can chip the piece off, file it down, and run it since it doesn't contact the valve cap. The other pairs are beyong help, but, I tried to get what I could and bought them off Ebay. Blanks are no longer available according to Delta and Dave Bean, therefore, what is one to do? I'll find some sooner or later, but the question still remains.

I am not complaining. I choose to build this car. I'm sure some responses might be "build a Honda, RX7, etc." but one chooses what one has an affinity for, and this is it. Hell, the tougher road is always more fun anyway, you learn more and have a better time.

Besides, if nothing else I entertain you guys and give you something to post about! ;-)

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I don't think you or any one else on the ITAC, have come out and said that you look at each marque/engine on a case-by-case basis. But it's no surprise that you just try and blow over the issue rather than addressing the question at hand.


Bill... It's also no suprise that you'd take my answer and turn it against me for your own gain...

I said that HP potential is taken into consideration in the process... What does that mean to you?

To me, it means that you look at the package under consideration and try to estimate what kind of output it's going to produce...

Do I really need to detail EVERY component that is considered when answering your question? Besides... can YOU tell me just how much power can be gained by messing with the cam timing on a stock system with stock cams??? What do you think it's worth?

I'm willing to tell you this much... with our current methods and means... there is NO WAY we are going to try to be accountable down to the 4-5hp margins we are talking about with something like this. Without a lot of technology and test engines, we can't possibly be expected to get our numbers for potential that close... Besides, this is IT... the intent of the class hasn't changed...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Geo
09-23-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
What is NLA? No longer available. When it is no longer available do you use what the manufacturer suggests?

Technically, it's not that simple. By the letter of the law, to use another part it would have to be listed as a supercession.


Originally posted by rlearp:
And no, I will not become a cheater if you're wondering.

Actually, I never doubted you for a second.


Originally posted by rlearp:
Blanks are no longer available according to Delta and Dave Bean, therefore, what is one to do? I'll find some sooner or later, but the question still remains.

Have you tried to get in touch with any shops in Great Britain or enthusiast groups there?

Technically using reproduction cams is currently illegal, but we are working on fixing that sort of thing.

Since the engine is a Lotus engine I would think somebody would have a resource.

[edit] To edit out unused quotes

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited September 23, 2004).]

Ron Earp
09-23-2004, 08:53 PM
Yep, I am in touch with the JH Preservation society here and an Lotus engine builder in the UK. Since I run www.gt40s.com (http://www.gt40s.com), and most of the GT40s are in the UK, I've got a lot of sources in racing/street stuff/concours, etc. That is why I know I can turn a set up sooner or later. But, someone still needs too look at that ruling. There are Lotus only cams that are within 0.015" of lift of the stock JH cam and with the same duration which are available now, off the shelf. There is no way this will make a performance difference, given the head castings etc. that I cannot change.

It is just the JH cams were used no NO Lotus motors, that is in a proper Lotus, and since JH only built the cars for 2.5 years in low volume you can see the problems. Lots of Lotus cams fit the motor, but those are not correct.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!



[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 23, 2004).]

Geo
09-23-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Yep, I am in touch with the JH Preservation society here and an Lotus engine builder in the UK. Since I run www.gt40s.com (http://www.gt40s.com), and most of the GT40s are in the UK, I've got a lot of sources in racing/street stuff/concours, etc. That is why I know I can turn a set up sooner or later. But, someone still needs too look at that ruling. There are Lotus only cams that are within 0.015" of lift of the stock JH cam and with the same duration which are available now, off the shelf.

It is just the JH cams were used no NO Lotus motors, that is in a proper Lotus, and since JH only built the cars for 2.5 years in low volume you can see the problems. Lots of Lotus cams fit the motor, but those are not correct.



I appreciate the problem. Well maybe not quite as much as you, but here's the quandry... When opening up IT to non-stock parts it opens a HUGE Pandora's Box and most think such an opening is a fast track to being in the situation Production is in. The only way (that I see) to accomodate such a move is to open cams up in some way. Perhaps sticking to stock lift and duration? Or opening them up completely? I don't know the answer.

Oh, and just for you.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~geo31/samples/GT40.jpg


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
09-23-2004, 10:08 PM
Ron, you are actually in an enviable position. Seems that you have some connections across the pond...culture those, and make a trip. Stop in and talk to the blokes in Lotus. Find the old guy in the back in charge of the "heritage" (as they have probably renamed it now) department. Make sure you get him at the end of the day, and take him out for a pint after work. Make sure the waitress dotes on him, and by the 3rd pint you will have a letter to the SCCA from Lotus, "superceding" the NLA cam with one of your choosing...

Make your choice a good one, but not too good!

OK, it's not quite that simple, but I can't think of a better maunufacturer to be doing business with in a situation like this. Perhaps a letter to Jeremy, the SCCA tech representative, is in order to help guide you through the system.

And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

So, Darin, if you like the situation as is, don't say anything, because I have seen loopholes like this closed before!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited September 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

So, Darin, if you like the situation as is, don't say anything, because I have seen loopholes like this closed before!



The funny part of this is that I'm one of Nine voices that will help clarify the rule and come up with the wording! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


And, to address NLA parts and the lack of availibility of stock replacement pieces... If I recall correctly, one of the items going before the BoD was one that would allow "other than oem" replacement pieces meeting the exact stock specifications... In other words, reground or otherwise aftermarket stock cams would be legal to use...

Of course, now we get into base circle dimension arguments, etc... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

There is DEFINATELY no way to write a perfect rule... Unless, perhaps, you just don't allow ANYTHING... Seems like everytime you write an allowance for a single item, you open the door for three others...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
09-23-2004, 10:41 PM
Bill... It's also no suprise that you'd take my answer and turn it against me for your own gain...



Darin, my own gain?? Exactly what would that be? Talk about pulling shit out of your ass!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
09-23-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, my own gain?? Exactly what would that be?

I'm not exactly sure... for some reason, you seem to like to follow me around the internet, trying to discredit me at each turn... Get's a little tiresome...

But then, I know you feel that's your duty, because you used to hound Basil the same way...

You must get something out of it, or you wouldn't do it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
09-23-2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

Jake, you're on!

You going to ARRC this year? If I'm still on the bread line I'll be going as a PITA, er, I mean as a fan. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
09-23-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
There is DEFINATELY no way to write a perfect rule... Unless, perhaps, you just don't allow ANYTHING...

No buts. Even SS used to have some serious issues.

How many Runoffs SS races were decided in the tech shed? I remember one year the eventual winner was someone who didn't even make it through tech because all the impounded cars were DQ'd! They weren't subject to impound and by the time they were done with the impounds the eventual "winner" had already left!



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
09-24-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Jake, you're on!

You going to ARRC this year? If I'm still on the bread line I'll be going as a PITA, er, I mean as a fan. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




Yup...making plans now.

You WILL go..I will have Shiner in the trailer if thats what it takes! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Email me off list, ok?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
09-24-2004, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm not exactly sure... for some reason, you seem to like to follow me around the internet, trying to discredit me at each turn... Get's a little tiresome...

But then, I know you feel that's your duty, because you used to hound Basil the same way...

You must get something out of it, or you wouldn't do it...




Darin,

Don't flatter yourse3lf, you're not that important. And I don't have to try and 'discredit' you, you do a fine job of that yourself.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Greg Amy
09-24-2004, 09:29 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I'm one of Nine voices that will help clarify the rule and come up with the wording! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif</font>

I suggest that a partisan comment on a public board that implies - despite the smiley - that "your will be done" because you're in a unique position of power is not something that you or your peers should find particulary amusing or appealing. I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.

Again, I note the smiley, but it's not a flattering comment to make in public, Darin.

GA

Greg Amy
09-24-2004, 09:37 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...one year the eventual winner was someone who didn't even make it through tech...</font>

I was racing SSA during those years, and in fact I picked up quite a few Runoffs places as the winners were tossed.

If we're referring to the same examples, George, I believe Tech would have had to impound all the way back to 7th or 8th in order to get the eventual winner. Hell, if you want to be 100% you'd have to impound the whole field and go through them one-by-one; unfortunately, there's just not enough time or space to impound four (back then) Showroom Stock classes all the way to, say, 10th place (where in Tech are you going to put 40 cars for three days?)

The smartest move I ever saw was in 1991 (?) when one guy, who finished 7th on the track I think, drove his car right after the race directly into his trailer and pulled it out of Road Atlanta (they impounded top-6). After the top 3 or 4 cars were tossed Tech went calling for him to show up in impound for tear-down. Paged him for 2 days, as I recall, before they finally gave up. He eventually went home with a Silver or Bronze and never had to turn a wrench on the car...

GA

Banzai240
09-24-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by grega:
I suggest that a partisan comment on a public board that implies - despite the smiley - that "your will be done" because you're in a unique position of power is not something that you or your peers should find particulary amusing or appealing. I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.

Again, I note the smiley, but it's not a flattering comment to make in public, Darin.

GA

GIVE ME A BREAK! If you can find even ONE example of ANY instance where I've used my position to get ANYTHING that benefits me personally, I'll... Well, what difference does it make what I'd do... You aren't going to find ANYTHING!

All I was commenting on what the silly notion that I would be writing the letter ASKING A QUESTION (is cam timing open, blah, blah, blah...) and then I'd be on the committee to answer it.

You guys are REALLY struggling to find a conspiracy, aren't you?

By the way, ask ANYONE on the ITAC how I conduct myself... or how ANY of them conduct themselves, in matters that could be construed as a conflict of interest, and you'll find that we treat those matters with the utmost respect for our membership. If you can't figure out what that means, it means that if an issue arrises that could be construed as a conflict of interest (i.e.: about a 240SX for instance...), we voice our opinion, but remove ourselves from any voting that might take place...

It's ABSURD that you'd even suggest something like this... especially after we've shown you all a willingness to be here in public, available to all to attempt to answer questions and generally participate in discussions, opening ourselves up to the kind of crap that Miller and others continually feel the need to deal...

Whatever... I'm glad to know, based on feedback we've received, that these aren't the majority opinions...

It's no wonder those that came before us were so unwilling to discuss this stuff in public...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Greg Amy
09-24-2004, 11:03 AM
Hey, Darin, do me one favor: read what I write fully. Then, read it again before you select the reply option. This is the second time in only this one thread that you have pulled something of mine out of context that wasn't there.

Did I accuse you of anything? Nope, all I said was that writing such comments on a board that will be perpetually available and reviewed can be misconstrued, is not flattering, and is not in your best interest.

If you cannot handle criticism on what you write in this forum, especially given that your individual writings will *always* go through a fine-tooth comb (much finer than what any other non-ITAC member will be subjected to) I suggest you retire the keyboard. Otherwise, you will be perpetually frustrated.

Banzai240
09-24-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by grega:
This is the second time in only this one thread that you have pulled something of mine out of context that wasn't there.



Originally posted by grega:

I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.


Greg... when someone tells me that they would "prefer" to believe something, it usually means they currently believe the opposite, or are at least leaning that way... sorry if I misunderstood and that isn't what you were saying, but that's how it reads...

Regardless... any discussions the ITAC has in which I'm involved almost always start out with "what do YOU guys think about this"...

So please, spare me the "if you can't handle the critisism" line... You sound like someone else I know...

I frequent this board because I know there are a majority of the members out there who appreciate the honest and open communication. I'm not about to shy away just because of a few people who are perpetually unhappy with the situation and find any opportunity to point that out.

If you guys can't handle an innocent comment, where someone sees an irony with a situation and pokes fun at it, then perhaps I'm not the one who should retire their keyboard... I can be professional and still have fun.

Sorry, but I find it rather silly that I'd have to write a letter to "myself" (or, more appropriately, the ITAC) to get any kind of official action. One would think I could just bring it up...

How about lightening up a bit and seeing all the good things that we are being accomplished? Last time I checked, the ITAC was on YOUR side... ALL OF US!

OK, enough of this... The RUNOFFS are going on right now, with racing LIVE timing and scoring on the Internet ( http://leaderboard.vfx.com/SCCA/RunOffs/Li...ming.asp?Class= (http://leaderboard.vfx.com/SCCA/RunOffs/LiveTiming.asp?Class=) )

Go enjoy some top-notch CLUB RACING!!

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 24, 2004).]

Greg Amy
09-24-2004, 11:24 AM
(sigh...)

Banzai240
09-24-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by grega:
(sigh...)


I agree... If you don't mind, please e-mail me your phone number... I would like to talk to you in person.

banzai240 "at" Yahoo "dot" com
Thanks,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

lateapex911
09-24-2004, 01:18 PM
FWIW, Darin, I read that comment too, and saw your point, but thought to myself..."Hmmmm...he shoulda thrown in a line like: 'But of course I would recuse myself from such discussionnsa and votes except for providing factual information'.. "

I agree that the situation you present does show an amusing conflict of interest, but many who read the board don't understand the mechanics of the actual discussion, and the proper protocol. (Which I am sure you guys follow)

In essence, maybe you should try to think of the newbie or the uninformed who read the board and add a comment for them...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Ron Earp
09-24-2004, 01:50 PM
In essence, maybe you should try to think of the newbie or the uninformed who read the board and add a comment for them...
[/B]

No doubt. I just asked a question if I could use my stock timing gears to good effect and this sort of went off into something I basically don't understand.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Banzai240
09-24-2004, 02:13 PM
You guys are right... I've become a little too "spring loaded" (thanks GA...) lately.

I'll see if I can unwind a bit and we'll keep trying to keep the communication open for those that want to hear...


As for the Topic at hand... and more specifically to Ron... You may need to decide for yourself on this one. There are good arguements on both sides of this, and as I have clearly shown in my posts, I believe that if you are allowed an adjustable part, as you are, you are also allowed to adjust it within it's range of adjustment. That sounds logical to me and my interpretation of the rules supports that position.

Others see it differently and have supported their opinions with equally respectable interpretations...

I think what we've found out is that this rule is truely not completely clear, and could perhaps use some clarification to alleviate the confusion. In a couple of the recomendations the ITAC has made in the past year, we have started adding statements of intent to the rules to help make the intent more clear. This might be one of those cases where this needs to be done.

Anywant want to write a letter to the CRB?? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

apr67
09-24-2004, 03:18 PM
Darrin. Would it be legal in It for me to put a motor together with the timing off a tooth? I can't think of many motors that would benefit from this, but who knows?

Bill Miller
09-24-2004, 06:53 PM
100! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quickshoe
09-24-2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Darrin. Would it be legal in It for me to put a motor together with the timing off a tooth? I can't think of many motors that would benefit from this, but who knows?

Actually laughed out loud on that one. No "LOL" a real laugh that I had trouble holding in. Nothing like tossing a little gasoline on a still smoldering fire...

Geo
09-24-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Darrin. Would it be legal in It for me to put a motor together with the timing off a tooth? I can't think of many motors that would benefit from this, but who knows?

Knock yourself out.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

eh_tony!!!
09-26-2004, 11:37 AM
************************************
Originally posted by lateapex911:
And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.
**************************************
I'm in for a 6 pack that the CB's response will be the standard "rules are adequate as written" with no additional clarification of leglity/illegality.

My opinion here is that adjusting cam timing is perfectly legal. You may want to shave the head a bit though to support my side of the argument. (so use some 1000 grit wet dry and shave of .00000001 mm.

The GCR says that you are allowed to shave the head, we all agree on that. I believe we all agree as well that the GCR says that we MAY use an offset key to return cam timing to stock. I think also everyone is in agreement that we do not HAVE to use an offset key to return cam timing to stock.

This opens the door to out of FSM cam timing. so, since the GCR does not further define any limitations on that "out of stock" condition, I consider it free.

eh_tony!!!
09-26-2004, 11:38 AM
Here's another one I was thinking about over some lagers... (at least for 1 of the 2 cams). If ignition timing is free and the distributor is driven off a cam gear, what's to say you can't adjust the ignition timing by changing the cam/crank relationship? I'd love to hear responses on this one

Ron Earp
09-26-2004, 12:13 PM
Nice one. Too bad it took over 100 posts to get a good answer.

I just went out and shaved my head. I rubbed it with some emory paper. I think I saw some aluminum on the paper.

I may return the cams to the stock timing setting. I may not.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited September 26, 2004).]

Greg Amy
09-26-2004, 02:31 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...GCR says that we MAY use an offset key...this opens the door to out of FSM cam timing...</font>

Hmmmmmm.....huh...mmmm.....you know, you might have me convinced with this line of logic...on one condition:

*IF* we accept that this opens the door to out-of-FSM cam timing, is this out-of-specness limited to only one direction to o to only shaved heads? IOW, if "out of FSM" cam timing is allowed as per your argument (let's say, with a .0000001 shaving), can I then optimize my cam timing to where I want it, plus *or* minus? Further, since cam timing is now open, can I use offset keys to *only* put the cam into FSM specs or can I use them to optimize my power band?

If not, why not?

If you suggest that *if* I use offset keys I can *only* change the cam timing to FSM spec timing, then I must defer back to my original position; to do otherwise would offer a different modification level to different cars and I do not believe this is the intent of the rule. If, however, "the door" to non-FSM cam timing is truly open as you say, then there's nothing stopping me from optimizing cam timing to my performance advantage.

(P.S. I do still believe that the intent of the rule is for camshafts to be timed to FSM specs, but I am willing to accept the logic of this truck-sized loophole in the spirit of Motec and spherical bearings, if applied evenly to all cars).

Thoughts?

eh_tony!!!
09-26-2004, 02:47 PM
*IF* we accept that this opens the door to out-of-FSM cam timing, is this out-of-specness limited to only one direction to o to only shaved heads?
*****************
My read would be that 'out of spec' is out of spec. a good argument could be made for direction, but IMHO without a re-word it does not apply. But yes, it is limited to shaved heads
********************
IOW, if "out of FSM" cam timing is allowed as per your argument (let's say, with a .0000001 shaving), can I then optimize my cam timing to where I want it, plus *or* minus? Further, since cam timing is now open, can I use offset keys to *only* put the cam into FSM specs or can I use them to optimize my power band?
*******************************
Offset keys could only return it to FSM. Since no other means exists to modify/change pully's, the LOTUS is prolly the only car that can use this to advantage)
******************************
If not, why not?

If you suggest that *if* I use offset keys I can *only* change the cam timing to FSM spec timing, then I must defer back to my original position; to do otherwise would offer a different modification level to different cars and I do not believe this is the intent of the rule. If, however, "the door" to non-FSM cam timing is truly open as you say, then there's nothing stopping me from optimizing cam timing to my performance advantage.

****************
I agree completely with that paragraph




[This message has been edited by eh_tony!!! (edited September 26, 2004).]

Ron Earp
09-26-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:

(P.S. I do still believe that the intent of the rule is for camshafts to be timed to FSM specs, but I am willing to accept the logic of this truck-sized loophole in the spirit of Motec and spherical bearings, if applied evenly to all cars).

Thoughts?

No doubt. This thread was started by me asking if it was okay to use my factory provided adjustable timing gears. If a BMW owner can replace an entirely factory ECU with an aftermarket dedicated race unit, then this topic is a drop in the bucket.




------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

lateapex911
09-26-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:

The GCR says that you are allowed to shave the head, we all agree on that. I believe we all agree as well that the GCR says that we MAY use an offset key to return cam timing to stock. I think also everyone is in agreement that we do not HAVE to use an offset key to return cam timing to stock.


Yes to shaving, Yes to "May" use a key, NO to the "we do not have to" part.

I see the logic flow, BUT in the bigger picture, what if the rule reminded you that you could use the offset key or the adjustable cam gears if your car is so equipped?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> This opens the door to out of FSM cam timing. so, since the GCR does not further define any limitations on that \"out of stock\" condition, I consider it free.</font>


It does "open the door" if you ignore the larger picture and the basic IIDSYCYYC premise.

So, nowhere does it say "cam timing is free", it says you can retain your adjustable gears if they came stock, and it says you may use an offset key key to acheive correct timing. So, lets put the Shiner Bocks on the table, boys!

Again, I feel the rule is subject to a little extra light for us to see it correctly.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited September 26, 2004).]

Eagle7
09-26-2004, 04:49 PM
I still think the analogy to front toe setting is appropriate. I've not found anywhere in the GCR where it addressses this adjustment allowing non FSM settings for front toe. Can someone reference specific paragraphs if it is there? I think if you've got a factory supplied adjustment, you can adjust it.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

eh_tony!!!
09-26-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:


Yes to shaving, Yes to "May" use a key, NO to the "we do not have to" part.


ok, ok, what I meant to say was not that "we don't have to use an offset key to move cam timing back to stock", rather I meant "We do not HAVE to move cam timing back to FSM" In my opinion, the rule was written to say basically, "if you would like to move your cam timing back to stock, you may use an offset key"


I see the logic flow, BUT in the bigger picture, what if the rule reminded you that you could use the offset key or the adjustable cam gears if your car is so equipped?

It does "open the door" if you ignore the larger picture and the basic IIDSYCYYC premise.

Larger picture?? How so? You can't argue that there are no cars in IT with adjustable cam timing, hell there are even electronicallly actuated adjustable.

The IIDSxxxxx premise of course only holds true if it does not say you can. Here the GCR plainly says that you can have a car whose engine camshaft timing differs from what was stock.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I'll give you an example of a rules clarification I requested.

My old Fiat has a wishbone axle locaing system. If you read the GCR, the GCR says Panhard rod or Watts link. I aske for a wording change to include wishbone. The response from the CB is that the present wording is sufficient to allow the wishbone. (it's in fastrack a few months back)

BTW if one is going to so stricktly interpret the IIDwhatever rule, there wouldn't be a legal car in the field. I'm sure I could go through and find things like out-of-spec torque settings on various fasteners like lug nuts, etc. The GCR says you may change fasteners, but it does not say they may be torqued to anything other than factory specs.

lateapex911
09-26-2004, 07:57 PM
The crux as I see it is in cases where adjustments away from the FSM result in performance changes, the allowance is called out, eg: ignition timing.

Does the torque of my fender fastener affect my performance?

The ITCS goes out of its way to call for stock timing when replacing gears, and also requires that the relationship between intake and exhaust be maintained by placing the offset key on the crank, so they have created precedence in those requirements.

The lack of an allowance and the basic IIDSYCTYC premise, along with the basic "either/or" logic of key OR adjustable gears, has me thiking its not legal.

I will be very interested in the outcome of the clarification.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo
09-26-2004, 08:23 PM
Guys, I submit that some of you are taking a variety of specific cases in the ITCS and are trying to apply them to another case to draw a conclusion that is simply not there.

Rule:

The rules say you can replace phenolic/plastic gears with metal gears. Cam timing must remain stock.

This rule is complete. No other wording is required (OK if someone has phenolic adjustable gears I guess we'd really potentially ahve a mess). But a specific situation is covered with a clear rule.

Rule:

You may shave the cylinder head. If you do, you may use an offset key to return cam timing to stock.

This rule is also complete. You have the option of using the offset key to return cam timing to stock. There is no provision for using the offset key to use any other cam timing. But the use of an offset key would be optional. A specific situation is covered with a clear rule.

Rule:

If a car is fitted from the factory with adjustable cam gears they may be used. There is no limit placed upon the range of adjustment that can be used. This specific situation is somewhat less clear. I say use what you've got. There is no place in the rules to limit this adjustment and adjustable gears are explicitly allowed if they are factory equipment.

No where in the GCR or ITCS that I remember requires any component that is adjustable to only be adjusted within the stock specs. All limitations appear to be to be placed upon parts, not adjustments.

Intent? Intent insment. What do the rules actually say?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Quickshoe
09-26-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:
If ignition timing is free and the distributor is driven off a cam gear, what's to say you can't adjust the ignition timing by changing the cam/crank relationship? I'd love to hear responses on this one

"...no permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function"

You can adjust your ignition timing. But must use a method that doesn't change your cam timing.

***this is assuming that the rule will be clarified, and that cam timing is not free***



------------------
Daryl DeArman

Knestis
09-26-2004, 08:50 PM
Marty's point above is well made but the suspension is an area where adjustments can be made with the stock parts.

Geo's on the mark, I think, with the reminder that the rules are about parts. My (tongue-in-cheek) plan to use an offset cam key on the Golf is illegal, NOT because the cam timing must remain stock but because I can't use a Mercedes offset key rather than the stock part. (That was the trick that the SSC guys used to use in the MkII's.)

On the other hand, if I could adjust the timing without using an illegal part - or modifying a stock one, say be milling the keyway in the cam - then I could change it...?

Surprisingly, I almost buy this.

K

Quickshoe
09-26-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:
I'm in for a 6 pack that the CB's response will be the standard "rules are adequate as written" with no additional clarification of leglity/illegality.

That would be a real bummer.

I stated many posts ago that I thought that their intent was to "allow an offset key *if needed* to return cam timing to FSM specs after milling the head. Thus the choice of the word may instead of must.

This rule may be clarified and cam timing will now be clearlyopen. Maybe that wasn't the initial intent but given the technology available on some of the cars now, they'll open it up and the rotaries will get screwed again.

Unless, of course, the rotary folks will be allowed to relocate their ports. As long as the duration and size of the openning remain unchanged, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

-Daryl DeArman

eh_tony!!!
09-26-2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
"...no permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function"

You can adjust your ignition timing. But must use a method that doesn't change your cam timing.

***this is assuming that the rule will be clarified, and that cam timing is not free***




Unless you shave your head and have adjustable cam gears...lol