where do we get the factory specs???

[RSTPerformance]

ITANORM said the following "the shop manual does not - anywhere - mention or recommend a battery case size" in another thread, and it has triggered something in my mind:

If the shop manual does not include factory specs where do you get those specs? Do we have to follow any specs???

If this a gray area, how would you approach it?

(Maybe we are not talking about a battery but possibly something else please pretend it could be anything)

Raymond Blethen

------------------
http://rstperformance.bizland.com/rstsignature.jpg
RST Performance Racing
www.rstperformance.com (http://www.rstperformance.com)
1st and 2nd 2003 ITB NARRC Championship
1st and 6th 2003 ITB NERRC Championship
3rd 2003 ITB ARRC Sprint Race
4th 2003 ITB ARRC Endoro
1st 2003 AS NERRC and NARRC Championships

[racer_tim]

If you go to your standard auto parts store, they will have a cross reference list for the generic "size" battery that came stock in your car.

I would imagine that overall size is what's going to raise some questions, if you put in a VERY small (light weight) battery, that doesn't really fit into the standard "hole" or tray that was stock.


------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited December 16, 2003).]

[Geo]

You've got a good point. But, I would imagine the tech folks would get the spec from the owner's manual. That's still a factory document and every owner gets on.

That would be my guess.


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

[joeg]

Sometimes the sizes are in the original "Owner's Manual"--assuming you can find one. Not the "Shop Manual"

Cheers.

[ddewhurst]

1985 1st gen RX-7 Workshop Manual spec's a battery type & capacity. & I would bet that wih this info a battery store would have a replacement OEM size, type, capacity, weight battery. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Raymond, for fun try another item for a 1985 1st gen RX-7. No valve train questions please.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[philstireservice]

82-87 Audi Coupe 41 case (BCI Group #)
Length 11 9/16
Width 6 7/8
Height 6 7/8

------------------
Phil Phillips
94 Acura Integra GSR #4
ITS/H3/ST1
www.philstireservice.com
Amsoil Dealer
distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer
Toyo Tire Dealer

[itaracer]

2003 GCR 17.1.4 C (ITCS page 6) "To establish the originality and configuration of teh vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so requested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be acceptable with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee."

The owners manual is not an approved "shop manual". If you can't obtain a factory shop manual from the vehicle manufacturer you will need a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the required shop manual is no longer available. In this case a "Haynes" type manual is acceptable.

------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

[RSTPerformance]

Please remember that my question is not directed towards battery size, but at ANYTHING...

Lets give other examples of specs possibly not listed: Bore size, stroke, pistons, valve size, wheal bearing size, power stearing ratio, axel length/weight (Anyone ever lighten their axles or driveshaft... hummm theirs a thought?) oh wait and the other commonly joked about weight, flywheel... oh my flywheel has 500,000 miles on it..., etc.


You get my drift, how do we enforce those rules if they are not listed in the factory manual, or does that mean your options are open?

Thanks for the additional input.

Raymond Blethen

PS: I hope I am not opening a can of worms... no arguments please, just opinions on what you would do
A) when building a car to max rules
B) defending something that you changed or
C) defending something that you didn't change but someone says that you did change from stock.


PSS: I have a Audi Factory Manual, and I have a "stock size" battery. I am also have zero weight problems (other than the motor is infront of the front wheels) so I am not interested at all in the battery. I am interested in proving "stock" items are "stock" when no specs are given for stock parts that are not available from the factory anymore. Audi is one manufacturer that keeps a lot of specs "Top Secret."

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited December 16, 2003).]

[John Herman]

Comparison to a known stock OEM example is one way a protester could prove or disprove a spec. For example, camshaft lift is all that may be in the shop manual. This does not imply the remainder of the cam is free. The same procedure could be used on other parts as well. If you use that super-rare part which is allowed under the update/back-date rule, I suggest you be able to identify the year and model the part came from. That way if the protester states that part never was available according to the sources he has, you can rattle off the model (and/or factor p/n) that can be identified in the service department microfiches. Keep a copy for your records. In some rare cases if you could get a copy of a factory print, that would definately keep you off the hook.

[Quickshoe]

Raymond,

Here's a long shot...but hopefully reason will prevail.

Let's assume you are protested for an illegal flywheel. The factory service manual doesn't list a weight.

The wonderful GCR states "The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee.

If it is obvious that you've ventured down the evil path and present a 7# aluminum flywheel, I'd say you should have to prove it complies. If you present something that appears to resemble a stock piece I think that the burden of proof should shift to the protestor.

Not that it works that way.

I know, where to draw the line? I guess that's a subjective decision for the SOM to make. If you don't like which way it goes you could always appeal.

I don't think always shifting the burden to the protestee is the answer. All one would need to do is get the FSM for a car that is always beating him, find an item that doesn't have a spec and protest it.

--Daryl DeArman

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by John Herman:
Comparison to a known stock OEM example is one way a protester could prove or disprove a spec.

John, I would agree if the "cam" is way out of spec. But what if it is a tiny bit different than the known OEM part? You've got to have some amount of manufacturing tolerances. No spec for the item in the FSM, I'd doubt you'd be able to find mfg. tolerances.

This is one of those deals where hopefully reasonable heads will prevail.

I protest your cam. No spec is given. A known stock OEM part is obtained for comparison. Yours is out .010" lift or 1 degree duration or what have you. I'd say screw it..close enough...must be beating me legal. Probably too late at that point.

How far along this process can a competitor withdraw his/her protest?

[Quickshoe]

oops. please delete this post


[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 17, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by itaracer:
The owners manual is not an approved "shop manual".

You don't say? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

But, if the owner's manual does identify the battery size, I think from a practical standpoint, this information would be accepted. The rule does not state that "anything not listed in the factory shop manual is free."

That said, a total lack of any spec at all makes it difficult to find someone illegal. My favorite case in point is the RX-7 live axle. There is no, none, zero, published spec. Therefore, while purposefully bending the axle is technically illegal, no spec exists to find it so. A battery is significantly easier to establish legality.


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

[John Herman]

I think that is why in some cases, "experts" are called in for the tough calls. Those people who are intimately familar with the parts and measuring process. (If Paul Brothers, the owner of Comp Cams, said that two cams are indeed different and cam A could be considered an improvement over cam B, I think people would listen.) It just depends how far people are willing to push it. However, for gross items (e.g. drive axles with holes drilled through them for weight), comparison to other OEM parts would quickly build a case against the parts in question. The other item I have seen used in protests is the surface finish of parts (it had to do with the insides of an intake manifold). While no specifications existed, that poor manifold was sent with other parts for comparison to many experts. In the end, most of the experts agreed the part had been excessively tampered with, and the racer was found guilty as charged. I guess what it comes down to is, just like in real life, who can build the strongest case for their side and get the court to side with them. If you can convince people that you needed to sandblast the inside of your intake manifold for two days to clean up all the crud, and the resultant changes to the intake manifold were an "accidental" by product, then my hats off to you. Obviously, the more a person dabbles in the grey areas, the more likely they'll need to defend themself.

[jc836]

You have asked about ANY part on the car. So here is a thought about legality/originality-the paperwork from the dealer parts department for your OEM spares should be good enough along with the "shop manual" to prove the parts are correct. Yes, I am assuming that such pieces as flywheels, battery trays, and who knows what else are still in the OEM inventory. In some cases they are. If you are protested for the valvetrain for example-best to have complete documentation from the shop that did the work on it. Just another view.


------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

[apr67]

So I race a 1970 Wombat GT.

Wombat no longer has the cam available.

So you protest me. How do you prove my cam is il-legal? Do you pull a junkyard cam? How do you know it is right? How do you know how many different cams may have been in these motors?

I think this is a real problem in the IT rules, they are often 'unenforceable'.

[Geo]

Originally posted by jc836:
You have asked about ANY part on the car. So here is a thought about legality/originality-the paperwork from the dealer parts department for your OEM spares should be good enough along with the "shop manual" to prove the parts are correct.

You bring up a good point. In the case of this specific question, if the factory battery is still available, you may use any battery of the same size and type. If the factory has superceded or replaced with another size, you may use any battery of that size. Makes sense.



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by apr67:
So I race a 1970 Wombat GT.

Wombat no longer has the cam available.

So you protest me. How do you prove my cam is il-legal? Do you pull a junkyard cam? How do you know it is right? How do you know how many different cams may have been in these motors?

Assuming Wombat is still in business, but just don't make that cam anymore, it may be possible to get the specs from Wombat w/o requiring a cam in-hand. The junkyard cam should not be acceptable.



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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by apr67:
So I race a 1970 Wombat GT. ...I think this is a real problem in the IT rules, they are often 'unenforceable'.

To some degree it is a problem that cars are just getting older. In 20 years, is the Club Racing department still going to be trying to accommodate your now 50-year-old Wombat? When does a car arguably become old enough that we shouldn't try to adjust an entire category to allow them to play - let alone enabling the opportunity to compete?

I'm not really kidding but don't want any drivers of "veteran" IT cars to take personal offense...

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
To some degree it is a problem that cars are just getting older. In 20 years, is the Club Racing department still going to be trying to accommodate your now 50-year-old Wombat? When does a car arguably become old enough that we shouldn't try to adjust an entire category to allow them to play - let alone enabling the opportunity to compete?

I'm not really kidding but don't want any drivers of "veteran" IT cars to take personal offense...

I probably shouldn't respond to this, but I will. I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I also must say it concerns me since my car is already 20 years old.

But, IMHO there should be no accomodation. When parts are NLA and they wear out, game over. It's a harsh solution, but as you say, will the 1970 Wombat be the IT equivelent in 20 yeasrs of the MGA today in Production?

Some with think this is fair and others will not. I personally think it's the only truly fair way to address it.

It would be easier for all if there were a natural progression of cars from SS to IT or T to P. If we had a logical progression, when the Wombat's NLA cams wear out, it still would have a place to race in P.


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

[oanglade]

I know of people that have been arguing succesfully their way out of a protest following this in SS, IT and SM.

For example, someone protests someone elses differential in say SSB where it is supposed to be completely stock. The protest is not about the final drive ratio, but about the differential itself (modifications to components to reduce weight, etc.).

The protestee argues to the tech officials that the factory manual does not list specifications for weight of the part or any specifications other than final drive ratio and design type (VLSD, Torsen, Clutch type LSD, Open), so nothing can be gained from tearing it down, so why waste the time.

Tech agrees and the protestee is free to go without even a visual inspection of the parts.

I've seen this myself I've and also heard about other cases of the same argument being used succesfully.

------------------
Ony

[RSTPerformance]

Does the protester have to prove someone is guilty if documentation is not in the "shop manual" or does the protested need to provide documentation to prove innocence?

I understand that if the protester has documentation then as the protested you better have some sort of documentation or you will be defending yourself in an appeal.

If no one has any documentation is the protest thrown out?

Thanks again for all the responses. I find this to be an interesting topic to hear different views.

Raymond Blethen

PS: Thanks for the open views and lack of arguments!!!

[Knestis]

Originally posted by oanglade:
... the factory manual does not list specifications for weight of the part or any specifications other than final drive ratio and design type (VLSD, Torsen, Clutch type LSD, Open), so nothing can be gained from tearing it down, so why waste the time.

This is evidence of a bigger problem. I have seen protests informally "set aside" - where the officials have a chat with the protestor and present basically the same scenario before they "officially" accept the paperwork.

In one case there were semi-public conversations among the decision makers about simply not wanting to be dealing with the protest when everyone else was at the workers' party.

Kirk

[cherokee]

Does anyone have info on an average age of an IT car? I think that it would be very intresting to find that out. I would bet it would be over 20yrs. I can't believe that 1983 was 20yrs ago..boy I feel old http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I also think if you are running a popular car you have a better chance to find stock parts then if you run an odd ball....but that is sliding into the "I built the wrong car" deal again.

Why can't we just adjust the one car in question. If the Wombat can ONLY get a better cam put more weight on the car or make it run skinner tires...or do whatever to slow it back down. I never understood why every other class could be adjusted but not IT.

[apr67]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Why can't we just adjust the one car in question. If the Wombat can ONLY get a better cam put more weight on the car or make it run skinner tires...or do whatever to slow it back down. I never understood why every other class could be adjusted but not IT.

Ok, lets take this out of theory and put it in practice. In ITB we have the Alfa's. Alfa no longer exists in this country. I am told that the only 'factory manual' (I could be wrong) is in Itallian. I've heard that the cars had many different cams. Regardless, I am not able to go to a factory authorized dealer in this country and get a new U.S. spec CAM for my 197x Alfa. So, as long as my cams look OEM (i.e. Don't say 'Crane' on them), and meet any max lift spec that is in the Itallian manual, how can you ever have a protest upheld against me?

Same thing would apply to the uberfast Volvo's.

The SCCA has much better documentation on the cars that came from showroom stock in the last 10 years. But before that?

Alan

[Knestis]

Originally posted by cherokee:
... Why can't we just adjust the one car in question. ...

The primary differentiation between IT and Production - at least philosophically - is whether or not this approach is applied.

I am still in favor of keeping our collective finger in the dike on this point - take it out and allow even ONE model-specific hardware allowance/adjustment and we'll be up to our butts in muddy water in no time.

K

[MMiskoe]

Why wouldn't this sort of thing be considered similar to body and electrical repair where the GCR says repairs need to be made in a fashion similar to OEM/dealer work? I forget the exact wording, but it basically tells you to put it back together using the same methods it was built w/. Same should be true for non-specified parts - ie get a battery that is close to what it was delivered w/. If that is not defined, pick one that fits in the tray and has same amp hours as a car of similar size & age. I know the battery is just an example, but its obvious that the cars were built with the intention of runing on the street for average Joe Blow, not chasing lap times on the track. W/ that in mind, any mod that is not defined, ask "would the dealer have sent it out the door that way?" ie would the dealer deck the block so much that it now requires 100 octane fuel, or would they have just gotten a new block? Would the dealer turn a warped flywheel down so far that it now launches the car like a toggle switch and has potential for exploding? No, the dealer would install a new one.

Not a quantifiable response, so it comes back to who creates the better case.

[PFM Racing]

[This message has been edited by PFM Racing (edited December 18, 2003).]

[cherokee]

But we already do allow specific cars special allowances:

-Lexan rear windows
-Alternate rear bearing and disc brakes are allowed....
-Plastic fenders.....

It is all in the book. I don't think that you can lump everything in one basket. If you allow a Fiero to replace it's rear glass or a Honda to have plastic fenders...then by that logic everyone should have them. The cars are just too different.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Does the protester have to prove someone is guilty if documentation is not in the "shop manual" or does the protested need to provide documentation to prove innocence?


The good book says "protestor AND/OR protestee"

Too subjective when you don't have reasonable people involved.

[PFM Racing]

Originally posted by apr67:
I am told that the only 'factory manual' (I could be wrong) is in Itallian. Alan

Actually, Vick Autosports in Fort Worth has quite a few factory Alfa manuals in English. So if you need one, I would try them.

Jennifer

[ITSRX7]

The way it works in Solo is simple:

The Protestor writes his papers on the items in question. The Protestee provides the factory shop manual to the Protest Committee and the Protestor. That source is reviewed for pertinant information.

If the specific information is not in the factory shop manual (which the Protestee is required to produce by rule), the burden then shifts to the Protestor to provide the appropriate documentation to support his/her protest.

I do not belive that both parties SHARE the burden of proof, it just shifts from one to the other depending on the availablilty of the information.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

[Knestis]

Point of interest from Feb FasTrack:

Not recommended...

ITC
1. Allow 1968-73 Nissan PL510 to use an
alternate camshaft. (Christiansen, Cox)
This would establish a bad precedence for
replacement engine parts.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Why can't we just adjust the one car in question. If the Wombat can ONLY get a better cam put more weight on the car or make it run skinner tires...or do whatever to slow it back down.

Wow. Sounds like Production.


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

[cherokee]

Is that bad? I thought we wanted Comp Adj's. Correct miss classed cars....and all that.
I don't think that it will be long before IT requires fuel cells and fire systems, we already can gut the drivers door. Sounds like prod. I think that the days of the dual purpose IT car are numbered, I am not sure if that is good or bad but we already have one foot on the slippery slope.
I always thought that IT was a place for SS cars to go when the got too old, the age of an SS car is in black and white. Maybe LP/prod is where IT cars go after they hit x# of years. If only every old IT car had a place to go...other than vintage. Maybe grandfather in cars already built for IT but if the car you are building is over 20 it can't be IT it has to go LP/Prod.
Note:
The IT car I am building is 31 yrs old.

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Is that bad?

Yes.


Originally posted by cherokee:
I thought we wanted Comp Adj's.

I don't know of anyone who wants Production style comp adjustments for IT. In fact, the membership has been very clear it does not want that. About all that is wanted is a mechanism to correct past errors.


Originally posted by cherokee:
Correct miss classed cars....and all that.

Actually, this already exists. What does not exist is correcting weights that have been set poorly.



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

[cherokee]

You can't change classes for a car that is too fast for ITS. And I think that just adding weight to a car is limiting your options. I think that other adjustments will come in time, people resist change. Remember all the talk when the computers where opened up, lots did not like that but it happened anyway...and it that change is better in the long run. I think that the days are comming of specific adjustments/allowances to specific cars are comming. The spec lines of the cars are going to get bigger. I also think that the classes need to be re-shuffled a bit.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by cherokee:
You can't change classes for a car that is too fast for ITS. And I think that just adding weight to a car is limiting your options.

True, but the proposed PCAs didn't limit adjustments to weight.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Remember all the talk when the computers where opened up, lots did not like that but it happened anyway...and it that change is better in the long run. </font>

It IS????? Why?? Please explain. The rumours of what is actually being wedged in the 'stock' box are pretty sobering.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> I also think that the classes need to be re-shuffled a bit.</font>

Agreed, and this is the ONLY reason, other than very rare circumstances, that the spec line should carry any model specific modifiers. In the case of movement of a car from A to B there should be a spec line modifier allowing the model to maintain the 7" wheel width it originally raced on in it's previous class.



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

[cherokee]

1) How else do they adjust the cars then if not by weight? I could only think of a handfull.

2) To answer that question we first have to understand why they allowed the rule to be changed in the first place. I am sure that everyone has their own thoughts on his.

3) On my car I can still put 205's on a 6" rim...it will not make any difference.

Like I was saying I think the CPU thing is better (for the club) in the long run...I don't necessarily agree with it I think that the CPU should be stock...but they can't police software in F1 what makes us think that they can in IT. I think that the computer mods can do lots more then a modified cam will, and thats what I mean that we have one foot on the slippery slope...if "X" is allowed for whatever reason what about "Y" and "Z".

I actually agree with Geo "When parts are NLA and they wear out, game over." But only if there is some other place for your and your car to go play.

[Quickshoe]

While looking for a rule regarding the brake rotors and the use of non-OEM parts (other thread) I came across:

ITCS D.1.p "where factory specifications are absent or unclear...the Club may establish an acceptable dimension and/or allowable tolerance from stock"

If it doesn't list a spec the Club may establish the dimension?

[Knestis]

Good eye, mon.

Dear Competition Board:

ITA - Mazda RX7, 1979-1985 - Camber, rear: 0* +/- 1.0*

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Kirk (who really shouldn't get any fun out of poking at the first-gen RX7 persecution complex, when they need all the help they can get in the current world of ITA)

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
If it doesn't list a spec the Club may establish the dimension?

Sure, such as acceptable camber for a RX-7 rear axle. No spec. Currently it's impossible to find any level of camber illegal.


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

[badal]

Originally posted by cherokee:
But we already do allow specific cars special allowances:

-Lexan rear windows
-Alternate rear bearing and disc brakes are allowed....
-Plastic fenders.....

It is all in the book. I don't think that you can lump everything in one basket. If you allow a Fiero to replace it's rear glass or a Honda to have plastic fenders...then by that logic everyone should have them. The cars are just too different.

The Hondas come with Plastic fenders. Any other type would be illegal.
The lexan windows are only to accomodate a roll cage.
What car is allowed alternate brakes?


------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[cherokee]

Olds Acheiva and Calais. It is in the .PDF ver of the GCR that I have at work.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Olds Acheiva and Calais. It is in the .PDF ver of the GCR that I have at work.

yep, the Grand Am as well. Borrowed from a Saturn