Wheel diameter rule change Poll [Archive] - Page 2

Geo

01-08-2004, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Jake:
Good point Mike. 13" wheels and even 14x7's are easier to come by for cars with RWD offsets.

I don't think that's true. It's my understanding the 240Z guys can only get Panasports now. I'm sure there are more used 14x7 wheels for RWD around, but forget new.

I can appreciate the rule creep argument when contrasted with Production cars of 20 years ago, but what has changed is the aftermarket. Twenty years ago plus sized wheels were the rare exception. Today, stock diameter wheels are the rare exception. You can't find them.

There are more choices for 13" wheels, but not 14".

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

Bill Miller

01-08-2004, 06:12 PM

There are more choices for 13" wheels, but not 14".

Ok George, please provide data to support this claim.

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

Banzai240

01-08-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
The statement keeps getting made that there is an "adequate supply" of these wheels, but that is hardly quantitative. Someone needs to put together some facts and numbers.

A spreadsheet showing a list of suppliers, the various racing wheels sizes available from each, and some kind of cost comparison, would be nice to have. We need to take the "I feels...", the assumptions, and the unsubstantiated claims OUT of these rule making discussions and start gethering some facts....

So, if you car is all prepped for next season and you want to help... Put together a well thought-out spreadsheet with the pertinent data and send it to me. I will compile the data along with any other data that might be pertinent and present it to the appropriate parties...

Let's let the facts speak for themselves...

Originally posted by Bill Miller
Ok George, please provide data to support this claim.

I don't know what's happening here, but Bill and I seem to be agreeing on quite a few things lately... I'm sure something will come up shortly to change that... The universe just doesn't feel quite right... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously, As can be read from my quote above, I offered to compile any data that you out there might have to supply in reference to this subject... I've received ZERO so far...

I happen to agree with Geoge about this, because I've done my own "looking" to verify supply streams for these wheels, and I know what I've found... This, however, does no good when trying to convince others.

Claims of "adequate supply" are just as hollow as the claims of an "inadequate supply", unless we have some data. It's the only way to validate what anyone is saying.

SO... If someone wants to get this issue out there, then gather some real data (list of potential items are in my previous post on page 5 of this thread...) and send it to George, me, or any of the other ITAC members and let's see what the case really is...

Otherwise, it's all just banter...

Roll up those sleaves and get to work! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

Geo

01-08-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok George, please provide data to support this claim.

Which do you want me to support Bill? The only 14x7 wheels available (not including custom-made) are Panasports. I can't prove that beyond telling you to prove me wrong. They just aren't out there.

OK, 13x7 are available from Compomotive. In fact, they have just come out with a new wheel in that size. Panasports I believe are available as well in that size.

Revolution has plenty of 13x7 in Race, Sport, and Rally wheels.

How is that for starters? Didn't take any time at all to come up with them. I'm confident there are others because I remember seeing them, but can't remember the brands because I was not looking for 13x7.

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

Joe Craven

01-08-2004, 09:28 PM

13", 14", 15", 16", ... etc.

wheels available, cheap, and to your bolt pattern and offset. One can't say that they aren't available or too expensive.

http://www.diamondracingwheels.com/RoadRaceSeries.htm

[This message has been edited by Joe Craven (edited January 08, 2004).]

therooster

01-08-2004, 09:35 PM

I have 14X6 wheels with a 4X108 bolt pattern and a 45mm offset. Try to find this wheel other than OEM Audi. Plenty of 15's avail as other cars used the 4X108 pattern but only with 15's

Greg Amy

01-08-2004, 09:45 PM

...One can't say that they aren't available or too expensive.

A specious argument, at best.

One cannot hold up a 17-pound steel wheel as a reasonable argument for availability and expect intelligent persons to agree. If one does so, then it's only reasonable that a car forcd to run those wheels due to lack of any alternatives be given a 200# weight break...after all, an extra 20 or so pounds of unsprung rotational interia is EASILY worth 200 pounds static sprung weight...

(...obviously, another specious argument, in response to such an equally intellectually bankrupt example...)

Jake

01-08-2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Seriously, As can be read from my quote above, I offered to compile any data that you out there might have to supply in reference to this subject... I've received ZERO so far...

Originally posted by Jake:
Well, I've done much of this homework - as I'm currently looking for 14x7's for my MR2. Here's the scoop for 14x7, 4x100 (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc) availability:

TSW Stealth: Discontinued 99-00 or so

Borbet Type T: Discontinued in 01

Revolution RFX: Discontinued 02-03

Panasport: Still available, $190+, however they will not fit my car (caliper interference)according to Panasport.

Circle Racing: May be possible to have
custom made in excess of $220+

Kodiak: May be able to have custom made. Very expensive.

Eagle7

01-08-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Joe Craven:
13", 14", 15", 16", ... etc.

wheels available, cheap, and to your bolt pattern and offset. One can't say that they aren't available or too expensive.

http://www.diamondracingwheels.com/RoadRaceSeries.htm

[This message has been edited by Joe Craven (edited January 08, 2004).]

Smallest 14" is 14x7 - not legal for ITA.
Smallest 15" is 15x8 - not legal for IT-anything.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Jake

01-08-2004, 10:32 PM

Diamond Racing = Custom made steel wheels. Not hubcentric, need special lugnuts, very heavy, etc.

The only non-custom 13x7 or 14x7 wheel in production is the Konig Rewind which offers a 14x7 that will mate up to older RWD cars with a 4x114.3 bolt circle.

On the other hand, there are dozens of 15x7 wheels that are available in all popular bolt patterns at around $100/ea.

Bill Miller

01-08-2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Eagle7:
Smallest 14" is 14x7 - not legal for ITA.

I think you need to look at your GCR again.

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

Eagle7

01-08-2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I think you need to look at your GCR again.

BBBBBBBBB I'm sure I meant ITB http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Thanks for the "clarification".

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Knestis

01-09-2004, 09:31 AM

Ah, but since I am headed to ITBBBBBBB, I am way less worried about the wheel issue - personally, anyway. The OE size for a bazillion Golfs is 14x6.

I still think that the rule is dum and, even being the biggest anti-creep proponent in the club, I have a hard time believing that we should stick to this archaic way of thinking.

K

oanglade

01-09-2004, 10:58 AM

What gets me a little bit is that people will send a letter to the CRB explaining how there are so few and very expensive 14x7 wheels available and showing examples of the lack of availability and comparing this to 15x7's, but the CRB can simply reply something like "there are adequate supplies...".

I mean, show us the proof! How come WE have to provide data to try to prove our point, but all we get back from "Mount Olympus" is "you are wrong" and nothing else to back that claim?

Same thing with most responses from the CRB. "Car is competitive as classified", "Weight is correct as classified", "There are sufficient parts available"...

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

Banzai240

01-09-2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by oanglade:
How come WE have to provide data to try to prove our point, but all we get back from "Mount Olympus" is "you are wrong" and nothing else to back that claim?

You can't be serious??? This isn't that hard to figure out... First, do you have ANY idea how many letters the CRB gets every month? Do you think they work solely for the IT group??? There are what, 7 CRB members, having to deal with at LEAST 10 or more IT letters every month alone. Add to that all the GT, Touring, SS, Formula, SM, etc., etc., and their first responsibility, which is to establish "rules and standards for the scheduling, organization, and conduct of SCCA-sanctioned Club Racing events, and the licensing of drivers and officials." They have a few things on their plate. How many of these issues are that cut and dried? Just browse through recent threads on this board... Is ANYTHING here cut and dried? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

That's why I feel it's up to the competitors to supply as much information as they can to support their cases. If you feel you know so much, PROVE IT! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif As the letter gets further away from your mailbox, the intimacy with the subject at hand likely goes down, so if you have information pertinent to the discussion, then you must provide it and not blindly assume that others are going to see everything that you see.

Now, that being said, I also believe it's important for all sides of an issue to be considered, which is where I think the ACs come into play. When a request is received, the ACs should validate the information provided, and then take it upon themselves to research further to cover all sides, then provide an informed recommendation to the CRB. The CRB should then be able to consider the recommendation and make a ruling.

You can't possibly expect that, with the depth of many of these issues, all this is going to take place with any kind of efficiency if the CRB needs to spend time on each issue gathering all the data and spending time researching from scratch?

While you are trying to find wheels for your particular car, it wouldn't take much effort to put together a quick spreadsheet or list of this information in order to provide it to those asked to consider it. You can't possibly expect those on the boards and committees to know all this information about EVERY car out there, so it's up to you to support your request. Don't you use this same information to help you make the decision on which wheels to buy? Write it down and take some responsibility for your fate...

It's easy to make assumptions when there isn't any data in front of you to the contrary... Provide the data to prove your case, and then, if the decision goes the other way, you'll truely have something to complain about, as well as the data to back your complaint as well...

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

Greg Amy

01-09-2004, 01:50 PM

So, to summarize, Ony:

Despite the fact that a competitor may spend an inordinate (and incredibly sufficient) amount of time and effort to research and produce supporting evidence and documentation for their position and/or request, the SCCA Competition Board is far too busy with other things on their plate that they have absolutely no need (or responsibility) to support their rejection of said request. On top of that, Ony, it is incredibly ignorant and rude of you to expect otherwise.

Thomas Gray was right: ignorance *is* bliss.

[This message has been edited by grega (edited January 09, 2004).]

Banzai240

01-09-2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by grega:
to support their rejection of said request.

I wonder sometimes why I even try...

Do you have ANY idea how much it would cost in printing of Fastrack each month to make a fully detailed response to EVERY issue responded to?? Me either, but I can reason that it would be a LOT more than they are paying now. If you want a detailed response, you do have the option of actually CALLING or otherwise contacting your board members to find out... Their numbers aren't a big secret... Following up would be a reasonable response to such matters...

As for the insinuations about my response to Ony, some of you need to realize that this form of communication can't possibly convey the emotion that you proclaim it to... Even with the help of emoticons and Smiles... some are always going to assume the worst intents. That's fine... the rest of us will just have to learn to deal with it.

The point is that, without data to refute past opinions and assumptions, the past is going to win out in most cases. I'm not saying that's right, but rather that's the way things seem to be, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

You can bitch about it, or you can go do something about it... Either way, the onus is on YOU.

 On top of that, Ony, it is incredibly ignorant and rude of you to expect otherwise.

No, just naive to make the assumption that someone else is going to do the work for you... Sometimes they will , but why take the chance... I think the sheer volume of the task the CRB has makes a complete investigation of each issue impossible. That's just reality. Sorry, I know that sucks, because it would be nice to just send a quick sentance in making a request and have all the details worked out by someone else, but that's just not the way it works... Without data, all we have are opinions, and those are sometimes tough to change. Without data, all your letter is is an opinion...

I think it would be much better to make a clear statement instead...

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

Bill Miller

01-09-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I wonder sometimes why I even try...

Do you have ANY idea how much it would cost in printing of Fastrack each month to make a fully detailed response to EVERY issue responded to?? Me either, but I can reason that it would be a LOT more than they are paying now. If you want a detailed response, you do have the option of actually CALLING or otherwise contacting your board members to find out... Their numbers aren't a big secret... Following up would be a reasonable response to such matters...

You've got to be kidding Darin??? I've called in the past, looking for explanations as to how decisions were arrived at. Got nothing!!! And, I think, at the very least, if someone takes the time to do the research and write the letter, they deserve a detailed response if their request is rejected. Doesn't necessarily have to be published in FasTrack, but it should be sent to the requestor. And, I am not so sure that the publishing costs would go up as much as you'd like us to believe.

No, just naive to make the assumption that someone else is going to do the work for you... Sometimes they will , but why take the chance... I think the sheer volume of the task the CRB has makes a complete investigation of each issue impossible. That's just reality. Sorry, I know that sucks, because it would be nice to just send a quick sentance in making a request and have all the details worked out by someone else, but that's just not the way it works... Without data, all we have are opinions, and those are sometimes tough to change. Without data, all your letter is is an opinion...

I think it would be much better to make a clear statement instead...

You totally missed the point on this one! I think what Greg was talking about was that an expectation of a response in kind is arrogant.

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

Banzai240

01-09-2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You totally missed the point on this one! I think what Greg was talking about was that an expectation of a response in kind is arrogant.

Wouldn't be the first time... Good to see things getting back on line... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

lateapex911

01-09-2004, 10:42 PM

But Darins point is more than valid.

Just a wild ass guess here, but what if the CRB actually got not just one or two well thought out well researched and well presented letters, but say, a dozen? Is it possible they might say, "Hmmmmm lots of folks have done some leg work, and they ALL came to the same apparently reasonable conclusion. Maybe this IS something we should consider more seriously. Lets get the ITACs thoughts on this...."

The point of my original post is that while we all seem to be saying what idiots they are for not seeing the forest for the trees, not many of us have actually put our money where our mouths are, stepped up to the plate, and actually contributed in an official way.

I think that we, as racers, seem to forget that we need to "pitch in" to help with the workload. Presenting a well prepared case for something we want seems to be a good way to do out part....

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

Jake

01-09-2004, 11:36 PM

Guys - before this gets totally OT....

Darin, I supplied a list of all available 14x7 wheels I was able to find. I included wheels that are available and that were available. PLEASE tell me what other information that would be helpful that I can provide. I agree that we should be the ones gathering this info (since we are calling for a change), but I'm not sure what other info may be helpful. If you want me to put it in an Excel file or other format, just say the word.

Respectfully,
Jake

P Sherm

01-09-2004, 11:37 PM

Speaking only for myself, I know for a fact that 14x7 wheels for my car (Neon, 5x100 bolt pattern) are only available if custom ordered; 15x7 are easy to find and a lot cheaper. I would LOVE to see a dia rule change.

My question to Darrin/Geo (or any other CB/ITAC individual) is: Would I be better served addressing the ITAC with this, the Comp Board, or both? Does it even matter who I send my request to?

Thanks,

------------------
#59 SSC Neon
Yes, I know it's not an IT car... yet... :)

Geo

01-09-2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
Guys - before this gets totally OT....

Darin, I supplied a list of all available 14x7 wheels I was able to find. I included wheels that are available and that were available. PLEASE tell me what other information that would be helpful that I can provide. I agree that we should be the ones gathering this info (since we are calling for a change), but I'm not sure what other info may be helpful. If you want me to put it in an Excel file or other format, just say the word.

Respectfully,
Jake

Jake, just for the record, I've confirmed your findings very clearly. However, for right or for wrong, sometimes it takes hearing it from several sources to really believe something may be a problem. This is human nature and we're dealing with humans.

I think the point is that more people need to write. Unless you have tried to source 14x7 wheels or know someone who has, I can see where some folks might not realize how big a problem this is.

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

Knestis

01-10-2004, 12:23 AM

This is another case where the evidentiary burden is on the entrant submitting the request ... and he has to prove a negative.

It is easy to prove that aliens (or Iraqi WMDs) exist - if you can find one - but there is NO evidence that can be trotted out to prove that they don't, as long as someone wants to believ that they do.

Likewise, it is impossible to prove that 14x7 alloys are for all practical purposes extinct. This assumes that the CB members are philosophically inclined to even consider larger diameter wheels. It would be interesting to get a response to that and then ask what threshold - or standard of law - would be required to convince them. One manufacturer? None?

K

Banzai240

01-10-2004, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Knestis:
This is another case where the evidentiary burden is on the entrant submitting the request ... and he has to prove a negative.

I'm curious as to WHY supplying information to back your request is "proving a negative?"

Is it really too much to ask that, if you have information pertaining to your case, you provide it to help support your request? It's very likely that YOU may know more about the subject than I do, and your information proves most helpful in directing further investigation into such issues...

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

Banzai240

01-10-2004, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
sometimes it takes hearing it from several sources to really believe something may be a problem. This is human nature and we're dealing with humans.

As can be seen in this thread, what you need to do is provide enough information to override someone elses EXPERIENCES... It's happened here... people claim that, in their experience, these wheels are a piece of cake to find... Others have found just the opposite.

We need to get information together that QUANTIFIES the problem as much as possible, because it's hard to argue that there is <whatever>, when there is data to the contrary...

Belief structures are tough to change, and many believe that things are a certain way. If you want them to believe otherwise, you'll have to be more convincing than all their former experiences...

So, a safe bet... GET REAL DATA...

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

Jake

01-10-2004, 10:26 AM

Darin, please tell me why what I sent is not considered "Data"?

Here - I even put it in a spreadsheet. Is it "Data" now?

http://www.racerjake.com/14x7.xls

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited January 10, 2004).]

Knestis

01-10-2004, 11:06 AM

My comment wasn't directed at you, Darin. My point was simply that proving that 14x7 wheels are NLA is a lot like proving that a particular car is not competitive, and we know how hard that is.

K

Bill Miller

01-10-2004, 11:11 AM

I'm curious as to WHY supplying information to back your request is "proving a negative?"

C'mon Darin, are you just doing this to be argumentative? I gave you more cedit than that. What Kirk is saying (if I may) is that traditionally, to have an alternate part(s) approved for something, proof that the original part(s) are NLA is required. In the case of factory parts, that's usually easy, as they can provide you w/ documentation that the part(s) are NLA, or superceded. When you have something that's as open (in terms of vendors/suppliers) as wheels, it's much harder.

The point being you have to prove that the part(s) are NO longer available. That's proving a negative. You're a technical guy, I'm sure you took at least one statistics course along the way. Think about the Null hypothesis.

Let's go back to availability. There's a section of the ITCS (D.7.a.1) that speask to allowable wheel alternates (12's may use 13's, 365's may use 14's, 390's may use 15's, etc.). I'm sure that clause was put in there due to either lack of availabilty of the wheels or the tires. If anybody's looking to get the current wheel rule changed, I'd try and find out what was required, who was involved, etc. in that decision.

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

Banzai240

01-10-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon Darin, are you just doing this to be argumentative?

No... I was just asking a question... Drumming up conversation. Would have come across that way in person... I knew that Kirk wasn't directing his comments to me, but I wanted to get further discussion going on the topic...

...to have an alternate part(s) approved for something, proof that the original part(s) are NLA is required. In the case of factory parts, that's usually easy, as they can provide you w/ documentation that the part(s) are NLA, or superceded.

You have NO idea just how much experience I've had with this one lately... and I'm still fighting it. It's NOT EASY even with an entire CD full of official documentation, reasoning, precendent, and data. The CRB still rejected allowing the 510 to use the Nissan replacement part number... even though the evidence clearly shows that the original parts are NLA, and that the piece in question is the replacement part.

That's what's fueling my point here... WE are going to have to REALLY prove our cases with as much information as we can provide if we are going to change things. This isn't just for the general racer, but it's true for us on the ITAC as well. And even when we DO provide this information, it's still an uphill battle. However, I sincerely believe that if we get this thing organized, and go about things in a more methodical way in the future, we can get some things done.

Maybe I'm naive still, or maybe I just see the potential for this club to shine again, but either way, I'm not going to quite until someone boots me out or the club goes under, because I think it's worth the effort.

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

oanglade

01-10-2004, 03:35 PM

Darin,

I think that maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or maybe I'm not understanding your reply.

I am not asking that the CRB do any extra work than what they do, except expand on their response as to how they got to that conclusion. If someone writes to them sayong "I can't find any wheels, could you change the rule to make it easier and cheaper to find them? Here's the data of availability of those wheels, etc..." and the response from the CRB is "there are adequate supplies", well, I think that maybe they could tell us or at least that person, what other information they have, other than what the requestor sent, to conclude something different than the requestor. If they have other sources, perhaps they could mention them, etc.

Simply stating, "there are adequate sources", is like saying "You'll take what we give you and you'll like it!".

I understand that the CRB sees tons of letters, etc. I assume that when they respond to one of them in Fastrack, it is because they have analyzed it, done whatever research they feel necessary and arrived at a conclusion. Well, they should expand a little more on how they got to that last sentence.

Anyway, it's just something that gets me sometimes. It just doesn't read right on Fastrack when "the law" delivers the one liner deny.

Bill Miller

01-10-2004, 06:12 PM

You have NO idea just how much experience I've had with this one lately... and I'm still fighting it. It's NOT EASY even with an entire CD full of official documentation, reasoning, precendent, and data. The CRB still rejected allowing the 510 to use the Nissan replacement part number... even though the evidence clearly shows that the original parts are NLA, and that the piece in question is the replacement part.

That, in a word, is BULLSHIT! There's no provision in the ITCS for the CRB to turn down the use of a legit replacement/supercede part. It says plain as day that they are permitted. Says nothing about needing approval. Provide the appropriate documentation, and the p/n's should be listed on the spec line of the car(s) in question. No room for interpretation, end of story. This is not SS, it's IT.

And since you're so closely involved w/ this one Darin, can you share w/ us the reason(s) why this was shot down by the CRB? Is this going to be Story #17?

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

Jake

01-10-2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
http://www.racerjake.com/14x7.xls

In order to be data, should it be in Quattro pro? Access? Printed on A4 paper?

<---- convinced that Darin can't read my posts

Banzai240

01-10-2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That, in a word, is BULLSHIT! There's no provision in the ITCS for the CRB to turn down the use of a legit replacement/supercede part. It says plain as day that they are permitted. Says nothing about needing approval. Provide the appropriate documentation, and the p/n's should be listed on the spec line of the car(s) in question. No room for interpretation, end of story. This is not SS, it's IT.

Bill... On this, you and I couldn't AGREE MORE! That's exactly what I was saying! Yet, even WITH all the documentation, it was rejected (..what was actually rejected was the request to list the part number on the spec line... If you read the rules VERY carefully, the only parts actually REQUIRED to be listed, per the ITCS wording, are "superceded" pieces, as the word "replacement" isn't used in the second sentance of that rule... so I'm not completely convinced, were it me, that I'd worry about this so long as I had all the documentation to prove my case in the event of a protest... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) I'm still working on setting this one straight.

As for why... there is a question as to whether the documentation provided can be considered a "manufacturers parts guide", as required by the rules. The requestor is working on getting the latest copy of this piece now, so hopefully we can put this to a positive rest soon.

To address what Ony posted... I can give you an example that works against what you are saying...

A request came in last year asking for alternate rotors for a particular car due to the dealer no longer carrying the factory pieces or them being otherwise NLA. However, when the I looked into it and made a few phone calls, I found that there was an abundant supply of these rotors from just about every auto parts supplier and aftermarket supplier. Since there is no requirement that these pieces be factory part numbers, there was obviously a very adequate supply. Basically, the requestor supplied the data, but we found data to the contrary.

I agree that the explanations could be more verbose, but I don't think that alone really is going to solve anything.

To respond to Jake... I consider DATA to be anything that isn't just opinion, that has a chance in heck of changing the thinking of the traditional culture of the SCCA! We need to work together to get the rules to make more sense.

So, to everyone who has responded here... Please read this as a note from someone amongst you, because I'm in agreeance with you on most of these points... I just choose to go about this with something other than insults and needless anger, because in the end, that gets us nowhere. Focus your rage on proving your case, and I believe we'll get more done.

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 10, 2004).]

Banzai240

01-10-2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
<---- convinced that Darin can't read my posts

Jake, I read your posts just fine... What you have done is fine... I don't recall ever seeing this before, but what you have sent is good.

As I've indicated before, I've looked into this issue and can assure you that I'm all for allowing wheel diameter changes to the rules. It's NOT me you have to convince. All I can do is give my recommendation to the CRB and it's up to them from there.

My guess would be that this data wasn't even considered by them. SUCKS, right!? I agree. So, what we do is get a LOT MORE of this same kind of thing... to the point where it can't be ignored because the answer is so obvious. Then when decisions get made to the contrary, we have some information to show this and then hope that someone in a position to make some changes is willing to help correct the issues...

I don't see any other way to get this ship to stop listing. The culture runs too deep and it's going to take more than just rhetoric to get things to change.

I know that sucks, but from where I sit, that's just how I see it. No one is more frustrated with the current state of affairs than me, but I'm willing to work on trying to fix it, and am asking you all to be willing to help us...

I'll keep this wheel data on the ITAC site and go back to look to see if I missed it in your original request... Doesn't matter for my recommendation, however, as I was with George on this issue and would like to see the wheel rules opened up. Modernized a bit, if you will...

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

Bill Miller

01-10-2004, 10:25 PM

As for why... there is a question as to whether the documentation provided can be considered a "manufacturers parts guide", as required by the rules. The requestor is working on getting the latest copy of this piece now, so hopefully we can put this to a positive rest soon.

Ok Darin, which is it? Is it 'official documentation' or isn't it? I don't see how a reasonable person could dispute 'official documentation' as being a legit. mfg's parts guide (unless of course, it's not "official" [sig]). You've been rather casual w/ your use of words in the past, I'm wondering if this is another case of that?

BTW, and not to stir up anything else, I figure that you've mentioned the fact that the ITC Rabbit G-grind cam p/n isn't listed on the spec line. What was the response to that?

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

Knestis

01-10-2004, 11:41 PM

Only tangentially related to the original topic but I guess that I'm confused on one point: It was my understanding that this was covered by the clause in C. SPECIFICATIONS, that says, "Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particular model which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted."

The G-grind cam is a supersede part - evidence provided by factory documentation - so it is legal. This does NOT have to be spelled out by the ITCS line for the car, precedent being set by the protest process.

The whole point of this rule would seem to be to allow the manufacturers to make de facto decisions about what parts are acceptable on their cars, without the Comp Board having to manage every part number change that comes down the road.

K

Banzai240

01-11-2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Knestis:
This does NOT have to be spelled out by the ITCS line for the car, precedent being set by the protest process.

Kirk, you need to read the follow-on sentence...

ITCS 17.1.4.C
Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must be supplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numbers listed on that particular model's specification line.

And, to answer Bill's question... there has been no official comment on the G-Grind cam, and YES, it was extensively discussed and questioned. I'm not going to attempt to rehash the history of the reasoning why everyone seems to "believe" that this cam is legal, but I've asked for the documentation and no one seems to be able to provide it. There are those out there who know more of the story than I, so perhaps they'd be willing to go back over it for you.

The one fact I do know is that the cam is NOT listed on the spec line, and is therefore, NOT legal for ITC VWs unless it was actually something that they came with as available in the United States market. No one seems to have any evidence of that either.

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 11, 2004).]

Bill Miller

01-11-2004, 08:41 AM

Darin,

As far as the G-grind goes in the ITC VWs, I'm only going on what I've been told. I've never actually seen documentation that supports it as a superceding part. I don't even know when it became 'legal'. I did do some research, and call a couple of VW dealers looking for the part, and got everything from the p/n for the cam from a Golf 1.8 hydraulic lifter motor to NLA. Didn't dig any deeper than that. I do have a friend that works as a parts mgr. for a large dealership, and I'll ask him.

On a side note, several years ago (mid-late 90's), I was at an EMRA race, and I recall one of the tech guys talking about how the G-grind was legal in the ITB Rabbits. Keep in mind that I believe this was when the Rabbit GTI was still in ITA, and the Rabbit 1.6 was legal in ITB (to place this in time, the 1st gen RX7 was also still in ITS).

I'm sure there are a few people out there that were around when this was done, and may be able to provide more info. Stu Brummer, Dick Shine, Sam Moore, and the Pucketts are people that jump to mind right away.

And which is it Darin (before I jump up the CB's butt for throwing the rule book out the window again)? Was the Datsun paperwork 'official', and provided by Nissan? You're not telling the whole story here.

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

Knestis

01-11-2004, 10:45 AM

Ooh, I sure do need to keep reading - don't I? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif My bad.

K

Banzai240

01-11-2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm only going on what I've been told. I've never actually seen documentation that supports it as a superceding part. I don't even know when it became 'legal'.

I don't think you are alone... Ask just about anyone who believes this part is "legal"... they believe it because that's what someone else "told" them...

And, if it is a "legal" superseding part... why isn't it listed on the spec line as per the ITCS 17.1.4.C???

Was the Datsun paperwork 'official', and provided by Nissan? You're not telling the whole story here.

An Official factory parts guide from Nissan (albiet from 1974... which is the last one available apparently). An official letter describing the situation from a Nissan dealership. Official catalog pages from Nissan parts catalogs showing the current listings. Numerous other supporting documentation. AND, my unofficial experience going to three different dealerships and confirming that this information is accurate.

There was also an "official" letter from a pretty disgruntled head of the Nissan Motorsports division that is no longer in the service of Nissan, who, while officially stating that the cam WAS the replacement piece, decided that he knew our rules better than we did and stated that he would NOT recommend this piece as a replacement because he believed that doing so was against the "intent of IT"... Who is HE to decide that??? Yet, I believe this letter had the most influence of all...

The last piece of information that is being sought by the requestor is a CURRENT parts guide showing the application and part numbers. I'm not sure how far back the Nissan parts computers go, but I'm told it's only back to 1978.

Further, the case was shown that the cam in question has nearly the exact same profile as the camshaft that was available in the 1973 510, having the same lift, but having 8 degrees more duration.

I'm not trying to keep anything from you here, guys, I just only have so much time to sit here and type. I wouldn't be here in public stating this case if I wasn't thoroughly convinced that the case should be made. I'd gladly post the information I have, but it was such a large volume that Jeremy had to send it to the ITAC on a burned CD because it was too large to e-mail!

Funny, because as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the rules require, all that is really necessary to prove this case is a factory parts guide listing the appropriate parts numbers for the application. We have that, but it's from 1974. If the requestor is able to get a more recent parts guide page, I would expect that this would be resolved. However, for some reason I still think there is going to be a fight involved.

Were it me, I'd go a different route... I'd run the damn cam, and keep EVERY piece of supporting documentation that I have to prove it's legal in my tool box, to be used in the event of a protest, along with a highlighted copy of ITCS 17.1.4.C, because this part is NOT STATED to be a "superseding" part, but rather shown as a replacement, and replacement pieces AREN'T officially listed in the ITCS as needing to be on the spec line... I'd make someone protest me to prove it's NOT legal... Come to think of it... I might even protest the VWs to make them prove they ARE legal...

But that's just me...

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

Banzai240

01-11-2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
Ooh, I sure do need to keep reading - don't I? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif My bad.
K

Kirk,
I wonder it that's not the case with some on the CRB as well... I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on some of these issues, because they are no different than most of us and can't possibly be aware of EVERY rule or combination of rules that are out there.

Like with the Neon reclassification request... Their response to that, in my opinion, reflects that they either weren't aware that the GCR allows a window of specification adjustments for up to one year after a car is reclassified, or they just interpret that section differently than I do... That's why, instead of going competely off the handle on these issues (and yes, I did spend my time pissed off about the situation and the whole ITAC was informed about it, much to my self-embarrasment), I try to real myself in and keep the dialog going to try to rectify the situation...

Of course, only time will tell if that approach will work...

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

Bill Miller

01-11-2004, 06:09 PM

Darin,

Who the heck is the ex-Nissan guy to be setting IT policy??

And, not to hijack this thread anymore, but can you give me some insight into the fate of my reclassification requests?

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

Bill Miller

01-11-2004, 06:10 PM

300!

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

Geo

01-11-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Who the heck is the ex-Nissan guy to be setting IT policy??

Bill, let's just say that not everyone sees this topic the same way.

I still do not believe the proper documentatin has been given.

Furthermore, I think the letter from Steve Christiansen has been misrepresented here.

That is all I'll say on this topic at this time.

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

Banzai240

01-11-2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Geo:
Furthermore, I think the letter from Steve Christiansen has been misrepresented here.

George... how so??? Here's the letter...

03-668 ITC allow alt. Nissan cam since stock is discontinued

Hi Jeremy,
<requestor name withheld>, an ITC racer, has been trying to get a cam change for the Datsun PL510 in ITC. I believe his motive is like all racers that he wants to go faster and stretch the rules. The camshaft that he wants to get approved for the PL510 is P/N 13001-22000SV. This cam was an original equipment part for the L16 engine equipped with twin SU carbs in the SSS version of the 510. This car was never sold in the US. However the same cam was later used in the US in the L20B engine that was used in HL510, 610, 710, and 200SX. The OE L16 camshaft is no longer available from Nissan. The L20B cam (13001-2200SV) is the only L-series 4 cyl cam available from Nissan. Several of the aftermarket companies do sell the L20B cam for the L16. Nissan, however does not supercede the early cam to the late cam.

Cam spec. Lift Duration
L16 single Carb (US) .390" 236Deg
L16 SSS/L20B .413" 248deg

The cams are not drastically different but the change is not in the spirit of the rules (rules creep). However, since the only cam available is the L20B cam, the rule change would keep race cars on the track. For this reason only would Nissan agree to the change.

If you need any further info, please call.

Thanks,
<name withheld>
Motorsports Specialist
Motorsports Dept. Nissan North America

It is NOT this guys place to interpret the rules, nor to provide his "beliefs" on what the intent of the requestor is. His reasons are some of the same given in rejection of this allowance, and I think that I've represented this letter exactly as it was presented. However, now you can all decide that for yourselves.

Now, the fact that he clearly states that "Nissan does not supersede the late cam for the early cam", but also admits that the cam is the "only L-series cam available from Nissan", combined with the rest of the documents we've received, tells me that the part is considered a "replacement part", which is clearly covered under our rules. I don't believe it is the place of the SCCA to tell the manufactures how to list their parts, no more than it is the place of the manfucturers to tell us what the intent of our rules or competitors are.

The bottom line is that if you go to Nissan and ask for a new camshaft for a stock 510 application, this is the piece their parts guide will give you. If the requestor is successful in retrieving a copy of this, this issue may be able to be put to rest. He could go the route I suggested ealier, but really just wants to follow the existing rules and go about this the "right" way...

I don't think that's too much for him to ask...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 11, 2004).]

Banzai240

01-11-2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And, not to hijack this thread anymore, but can you give me some insight into the fate of my reclassification requests?

Bill... don't know... Probably wouldn't say anything about it at this time anyhow, since the CRB hasn't given us any feedback on the issue, and I feel it would be inappropriate to comment before they make a ruling public.

Personally, I think some of them make sense, and others don't...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 11, 2004).]

Greg Amy

01-13-2004, 10:54 AM

...Here's the letter...

Darin, I happen to know Steve, having worked within him on our current program. He has a lot of strong beliefs on SCCA Club racing, many of which I agree. However, those beliefs should not be used against the requestor.

I believe that you have summed it well, but please allow me. Steve provided the following facts:

- The L16 cam is no longer available.
- The L20 cam is the only one available for that engine.
- Nissan does not officially supercede the L16 cam with the L20 cam, however
- [You implied that] if you order an L16 cam from a dealer you will receive an L20 cam.

That last statement is key, as you pointed out. If one were to go to a Nissan dealer, what would you get? If you get an L20 camshaft, I suggest the path is clear: SCCA needs to approve the camshaft as an acceptable alternative. Clearly, SCCA has not.

Therefore, if one comes back empty-handed fro m the dealer or SCCA declines to approve the alternative part, then SCCA has said, in effect, this car is no longer acceptable to race once you need a replacement camshaft.

Is this the position SCCA wishes to take? I sincerely hope not.

Knestis

01-13-2004, 02:45 PM

It is a conundrum imposed by the wording of the rule: If the manufacturer doesn't do an official supersede, the system binds up. If "supersede" is operationalized as Greg describes it - I ask for X1 at the parts window and their book tells me I'm going to get X2 - then the problem disappears in a puff of logic. Is "supersede" in the GCR glossary? I'm "working" right now so I don't have my book... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Banzai240

01-13-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
...then the problem disappears in a puff of logic.

What does "logic" have to do with rule making in the SCCA??? Though, some might suggested that "puffing" does! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/cool.gif

DJ

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 13, 2004).]

Bill Miller

01-13-2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
What does "logic" have to do with rule making in the SCCA??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/cool.gif

DJ

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 13, 2004).]

Ok, call the pentagon (or somebody), Darin and I actually agree on something! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

itmanta

01-13-2004, 08:30 PM

There are many cars running in IT where no new factory parts are avilable whatsoever. These cars rely on "good" used parts. In the case of the L16 engine can anyone tell me that "good" used parts are not available? I do not think so. Where in the GCR does it say only new parts can be used.

lateapex911

01-13-2004, 08:38 PM

Of course, used parts are fine, but as far as cams go, if I needed one I'd want a brand spanking new one.

(but hey I'm a rotary guy, so what do I know!)

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

Bill Miller

01-13-2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by itmanta:
There are many cars running in IT where no new factory parts are avilable whatsoever. These cars rely on "good" used parts. In the case of the L16 engine can anyone tell me that "good" used parts are not available? I do not think so. Where in the GCR does it say only new parts can be used.

Yeah, but if you go to your local dealer, and they give you X part for your car, and say "This is what we have", but it's not the same part that came w/ the car originally, then they have provided a defacto superceding part. Doesn't matter if they have 'officially' called it a superceding part or not.

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

Jake

01-13-2004, 09:55 PM

So Bill, what you are saying is this: Say I go to the Toyota dealer and ask for the correct OEM 14" replacement wheel. They inform me that they are no longer producing 13" or 14" wheels, but would be happy to sell me a 15" wheel from a selection that they have in stock. Therefore I could then run 15"s?

Jake (trying desperately to get back on topic after the worst thread-hijack in recent memory)

Bill Miller

01-13-2004, 10:48 PM

Sorry Jake, but there's no requirement to run stock wheels. But nice job bringing it back on topic!

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

Richy Gonzalez

01-14-2004, 02:28 AM

So, is the 300+ post thread going to make a difference? I see so many threads in different forums but hardly have I seen anything come out of it.

------------------
Richy Gonzalez
GB Racing - #24 ITA CRX (http://groups.msn.com/TheGonzalezFamilyRichySheilaandNyah/projectitacrx.msnw)
LAMIN-X Protective Films (http://www.lamin-x.com)

Geo

01-14-2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Richy Gonzalez:
So, is the 300+ post thread going to make a difference?

Not if people just talk here and don't write to the CRB. Come on people, you can send them an e-mail even. It takes no more effort to send them an e-mail than it does to post here. What, 300+ posts, 3 letters?

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

cherokee

01-14-2004, 09:47 AM

I can see both sides some parts I would want new. I doubt anyone would want to run around on used ball joints. But if the "stock" part is available anywhere then it is available and there is no reason to use a different part. Just because the dealer does not have the "original" part does not mean you get to run something different. The only way you should get different parts is if that part is truly NLA. I don't know about a 510 but I do know that I can get stock cams for Alfa,Fiat,Opel and my Triumph, I would find it hard to believe that there is no new stock cam in the world for a Datsun 510. I have had parts shipped in from Germany and England for some of my cars, you could not get the part in the US but they where available, thats the price you gotta pay sometimes. Kinda sounds to me like the brake disc that was talked about a couple pages ago. Thats why I think that the wheel thing will be a hard sell, I agree with the idea of using different sizes and all. But if a 100# 14" wheel is available then it is available. I think that the great out for the rules makers is that they told us "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car..." All they have to say is over on the web page this company sells steel wheels that fit our specs, 14x7 or what ever run those.

Jake

01-14-2004, 12:15 PM

Richy + Geo,

Exactly!! I think I'm more frustrated with the membership at this point than the Board. 3 letters from 300 posts?

Cherokee,

Thing is they are NOT available. Those heavy custom made steel wheels are not available with a Front-drive center in a 14" wheel. (they are for 13")

Banzai240

01-14-2004, 12:28 PM

Concerning replacement parts... The rules do NOT talk about having a supply of parts from aftermarket sources... The ITCS SPECIFICALLY addresses the availibility of parts from the manufacturer, and that is what this current issue is dealing with.

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

cherokee

01-14-2004, 12:43 PM

You missed my point...Can you get the wheels that came on your car from anywhere? Is the size that came on your car legal? If you can answer these two questions with a yes then I think that you are out of luck as the rules are written now. If you answer no then you should be able to run an different part, be it a wheel,cam or ash tray. But is should be limited to THAT car. Right now I am going to run 5.5" wheels on my ITB car. The car came with 5.5" wheels. I can find them all day...if I want 6" wheels I gotta pay, I am cool with that. The rules say Maximum allowable widths. Keep in mind that I do agree with you on this I am just telling you why I think it will be shot down. If you can go to Billy Bobs used wheel or any junk yard and get get your stock wheels and they meet the specs in the rules then they are available.

cherokee

01-14-2004, 12:54 PM

"A request came in last year asking for alternate rotors for a particular car due to the dealer no longer carrying the factory pieces or them being otherwise NLA. However, when the I looked into it and made a few phone calls, I found that there was an abundant supply of these rotors from just about every auto parts supplier and aftermarket supplier. Since there is no requirement that these pieces be factory part numbers, there was obviously a very adequate supply. Basically, the requestor supplied the data, but we found data to the contrary"

So what is the difference. A rotor is ok to come from the aftermarket but "X" is not? If the aftermarket part has the same specs as the factory part why not use it.

Jake

01-14-2004, 12:57 PM

Cher -

I see your point. I just don't agree with the standard. I recently bent a wheel and can not get a replacement wheel at all. My options are to run 3 of what I have and have a new wheel custom fabricated for the price of an entire set of 15" wheels, ditch my 3 14x7 wheels and look around junk yards for the stock wheels, or buy a set of aftermarket 14x6's. I am currently trying to get my 4th wheel repaired, but I wonder about the safety aspect. I regret that it has come to this.

cherokee

01-14-2004, 01:06 PM

I don't agree with the standard also. But from the track record of the rule making/changing process I think that the chances are slim in getting anything changed if you can still get a part that meets the specs. Maybee I am a glass half empty kind of guy....or a realist.

cherokee

01-14-2004, 01:08 PM

double post

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited January 14, 2004).]

Banzai240

01-14-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
So what is the difference. A rotor is ok to come from the aftermarket but "X" is not? If the aftermarket part has the same specs as the factory part why not use it.

I see your point... The differentiation I would make here is that one part is a normal wear item that is allowed to be replaced by aftermarket pieces per the ITCS and has little bearing on the performance of the vehicle.

I suppose a camshaft could be considered the same thing, except that it has a significant impact on the performance of the vehicle.

If all that matters is the profile of the cam, and the club has the ability to measure this, then I suppose the specifications are no different to enforce than those of a set of rotors, so perhaps the part number on the cam doesn't matter.

For example, if the cam in quesion is NLA, but the competitor finds a different part and regrinds it to match the stock profile, is that legal? Are regrind cams legal for IT? It's not specifically addressed, unless it's considered under the "factory repair" clause...

Thank you for bringing the similarities of these two situations to my attention. Perhaps what is needed is some wording chages to the rules, similiar to what was done with pistons, which says something to the effect of the pieces simply needing to be "exactly equivalent" to the factory pieces...

I'll take that up with the ITAC...

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

cherokee

01-14-2004, 03:30 PM

I think that the botttom line on all this is that the cars that we are running are getting older. And modern automotive design has changed. I have read where people say IT is like Prod was 30 yrs ago. I don't know if that is true or not but do you think that Prod is where it is now becuase the vast majority of the cars are now pretty dang old and faced the same problems that we are facing now? Do you see IT going the same way, The current trend seems to suggest so. It seems logical to me that as our cars age we will see different little things creep in there. The only way around that is to say that a car over "X" yrs can't run IT, (I hate this idea) Or the older cars Like the 510 get special allowances not given to the other cars...like an different cam. I know what that sounds like but step back and look at what is going on in total in IT.

Knestis

01-14-2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:

I see your point... The differentiation I would make here is that one part [rotor] is a normal wear item that is allowed to be replaced by aftermarket pieces per the ITCS and has little bearing on the performance of the vehicle...

I've gone around and around on the brake rotor issue and would love some clarification. At this point however, I don't remember where the allowance for aftermarket "normal wear" items
is. Help?

K

Banzai240

01-14-2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't remember where the allowance for aftermarket "normal wear" items
is. Help?

K

Kirk,
I may have to conceed on this point, because I just went through the ITCS twice and see nothing that really states anything to this effect...

It seems completely unreasonable that one would be expected to use strictly factory pieces for this kind of thing, but then, we did originate from SS...

I'll have to inquire further...

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

Geo

01-14-2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
I don't agree with the standard also. But from the track record of the rule making/changing process I think that the chances are slim in getting anything changed if you can still get a part that meets the specs.

Perhaps that's because people talk plenty, but write little. There are exceptions to this of course, but it's more the rule than the exception.

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

cherokee

01-15-2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
Perhaps that's because people talk plenty, but write little. There are exceptions to this of course, but it's more the rule than the exception.

That may be...but you can only bang your head on the brick wall for so long...then you will come to the conclusion that you are not going to get anywhere. A lot of talk about the wording in the replies that come back. I think that facts or even their reasoning in shooting down a request or approving one would go a long way. I will use a wheel example thats what started this anyway. Guy says I can't find 14x7's that fit my Wombat GT anywhere. The rules folks would send back something to the effect sufficant supplies exist. The guy gos what you are crazy 14x7 don't exist for my car, these guys just don't care..... If they would say your max wheel size is 14x7 your car came with 14x6, the 14x6 wheel is available in the aftermarket from these sources and on the used market from these sources. They would have to have the sources to approve or disapprove the request. Guy says but my car will not be as fast with those wheels. The rules guys come back and say. "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car..." you knew this going in. And that is the problem, we do this hoping to be competitive with other cars...right.

Bill Miller

01-15-2004, 10:12 AM

George,

I think Cherokee hit it. We do our part, and send in all the data in the world, yet we get these canned, flip responses. Or things get sent to the AC, never to be heard from again.

You, and others, advocate writing letters. Maybe you should be advocating that the CB provide more detailed responses when things are shot down. And, I still want to know why they publish the requestor's name when something is shot down, but not when it is approved? What's up w/ dat?

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

Greg Amy

01-15-2004, 11:08 AM

...but you can only bang your head on the brick wall for so long...

Amen, brother.

Geo, you have a constant mantra of "write to the Comp Board" and Darin is always saying, "Support it with data." How many times in the last three years have I sent well-written and well-documented requests to the Comp Board yet have been shot down with nothing more than a 6-word sentence? I can understand disagreeing with my position, but when virtually every reasonable person I talk to tends to agree with me, I find it difficult to conclude anything else except that the COmp Board is unreasonable.

In fact, the only request that I've made in the last three years accepted by the Board was one in regards to FIA approved seats, and that took the support and phone calls from a rep of a major international aftermarket safety equipment supplier.

How much longer should we keep banging that wall?

I tried real hard to keep an open mind when I decided to re-up my SCCA membership and try again. But, frankly, I've re-acquired my cynical distaste for the process(es) and people involved in it. "Club"? "Responsive to the membership?"

Hardly.

Banzai240

01-15-2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by cherokee:
If they would say your max wheel size is 14x7 your car came with 14x6, the 14x6 wheel is available in the aftermarket from these sources and on the used market from these sources. They would have to have the sources to approve or disapprove the request.

At the risk of being accused of sounding arrogant, is it the CRB's job to make sure you understand the nature of the rules? The is no requirement that says you MUST build to the limits of the allowances. Further, if you've done enough research to figure out that something isn't available, surely you've also figured out what is. I don't think the CRB was put in place to help you source parts for your car.

I'm sure if you posted your required application here, you'd get several leads...

And that is the problem, we do this hoping to be competitive with other cars...right.

Right now, right or wrong, that's the nature of the class.

It can't be too much of an issue, because when something as important/impacting as PCAs come up for membership input, we get next to no response... Not exactly the sign of an issue that's "high priority"...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 15, 2004).]

cherokee

01-15-2004, 01:38 PM

I used the wheel as an example. If it was a more unique part and I can't find it and they say supplies exist...that is just short. Pass the info along, they have to have it anyway...they gave an answer..so give. If you ask for something that sounds logical and it gets shot down I want more then a no, because we said so...I am not 4 anymore. (some may disagree) http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

That is the nature of the class and the root of the problem IMO.

I am very slow about sending up requests to change things I want to know why things are being changed and look at it from ALL sides. After I understand that then I will choose to respond or not. Lots of things get changed that I don't agree with but I understand the reasons behind the change (computers). Why respond to a PCA? Why adjust the performance of a car if you don't care if it is competitive or not?

On the PCA thing you and Geo are right no response...why...lack of hope anything would be done?...perhaps. Right or wrong I think that it is a feeling people get when talking to HQ. And that needs to change...even if it is more work for them.

What I would suggest is a more "modern" way of sending up requests...it is so easy to sit and type an e-mail, we all sit here and gripe here...it is easy. If there was a eletronic way to send up requests [email protected], [email protected] kind of thing....maybe there is if so I don't know about it...and if I don't others don't.

Banzai240

01-15-2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
If there was a eletronic way to send up requests [email protected], [email protected] kind of thing....maybe there is if so I don't know about it...and if I don't others don't.

Cherokee,

You're in luck... THERE IS! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif If you send a request in the form of an e-mail to the [email protected] and to [email protected], I promise you that it will get added to the agenda.

That's how I send in ALL of my requests. I usually write them up in Word and attach them, but you could just as easily write it in an e-mail and just send that. That's how the majority or our requests are received...

I usually get a confirmation response that they received it.

I can't promise you that things will change, but I can assure you that there is a good group of people TRYING to get things to make more sense...

Good Luck,

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 15, 2004).]

cherokee

01-15-2004, 03:55 PM

Thanks...I do believe that people try to do the right thing...a lot can happen with mis communication and I think that is what 90% of the problem is.

Geo

01-15-2004, 06:36 PM

I must say I'm pleased with the measured responses from some of you who are frustrated with "the system." And I do understand most of what gets you frustrated and why. I really do.

Keep in mind that for every good and well reasoned argument, there is probably a good, well reason argument against. I too am amazed at the opposition to some things, but it's there and people have good reasons for them. It can be very difficult sometimes getting to the point of making a change - especially when a lot of people just plain don't like change.

Something to consider is that there are a number of members of the ITAC active on this forum, and three of us in particular who are very active. If we strongly suggest you write to the CRB it's usually because we are listening to you and trying to make arguments for change. However, we need your help in doing so. Change, by and large, requires a critical mass to get moving. On rare occasion a single letter can do that. More often it requires a number of letters to first of all get the CRB to realize there truly is and issue. Then we all have to get them to believe it's in the best interest of IT to make the change.

It's work to get people to change. Rarely does a single good argument cause change to happen. A large number of them carry more weight.

I hope the current ITAC has provide some amount of hope for those of you who are frustrated. We have tried very hard to communicate what is going on with issues before us (as much as we can) and none of us have thrown up our hands and walked away in frustration when the conversations have turned, uh, [i]enthusiastic(?)[/i}. OK, down right hot. We all care, we all listen. We do try to do the right thing for IT, and not suprisingly, we don't always agree amongst ourselves even. http://Forums.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