PDA

View Full Version : POLL: Alternate Crankshaft Pulley???



Banzai240
04-23-2004, 12:11 AM
I'm just curious.

A simple Yes or No will do...


QUESTION:
Would you support a rule change that would allow IT cars to substitute the crankshaft pulley, in addition to the current pulley substitution allowances?

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

gran racing
04-23-2004, 08:51 AM
No

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Greg Amy
04-23-2004, 09:30 AM
Yes.

For the SR20DE cars (NX2000 and SE-R) there are no alternate larger accessory pulleys. The main problem is that the factory accessory pulleys are crammed so close together on the end of the engine that there's very little room to make them larger as allowed by the rules.

Unorthodox Racing, the major supplier of this type of aftermarket part, makes a "kit" that includes nifty anodized power steering, A/C, alternator, and water pump pulleys for the SR20DE, but these pulleys are basically stock size, in some cases slightly smaller. Where these suppliers are making the difference is with a larger crankshaft pulley (where there's room to do it).

Take that physical limitation, couple it to a water pump that is very susceptible to cavitation at higher RPMs and a power steering pump that froths and overheats the P/S fluid at high RPM (to the point of melting the stock P/S lines), and the SR20DE has a distinct performance disadvantage and a very real possibility of engine overheating and/or puking P/S fluid all over the track.

Besides, looking at it from 30,000 feet, allowing accessory pulleys but no crankshaft pulley seems downright silly.

Greg

seamus88
04-23-2004, 09:49 AM
If it is leagal do not do it on a Honda it WILL wipe out your crank bearings and maybe the oil pump

oanglade
04-23-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by seamus88:
If it is leagal do not do it on a Honda it WILL wipe out your crank bearings and maybe the oil pump

Same thing on the Miata/Protege/Escort BP engine family.

Independently of that, I vote "No".

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

dickita15
04-23-2004, 10:34 AM
since others have already broken the yes or no only request i will ask why was this limitation was put on in the first place. if you can change some pully sizes, why draw the line at the crank pully.

dick

Asok #25
04-23-2004, 10:53 AM
This is just what IT needs more rules creep.
NOT!!

Emphatic NO!

joeg
04-23-2004, 11:47 AM
NO

Knestis
04-23-2004, 11:59 AM
Functionally the same as changing the pulleys on the accessories, unless I'm missing something - Yes.

K

Greg Amy
04-23-2004, 12:51 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...more rules creep...!</font>

Taken to its idiot extreme, classifying any newer cars into Improved Touring is also "rules creep"...

Dick, judging from the attitudes in the mid-80's when IT was born (and when I started racing) I suspect it, as with coilovers, had to do with the state of aftermarket technology at the time. There was no Unorthodox Racing, there was no Sport Compact Revolution, but there was a crapload of cars out there with poorly-designed engines that had HUGE lead or heavy rubber vibration dampers as crankshaft pulleys. Given there was no easy aftermarket replacements, changing the crank pulley was an expensive and "high tech" effort.

For the most part, the cars we have racing in IT today are not necessarily victims of this concern (the above issues with Miatas and Hondas notwithstanding). In fact, it could very well be said that this would be a "vindication" of the ECU rule, as older cars would be able to take better advantage of this proposed rule than newer cars (which in general don't have as big a crank pulley)...

Ony and Seamus: I've been scratching my head trying to think about this, but WHY IN THE HELL would alternate crank pulleys have any affect on crank bearings and oil pumps? Are these cars so dependent on OEM crank pulleys for vibration dampening that they are detrimentally affected by harmonics? If so, you're allowed to balance and blueprint, so won't this balance out any production problems?

Greg

oanglade
04-23-2004, 04:05 PM
Maybe or maybe not (balancing correcting the issue), but allowing more modifications means more money to be spent to develop the car to the max of the rules. Also, cars for which the aftermarket doesn't have crankshaft pulleys would be put further behind (just like it happens with the current ECU rule).

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

ITS_Racer1
04-23-2004, 04:39 PM
Yes!

philstireservice
04-23-2004, 05:25 PM
Yes

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

Geo
04-23-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Ony and Seamus: I've been scratching my head trying to think about this, but WHY IN THE HELL would alternate crank pulleys have any affect on crank bearings and oil pumps? Are these cars so dependent on OEM crank pulleys for vibration dampening that they are detrimentally affected by harmonics? If so, you're allowed to balance and blueprint, so won't this balance out any production problems?

Yes Greg, there are indeed some cars out there that will go BOOM if you install an aftermarket pulley (supposedly the Bimmer is one of them http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ). I don't think it's simply a matter of balancing an engine because my inline 6 in my road Bimmer is absolutely the smoothest engine I've ever experienced.


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

TypeSH
04-23-2004, 11:10 PM
Yes

IStock
04-26-2004, 09:13 AM
Actually, it is my understanding that with the bimmer it is an issue only if you are running a single-mass, lightened flywheel, rather than the factory dual-mass.

Mike

slickS14
04-26-2004, 10:11 AM
YES

Bill Miller
04-26-2004, 06:02 PM
no

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

MMiskoe
04-26-2004, 10:12 PM
No.

Rules creep is rules creep. If we're going to have it, why not start w/ some simple, non-performance things that make the cars easier to maintain or safer:

- Jack points
- roll cage mounts at the center of door bars
- removal of wiring for deleted accessories (power seats, A/C pumps etc)

Unless I have been reading most rules changes posts incorrectly, most of the requests for changes are to allow more equality and/or less money. Adding allowances in the performance dept hinders both of these goals.

Chris Wire
04-26-2004, 11:47 PM
Yes.

------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]

Eric Parham
04-27-2004, 02:32 PM
YES

The current rule allows similar results, but only for those who have room to fit larger accesory pulleys. Adding crank pulleys to the list makes sense in order to make the already allowed modifications more equally applicable. I wouldn't call this "rules creep" as much as "rules simplification" or "rules equalization".

bill f
04-29-2004, 01:56 PM
YES

I tried to get this passed about 4 years ago, pointing out the illogical approach to the concept...change pulley sizes without changing the crank...same effect!!! I pointed out that there are many engines that can't take advantage of the larger waterpump pulley allowed because of interference with the crank pulley.

I was given the usual, "...sufficient as written" crud.

We have to limit the "race car" engine performance by cavitation of the water pump. I love it!

Good luck with the poll.

It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill

Banzai240
04-29-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by bill f:
It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill

Bill... I have a feeling that they just may be listening... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

lateapex911
04-29-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by bill f:
YES

It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill

Umm Bill? I think you whipped it out and stepped all over it on that one!

I know they're listening....

(and I'm not referring to those damn black helicopters...those are hovering around others on the board, not me! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )



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

Gregg
04-29-2004, 07:52 PM
Yes

Joe Craven
04-29-2004, 07:58 PM
YES

bill f
05-05-2004, 11:16 AM
I'm not sure of the definition of "listening" as used here...my perception was that for the Comp Board the word was equated with "reading".

I do know, however, that I wrote to the Comp Board with the suggestion to change the rule due to its ambiguity verses its application (you can do it, but not any way that will work), and also that alternate crank pulley/diameters were allowed on rotary engines...also IT cars.

I got shot down, as I indicated.

If the definition of "listening" has changed, then we are the richer for it. I am, however, the eternal skeptic, after racing/dealing with SCCA IT issues for the past few years. Not complaining mind you, just reciting facts of my experiences with hopes for the future.

Good Luck with the survey, and its outcome.

Good racing.

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill f (edited May 05, 2004).]

Banzai240
05-05-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by bill f:
I do know, however, that I wrote to the Comp Board with the suggestion to change the rule due to its ambiguity verses its application ... I got shot down, as I indicated.



Bill... You may not realize this, but I am one of the ITAC members, and we just reviewed a letter asking for this allowance to be... well... allowed. There are those that were in favor, and those that weren't. I'm not sure what the CRB is going to do with this item, but I can assure you that the ITAC considers these matters at great length, and most of us read what goes on here. We "hear" your concerns/ideas/praise, etc...

Personally, I think that you should be allowed to change the crankshaft pulley as well, but I'm only one of 10 stating any kind of official opinion on the matter.

The CRB needs to hear both positive and negative feedback on issues, and all they tend to hear is the negative. If you guys have opinions on this stuff, and want your concerns heard, you have to write or call and let them be heard.

QVI TACET CONSENTIT
(He who is silent consents...)




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

Geo
05-05-2004, 01:18 PM
Let me throw a few issues into this discussion....

1) Should alternate main pulleys be allowed along with alternate accessory pulleys?

2) Should harmonic balancers be allowed to be removed? Remember, some cars have the harmonic balancer integral to the main pulley and others have it as a separate part.

3) What about the fact that an alternate main pulley reduces rotating mass - especially if the harmonic balancer is allowed to be changed?

A seemingly simple issue is not necessarily simple.


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

RFloyd
05-05-2004, 08:19 PM
Yes

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

timelapseracing
05-06-2004, 09:04 AM
[This message has been edited by timelapseracing (edited May 06, 2004).]

spnkzss
05-06-2004, 09:34 AM
Yes

timelapseracing
05-06-2004, 09:38 AM
[This message has been edited by timelapseracing (edited May 06, 2004).]

timelapseracing
05-06-2004, 10:32 AM
Ok sorry for multiple posts if they show. I'm having an internet issue.

But my initial vote was YES - it's silly to allow the accessory pullies but not the crank.

George's point is good - my pully is weighted and balanced - I'm pretty sure that the replacement (readily available) is much lighter. Though the diameter is different I think the functional benefit would be largely in the reduction of rotating mass.

So this is fundamentally the same as allowing a lightend flywheel (also readily available)- lets allow that too - http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

And while were at it since we are lightening the rotating mass - there are lighter connecting rods also - (available and since I have to rebuild my motor - this would be a great time to change this rule also) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Jason.

------------------
1989 ITA 240sx - #21 MARRS Series
Currently with a large hole where the #2 rod left the block.

Tak
05-10-2004, 09:32 PM
Goofy question, but what accessories are mandatory? Air pump: removable. A/C compressor: removable. Power steering pump: removable ??(only IF there was a manual steering version on same ITCS line??)
Is there anything left besides alternator and water pump??

dickita15
05-11-2004, 09:01 AM
not a goofy question at all, but you really need to sit with the rule book and think about it. use these forums as inspiration to do the reasearch. not as the final word.
now
emmision can go so out with the air pump.
ac can go so out with the compressor.
power steering can be changed in total if a version on the same spec line came that way.
remember if you take of the pump you have to change everthing back to manual. (rack)
my 22 year old car has just 3 pulleys
dick

RSTPerformance
05-11-2004, 05:20 PM
I see no need to change... Lets get back to IT and save some money

Raymond

gran racing
05-11-2004, 06:31 PM
It seems like from a performance stand point, there is not a significant benefit to different pulleys.

If it only benefited people from overheating, then I'd be for it. But I too want to keep IT as inexpensive as possible.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

lateapex911
05-11-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
If it only benefited people from overheating, then I'd be for it. But I too want to keep IT as inexpensive as possible.




Well, see theres the point Dave....if the rule were opened, instead of changing two pulleys to slow things down, you could change just one, which would actually be cheaper.

So, on that hand, I am for it.

On the other, I would like to see a head count of cars that would benefit from the rotational weight loss. If there are some, and they are significant cars in any way, then No, sorry, leave it as is. We don't need to do that. It will be the equivilent of a lightened flywheel.

So, I am still on the fence.. looking for facts and numbers....


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

Geo
05-12-2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
On the other, I would like to see a head count of cars that would benefit from the rotational weight loss.

Q: What engines would benefit from reduced rotating mass?

A: All of them.

Also, don't ignore the question of "Do we allow only the pulley to be changed," and still requiring the harmonic balancer to be retained, thus benefitting a narrow subset of the community or do we allow everyone to change the pulley and remove the harmonic balancer, benefitting those cars that don't have a harmonics issue?.....

Hmmm......

Again, I personally don't have a problem with running a smaller, low mass pulley. They are readily available for my car and it doesn't have harmonics issues. But I am not convinced this is in the best interest of the IT community.


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

grjones1
05-12-2004, 08:31 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:
[B]I'm just curious.
Even in light of the fact that I enjoy the advantage of the fact that Fiestas came with two sizes of crankshaft pulleys: one for AC and one for non-AC, I vote YES.

My magnanimity astounds me.
GRJ

Greg Amy
05-12-2004, 10:18 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">A: All of them.</font>

Yes, but it's not as significant as George believes...

George, let's put this into a real-world perspective. While you now concur that there's no horsepower to be gained with a lighter crankshaft pulley, I think you're concerned with the ability of the engine to accelerate. Fine, that's a reaosnable argument. However, it's not as significant as might suspect, for a couple of reasons:

1. An engine under the load of an accelerating vehicle is not accelerating nearly as fast as you think, and

2. The mass moment of inertia of a large crank pulley is not as large as you might think.

Let's hit the first point: how fast is an engine accelerating under load? I'm not going to try any calculations here, but just close your eyes and imagine how fast your tach moves when you're in third gear at 60 miles per hour. It's not very fast. When considering how much a lightened crank pulley will affect that, just think about how fast the engine is accelerating; the faster your engine accelerated under load, the more lightened components will help you.

2. Mass moment of inertia. The mass moment of inertia is a measure of the distribution of the mass of an object relative to a given axis. It is calculated as the units of mass times the distance squared (Io=MxR^2)

In the case of a crankshaft pulley, that radius is relatively small. Pick any car with a large harmonic damper crankshaft pulley; what's the radius? Let's take a guess and say that most of them are around 4 inches in diameter. Radius equals 2 inches, r^2 equals 4. Multiply that times the mass and you get the value. For argument's sake, let's say it's 8 pounds; Io = 32 (and that assumes the mass is all concentrated at the outer edge of the pulley, which is innacurate).

So now, let's make the pulley lighter and larger. We'll knock off 5 pounds off the outside edge of the pulley and make it 4.5 inches in diameter. Resulting Io=15, a difference of 17.

Compare that to removing the same 5 pounds from the outside edge of a 10 inch, 25 pound flywheel: old Io= 625, new Io= 500, a difference of 125!!

So, my point is, "It's all about the distance, silly." Yes, it makes a difference, but not as much as you think it does (and not nearly as much as those chassis/tire dynos indicate.)

But let's start chatting about reality: how many cars still use these large harmonic balancers; and for those that do is it all about NVH or is it required for engine health? If it's just for NVH, racers will remove it in a heartbeat; if it's needed to keep the engine together then racers will leave them on.

"But Greg," you'll say, "isn't this unfair to the guys that can't remove them for fear of breaking the engine? Wouldn't that benefit a narrow subset of the community?" Sure, I'd say, but no more unfair or less beneficial to those that cannot change their accessory pulleys due to constrained space or lack of aftermarket support. It will always be the case where a mod will benefit one model or another, just as it will be unfair to one model or another when you don't allow one mod or another. Unless you're interested in a spec, single-marque class there will always be inequities; nothing you can do about it.

That's the technical basis for the change; you'll need to resolve your personal reasons for wanting or not wanting the change.

Greg

Geo
05-12-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Yes, but it's not as significant as George believes...

Uh, yes it is.


Originally posted by grega:
George, let's put this into a real-world perspective. While you now concur that there's no horsepower to be gained with a lighter crankshaft pulley

I have always concured with that point Greg. Visit my first post on the matter. What I got caught up in is wording. An inertial dyno will show a hp gain that in reality doesn't exist. It does so because it rotates the drum quicker.


Originally posted by grega:
Let's hit the first point: how fast is an engine accelerating under load? I'm not going to try any calculations here, but just close your eyes and imagine how fast your tach moves when you're in third gear at 60 miles per hour.

Rather than play "let's pretend," let's use real world results, shall we? Low mass underdrive pulleys show a hp gain on an inertial dyno. No, this is not a hp gain. What it does show is the car will accelerate as if it gained hp. In the case of the SR20DE, it accelerates as if you added 7 hp to the engine. Not real hp, but faster acceleration.

We can dance around this issue all you like, but on an inertial dyno the gain is measureable and repeatable. The hp is not real, but the acceleration is. And again, it tells us the car will accelerate as if it has additional hp.


Originally posted by grega:
So, my point is, "It's all about the distance, silly." Yes, it makes a difference, but not as much as you think it does (and not nearly as much as those chassis/tire dynos indicate.)

I'll place my bets on real instrumented testing rather than conjecture.


Originally posted by grega:
But let's start chatting about reality: how many cars still use these large harmonic balancers

Yours for one Greg. The SR20DE uses an integral harmonic balancer. So, if the rule is made such that you must retain the harmonic balancer, the SR20DE will still have to retain the stock pulley.

Is this outrageous? Depends upon your point of view. It's certainly something that has been discussed. And if we let you change your main pulley (with integral harmonic balancer) they everyone sould be able to eliminate the harmonic balancer.

But, let's step back for a second.

Why do we even need to do this? I understand what it is supposed to accomplish, but I don't see a compelling need to allow this in IT. Again, how many people are blowing up engines because they cannot run an undersize main pulley?

I understand the technical points here. Probably better than most considering the arguments being made. Most are made from a purely personal point of view based upon their perceived impact on their car or some they are familiar with. You, in fact, assume that you will be able to run a underdrive pulley on your SR20DE, but that's not in fact the case if stock harmonic balancers are required to be retained.

If we do not look at this issue from all sides very carefully, there will be unintended consequenses and people will be bitching later. Then again, there will probably be bitching later anyway.


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

PS: BTW, an underdrive main pulley is smaller diameter, not larger.

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited May 12, 2004).]

Greg Amy
05-12-2004, 01:34 PM
Oh, never mind...do not assume my lack of a response is an acceptance of your 'arguments'; you would be wrong.

Yes.


[This message has been edited by grega (edited May 13, 2004).]

lateapex911
05-12-2004, 08:11 PM
I'd like to add just one more thing, regarding unintended consequences.

When a car is classed, it is done in such a way as to take into account the perfomance gains expected utilizing the rules set in place at that point in time.

The competitor is expected to do due diligence when deciding to race a certain car, and take into account the advantages and disadvantages the rule set presents him and his particular car.

In other words, tough luck if you need something the rules don't allow after you make your decision.

We get into trouble when we change the rules post classification, and some cars benefit more than others. The ECU rule is a most henious and classic example.

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

Geo
05-13-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I'd like to add just one more thing, regarding unintended consequences.

<snip>

We get into trouble when we change the rules post classification, and some cars benefit more than others. The ECU rule is a most henious and classic example.


I agree completely Jake. The ECU rule is the first thing that comes to my mind as I ponder this issue. I see little upside for the category and lots of downside.


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

fiat124girl
05-13-2004, 11:47 AM
Back to Yes or No answers

YES!

------------------
Jennifer Rudder
PFM Racing
www.pfmracing.com

Dave Ebersole
05-13-2004, 01:23 PM
No.

Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

OTLimit
05-13-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by grega:
[quote]
"But Greg," you'll say, "isn't this unfair to the guys that can't remove them for fear of breaking the engine? Wouldn't that benefit a narrow subset of the community?" Sure, I'd say, but no more unfair or less beneficial to those that cannot change their accessory pulleys due to constrained space or lack of aftermarket support. It will always be the case where a mod will benefit one model or another, just as it will be unfair to one model or another when you [b]don't allow one mod or another. Unless you're interested in a spec, single-marque class there will always be inequities; nothing you can do about it.
Greg

Isn't this the bottom line? We have already allowed some cars to make some changes that other cars can not. I'm sure people with these cars think it's wonderful that they don't have to worry about the waterpump cavitating. Which, as far as I am concerned, was a competition adjustment because it allows you to by-pass a cause-and-effect scenario on the track. Just the same as allowing certain other cars 'safety' modifications that COULD have a performance advantage. Example (that is not legal, but I am very familiar with): VW Rabbits break hubs. It's a fact. Change to the beefier Golf hub and it goes away (But no one would do this, right?). People will tell you that it is a 'safety' issue, because they don't want to have to change them more often.

Sorry, but I can't buy that. You build the car you want, with all of it's warts.

So if we are going to continue to allow accessory pulleys to be changed, at least make it an evener field, or go back to no changes at all.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Quickshoe
05-13-2004, 06:57 PM
"No!"

Wait, If I get the Honda classed and it would benefit me "YES", if it doesn't benefit me, then "NO" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Almost everyone is in agreement that it would benefit some cars and not others, right? Why would we want more rules that would benefit one model and not another when we know that going in ?


[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited May 13, 2004).]

oanglade
05-13-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
"No!"
Almost everyone is in agreement that it would benefit some cars and not others, right? Why would we want more rules that would benefit one model and not another when we know that going in ?


Ask whoever came up with the current ECU rule...



------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Banzai240
05-14-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Why would we want more rules that would benefit one model and not another when we know that going in ?

Get real guys/gals... EVERY rule in the book can benefit some more than others... This isn't IT-Spec racer...



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

lateapex911
05-14-2004, 12:31 AM
Darin, that may be true, but the timeline is important here. Changing rules post classification is what throws off the competitive balance.

Now it may help the parity, aiding the slow cars more than the fast cars in a certain class, or it may hurt the parity, but it can, and will have an effect.

It's tough for me to predict whether the benefits will outweigh the potential issues.

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

Banzai240
05-14-2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Changing rules post classification is what throws off the competitive balance.

Competitive Balance??? I'm pretty sure I didn't just hear you 'say' that... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Geo
05-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Competitive Balance??? I'm pretty sure I didn't just hear you 'say' that... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but much of the effort of the ITAC in the last year has been to improve the competitive balance in IT.


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

Banzai240
05-14-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but much of the effort of the ITAC in the last year has been to improve the competitive balance in IT.


You are very correct... HOWEVER... VERY little of that work has actually made it into the rule book (it's mostly pending a BoD vote in August...), so until it does... I'll continue to make light of the thought of there being any "competitive balance" in IT, because it's currently something that simply doesn't exist... Well, unless you consider tipped-scales "balanced"...

Some may... I guess it depends on which car you happen to own... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 14, 2004).]

grjones1
05-15-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
Example (that is not legal, but I am very familiar with): VW Rabbits break hubs. It's a fact. Change to the beefier Golf hub and it goes away (But no one would do this, right?). People will tell you that it is a 'safety' issue, because they don't want to have to change them more often.

Sorry, but I can't buy that. You build the car you want, with all of it's warts.

Limit,
You have obviously never left the track at speed with one of your front wheels flying over the trees due to an under-engineered front hub. Sometimes we just need to use our common sense- safety is an issue whether the rules makers understand a need or not.

GRJ

Bill Miller
05-16-2004, 07:47 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">On the other, I would like to see a head count of cars that would benefit from the rotational weight loss. If there are some, and they are significant cars in any way, then No, sorry, leave it as is. We don't need to do that. It will be the equivilent of a lightened flywheel</font>

Jake,

What would the car being 'significant' have to do w/ anything? You may not have one today, but you might have one tomorrow.


GRJ,

Sounds like you're saying it's ok to cheat if you feel that it's a safety issue. The VW hub issue is a pretty well known problem. I ran one of them, and had hub failures, so I know first-hand. That's also why I changed them on a regular basis, and used the German-made hubs. I've known several people that have had hub failures in A1 VWs. However, I don't know anyone that had the problem if they changed them in a timely fashion, or installed them correctly. Sure, you can get defective parts, but that can happen if you use the legal ones, or the illegal ones. I don't even need to go into how much experience Lesley has w/ VWs.



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

lateapex911
05-16-2004, 01:42 PM
Bill. Well made points regarding the VW hub. Congrats on the concept and delivery.

Regarding the pulley issue, I guess what I was thinking was, every rule change will have its pros and cons. I was thinking about the cost vs. benefit ratio.

In this case, the benefit could be reduced cost and simplicity. The cost could be the unintended consequences, such as somecars getting a boost in performance.

I would be against the change as I don't feel the benefit is that great, unless the only cars that could possibly benefit were so obscure, and clearly longshots in their class, that the benefits would out weigh the costs.

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

Bill Miller
05-16-2004, 08:59 PM
Thanks Jake.

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

OTLimit
05-17-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Limit,
You have obviously never left the track at speed with one of your front wheels flying over the trees due to an under-engineered front hub. Sometimes we just need to use our common sense- safety is an issue whether the rules makers understand a need or not.

GRJ


Myself? No. However, besides having it happen to the car you are driving, there might not be anything worse than WATCHING it happen. And I have, several times, watched it happen to Chris and several of our friends. Usually this first thing out of their mouths was something along the line that they KNEW they should have changed it before the weekend, and it wasn't just a flip remark. It was one of the reasons we went to the Golf (okay, so there were a few others, also).

YOU choose the car, and YOU make the decisions about it.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Banzai240
05-17-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
It was one of the reasons we went to the Golf (okay, so there were a few others, also).

Those "few others" wouldn't happen to be PONIES now would they??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

grjones1
05-17-2004, 12:39 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[B] Jake,


Sounds like you're saying it's ok to cheat if you feel that it's a safety issue. The VW hub issue is a pretty well known problem. I ran one of them, and had hub failures, so I know first-hand. That's also why I changed them on a regular basis, and used the German-made hubs. I've known several people that have had hub failures in A1 VWs. However, I don't know anyone that had the problem if they changed them in a timely fashion, or installed them correctly. Sure, you can get defective parts, but that can happen if you use the legal ones, or the illegal ones. I don't even need to go into how much experience Lesley has w/ VWs.

Bill,
I'm saying that my common sense tells me that if a manufacturer's part habitually fails and there is a part available that will not fail and gives no performance advantage (I can't for the life of me conceive how a heavy duty hub would make my car go faster.)then that part should be allowed, for the safety of the driver. I don't call that cheating, I call it expediency in the face of rulesmakers who lose sight of the fact that in spite of limited preparation rules, we are driving "race" cars and certain items must be made to take the strain of racing for "the safety of the driver."
The real problem is the rulesmakers are so caught up in bureaucratic BS that they don't have time to pay attention to issues that need immediate attention.
Weak hubs are a safety issue and immediate and conclusive changes should allow their correction. I don't especially want to be running beside someone who hasn't checked his front hubs and who may very likely lose a wheel at some inopportune time for both of us. Whether you call it "cheating" or not, change to a safe hub and I'll applaud your good sense, and congratulate you for beating me, if you do.
GRJ

grjones1
05-17-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
[quote]Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[B] Jake,


Sounds like you're saying it's ok to cheat if you feel that it's a safety issue. The VW hub issue is a pretty well known problem. I ran one of them, and had hub failures, so I know first-hand. That's also why I changed them on a regular basis, and used the German-made hubs. I've known several people that have had hub failures in A1 VWs. However, I don't know anyone that had the problem if they changed them in a timely fashion, or installed them correctly. Sure, you can get defective parts, but that can happen if you use the legal ones, or the illegal ones. I don't even need to go into how much experience Lesley has w/ VWs.

Bill,
I'm saying that my common sense tells me that if a manufacturer's part habitually fails and there is a part available that will not fail and gives no performance advantage (I can't for the life of me conceive how a heavy duty hub would make my car go faster.)then that part should be allowed, for the safety of the driver. I don't call that cheating, I call it practical expediency in the face of rulesmakers who lose sight of the fact that in spite of limited preparation rules, we are driving "race" cars and certain items must be made to take the strain of racing for "the safety of the driver." (And I would add getting rid of that glass "bomb" we're carrying around in our passenger doors.)
The real problem is the rulesmakers are so caught up in bureaucratic BS that they don't have time to pay attention to issues that need immediate attention.
Weak hubs are a safety issue and immediate and conclusive changes should allow their correction. I don't especially want to be running beside someone who hasn't checked his weak front hubs and who may very likely lose a wheel at some inopportune time for both of us. Whether you call it "cheating" or not, change to a safe hub and I'll applaud your good sense, and congratulate you for beating me, if you do.
GRJ

grjones1
05-17-2004, 01:35 PM

OTLimit
05-17-2004, 02:36 PM
What you are missing in this discussion is that every item on your car has a service interval. Some of them you find the hard way. Chris is always very honest with people when they ask how often he checks and/or routinely changes a part. Given his driving style, it might be more often then you might do it, but he doesn't like me harping on him about wasting entry fees because he 'finished' a race early.

You name any car and I would bet that someone familiar with that car could name several parts that COULD be considered safety issues. Do we really want to go there, or do we want people to act responsibly?

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

grjones1
05-17-2004, 04:59 PM
[quote]Originally posted by OTLimit:
[B]What you are missing in this discussion is that every item on your car has a service interval. Some of them you find the hard way. Chris is always very honest with people when they ask how often he checks and/or routinely changes a part. Given his driving style, it might be more often then you might do it, but he doesn't like me harping on him about wasting entry fees because he 'finished' a race early.

You name any car and I would bet that someone familiar with that car could name several parts that COULD be considered safety issues. Do we really want to go there, or do we want people to act responsibly?

Leslie,
One race weekend, I broke two new "freeze-treated" hubs, both fitted with new bearings correctly. When a design is not up to racing stress, it's not up to it and needs to be replaced with something that is, if it affects the safety of the driver. This has nothing to do with "service intervals" or less-than-adequate maintenence." And I was not suggesting at anytime that Chris had done anything wrong only that if rules get in the way of safety then the rules need to be changed and the people who are making the rules need to be immediately responsive.

I don't care how responsible you are, You cannot "service" a design flaw, you must re-engineer it and replace it with something better. And as drivers for our own safety, we have to be smart enough to allow some exceptions to rules we know are inadequate when those chosen to make the rules aren't capable of recognizing a need when they see one.
I'm not going to call someone a cheater because he has the good sense to replace what he knows to be a dangerous item on his car, I'm going to thank him for looking after his own saftey and mine. And yes i think I can tell when someone is looking for a performance advantage and when he's doing what any racer knows makes good safety sense.
GRJ




[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 17, 2004).]

OTLimit
05-17-2004, 05:46 PM
The only thing I can tell you is that whenever we have had a problem like that (multiple failures of the same part in a short period of time) we found that there was something else wrong with the car. And yes, the set up of your car (height, suspension, etc) can put significant detrimental stresses on your car that can break parts and cause failures that should NOT be blamed on the parts themselves.

Done.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Bill Miller
05-17-2004, 06:00 PM
Lesley is right on point w/ her comments. And, if you have supporting data, and really feel that strongly about it, write a letter.

I also agree w/ Lesley about there possibly being some other aspect that is causing the hub failures, especially if you broke two in one weekend. You state that they were 'freeze treated'. Could it be possible that whoever 'treated' them did it incorrectly, thereby weaking them?

Everyone I know that races an A1 VW changes front hubs/bearings every 4-6 weekends. I also tell this to anyone that asks me about racing one of these cars. I keep a spare set of fresh-built front knuckles in the trailer at all times. When it's time to change the ones on the car, I just swap them out, and rebuild the ones that just came off the car. Takes less than an hour.

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

grjones1
05-17-2004, 06:21 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[B]Lesley is right on point w/ her comments.
Bill,
The hubs were treated by Cryo-One, who were supposed to know what they are doing.
Just to further my argument and I admit to being far from an automotive engineer, I only know what I see:

Fiestas use a front hub with a very thin tube that sleeves over the axle stub for about three inches. The problem with our hubs (and yes we change them out as often as possible) is that the tube attaches to the verticle hub carrier at a 90-degree angle that is razor cut, i.e. no champher or radiusing where the tube meets the hub housing. It's thin, it's not reinforced and it cracks after a few weekends and sometimes sooner. When it cracks all the way around, the wheel leaves the car. No amount of replacing bearings, perfect torquing, or hub replacement is going to correct that thin piece of jointure. The hubs need a better design and if the better design were available it should be allowed. And if it is available, I don't think anyone I race against would fault me for using it unless of course they don't want to race against me. And disallowing a car because it has been made safer is not my idea of how to win a race. (Although in listening to some of these people, it sounds like some would rather race all alone and take home a trophy than drive against healthy competition.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 17, 2004).]

lateapex911
05-17-2004, 08:53 PM
Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

If this is such an important and well known issue I am sure that it has been "run up the flagpole" before.

I am sure there is precedence for making alternate parts available legally if the item in question can be confirmed to be faulty in design, and the replacement can be proven to be a non issue performance-wise.

The problem with replacing parts like this is the obvious issue with "reasonable". You and I might think its reasonable, and so does the guy next to you in the paddock. As a matter of fact, he liked your example so much that he utilized the same concept when he replaced his valve springs...which are known problems in the 1986 Vigaroni 2000. Seems he kept breaking them when he nudged the redline, and considered his subsequent sudden lack of acceleration a safety issue.....

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

grjones1
05-17-2004, 09:29 PM
[quote]Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

If this is such an important and well known issue I am sure that it has been "run up the flagpole" before.


[quote]Originally posted by lateapex911:
[B]Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

Very funny Jake, but if lack of acceleration were a safety issue, we could protest every start on the East Coast from my experience.

As far as "running it up the flag pole," again from my experience, e.g., the exterior/interior coating issue, it would take as many years as I have left in racing to get a decision, and someone would finally answer: "the rules are adequate as written and SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness or safety of any car."

I do however find it amusing that VW was allowed to provide a camshaft that never saw an original production Rabbit as a "replacement" cam for the Rabbits. Seems as if they might work the same magic for your hub problem, i.e., if people's heads were in the right place.
I suggest heartily that all the VW people get together and use the Golf hubs. None of the remainder of us would probably know the difference, or care.
G

Geo
05-17-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

Well, a request was recently made to allow a alternate control arm for the Porsche 944 because control arm failure is a known issue on these cars.

The request was denied. It would set a bad precedent to allow alternate parts that are not supersessions.

I did not submit the request and I agree with the decision. As has previously been mentioned, you choose and build your choice of car, warts and all.

Is this enough precedence?


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

Bill Miller
05-17-2004, 10:41 PM
Jake,

I believe precedence to allow alternate parts has been established. Wasn't it a failure/safety issue behind why the Olds Achieva/Calais were allowed to use the Saturn bearings/flanges/brakes? John Herman, are you out there?

As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.

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

grjones1
05-17-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I believe precedence to allow alternate parts has been established. Wasn't it a failure/safety issue behind why the Olds Achieva/Calais were allowed to use the Saturn bearings/flanges/brakes? John Herman, are you out there?

As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.


Yes, and Ford superceded the Fiesta hubs with better European Fiesta XR-2 hubs in 1981. Does that mean I get to use them?
G

Banzai240
05-18-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.



It's funny how it always seems to be someone's "understanding" that this is the case, but no one seems to be able to legitimately document it. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Further, if it's NOT on the spec line... It's NOT a legal part, ESPECIALLY if it is a supercede/replacement part... since are rules specifically require it to be listed.



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

Bill Miller
05-18-2004, 07:14 AM
Darin,

I've never seen the paperwork, so I can't say for sure, that's just what I've heard. Maybe Dick Shine can shed some light on this. Also, you're 'on the inside', what have you been able to find out?

I agree that it should be listed on the spec line, as that's what the rules say. However, how many other 'mistakes' are there in the ITCS? And, didn't you say you were going to look into this, back when you were researching the Datsun 510 cam? What'd you find?

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

Banzai240
05-18-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... Also, you're 'on the inside', what have you been able to find out?

...And, didn't you say you were going to look into this, back when you were researching the Datsun 510 cam? What'd you find?

I found out exactly what I've stated here numerous times... There was an SOM ruling way back in 1994 or so, based on an SS classification, that ruled some cam specs as eligible for SS. That ruling is only good until the end of that year, afterwhich the official rules need to be brought into compliance to reflect the allowance.

There was a micro-fiche referenced, of which no one seems to be able to produce, and there is nothing else available to support this allowance that has been offered, or that anyone seems to be able to come up with.

Even those closely involved at the time say "I was told that..." or "it was my understanding that...", etc...

The bottom line is that there does not appear to be any documentation supporting this allowance, and, even if there were, it's NOT listed on the spec line and is therefore NOT a legal superceded part...

HOWEVER... if someone has documentation that this camshaft was actually delivered to the USA in a Rabbit (if we are talking about Rabbits...) or a Scirocco (if we are talking about Sciroccos...), then it would simply be a matter of using the update/backdate rules and would be considered legal without having it listed...

This is actually the case with the 510, where in 1973 it was offered in the USA with a different cam profile than in previous years (I think it was the same as the L20B cam used in later cars... need to research this before taking my word on it, because the details are a little fuzzy...)... 510s could use this cam without listing it since it's a year that's listed on the spec line and was a standard part for that year...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 18, 2004).]

lateapex911
05-18-2004, 08:18 PM
So Darin, if Mr Jones were to solicit VW and acheive a supercession of parts numbers for the hub in question, he could submit such to the SCCA boards, and be granted a classification line allowance?

Or did I read too fast! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 18, 2004).]

grjones1
05-19-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
So Darin, if Mr Jones were to solicit VW and acheive a supercession of parts numbers for the hub in question, he could submit such to the SCCA boards, and be granted a classification line allowance?

Or did I read too fast! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
Thanks for the thought, but I drive a Ford. VW's not going to help me much, And by the way neither will Ford.
G

Banzai240
05-19-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
VW's not going to help me much, And by the way neither will Ford.

If Ford has TRUELY superceded these components, and documentation (Factory Dealer parts list) exists and can be obtained, then you have every right to submit this as a request to have these hubs added to the specification line, based on our existing rules... The only help you need from Ford is for one of their dealers or their Parts division to make you a copy of the appropriate paperwork clearly showing the supercession... If the part, however, is simply an upgrade part that is otherwise "avaiable" for the application, but not an official supercede, then our rules don't technically permit it's use (I say "technically", because there are some examples of just such an allowance for a couple of models in our ITCS, so apparently at one time someone figured this type of substitution was ok...)...



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

grjones1
05-19-2004, 03:07 PM
[

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 19, 2004).]

grjones1
05-19-2004, 03:09 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:
[B] Darin,
I misled you. First of all, if the '81 Fiesta did indeed have a better hub, I couldn't use it because the '81 Fiesta never saw these shores and the parts for the car would not have superceded the U.S. version that I know of. My point was that eventhough the G-3 grind for the VW may have indeed been offered as a replacement for the older or other models, it was never part of the original models legal for ITC. And through some twisting of the succession rules the cam is now permitted on VW C cars. I was suggesting then that if this were the case any successive part on any model of my car could now be used on my C car, which I beleive is an absurd idea, except of course for the VWs (and it looks like the Datsuns). Forgive my sense of irony, I was simply trying to show that in light of the skewing of rules that is taking place, I am somewhat befuddled that in the case of replacing a part like a front hub with a better hub for safety reasons, a hew and cry what be raised about specific legality. Sometimes I think we can recognize the need for alternative measures when safety is an issue. And I can't comprehend why a better front hub for any car would elicit a reasonable protest (unless of course the hub required a larger rotor or the like, in which case an unacceptable performance advantage would be gained). Lord knows, we have enough issues keeping these dinosaurs running at all, than to waste our efforts nit-picking every improvement or replacement for some possible administrative breach of the rules. Let's give ouselves a break.
G

Geo
05-19-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
My point was that eventhough the G-3 grind for the VW may have indeed been offered as a replacement for the older or other models, it was never part of the original models legal for ITC. And through some twisting of the succession rules the cam is now permitted on VW C cars. I was suggesting then that if this were the case any successive part on any model of my car could now be used on my C car, which I beleive is an absurd idea, except of course for the VWs (and it looks like the Datsuns). Forgive my sense of irony....

Neither the G grind cams nor the Bluebird SSS cam (510) are legal. That has already been explained.


Originally posted by grjones1:
Lord knows, we have enough issues keeping these dinosaurs running at all, than to waste our efforts nit-picking every improvement or replacement for some possible administrative breach of the rules. Let's give ouselves a break.

It's far from administrative.


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

grjones1
05-19-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
It's far from administrative.



I guarantee every fast VW on the East Coast is using a G-3 or otherwize updated camshaft and in their minds legally. And if replacing a part that is found to be unsafe with another safe part that offers no performance advantage is anything but "administratively" illegal (i.e., morally, commonsensibly, and responsibly legal), please explain your bureaucratic logic.
G

Bill Miller
05-19-2004, 07:06 PM
Darin,

Been able to find anything out about the Oldsmobile rear brakes?

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

grjones1
05-19-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Been able to find anything out about the Oldsmobile rear brakes?


Bill,
I'm just curious. What's your stand on the G-3 and Bluebird?
G

Joe Craven
05-19-2004, 07:21 PM
I did have this discussion with NASA in regards to the VW hub issue. I often race an A1 GTI in their enduro events and fear the safety issues associated with a broken hub. I've totalled a car once when a broken hub caused the front brakes to fail and I hit a tire wall at 80mph at Infineon raceway.

Back to the enduro, NASA has a 25 hour race in December. I highly doubt that an A1 hub will last 25hours w/o some rain. NASA did mention that the substitution of an A2 hub could be construed as a competitive advantage since I wouldn't be forced to schedule a pitstop at for example the 12 hour mark to change the front bearings and hubs. End result of conversation, if I update the hubs and get protested, NASA would probably DQ my car.

On the other hand, I have seen people break new German hubs on the first weekend of their use. I do not know if they had any off track excursions that put unexpected loads on the fragile hubs.

grjones1
05-19-2004, 08:15 PM
[quote]
Joe,
I instructed for NASA at one school and they didn't even do a tech inspection- entrants supposedly teched their own cars. And their HSPE levels ran without cages and allowed engine swaps, etc. I guess my point is I'm surprised to hear they are such sticklers on what hubs you run. Iin fact if I understand it correctly they allow upgrades on brake rotors and calipers. Maybe we're not talking about the same classes?
G

Greg Amy
05-19-2004, 08:22 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...competitive advantage since I wouldn't be forced to schedule a pitstop...to change the...hubs. End of conversation...</font>

That's a classic example of stupid rules enforcement. To make such a statement implies that when the vehicle was classified this "wart" was known to everyone and was factored into the placement of the vehicle.

Patently stubborn, boneheaded, and absurd.

(edit): To get back on topic: Kinda like saying the Comp Board knew that my car was not available without power steering, and knew that my P/S system would overheat and melt lines, and knew that my water pump would cavitate, and considered all of this when they placed me into ITS many moons ago, so it would be an unfair competitive advantage to let me change out my crankshaft pulley.

If you believe that, interested in a bridge I've got for sale...?

[This message has been edited by grega (edited May 19, 2004).]

Banzai240
05-20-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Been able to find anything out about the Oldsmobile rear brakes?




Bill,
I'm just curious. What's your stand on the G-3 and Bluebird?
G



First, to Bill... Was I suppose to be looking into the Oldsmobile brakes??? I don't recall being tasked with that duty, so I haven't given it any thought... (though, as you did catch... that's one of the examples I was referring to above...)

Mr. Jones... I'm not sure exactly what you think the SSS cam has to do with anything here... No 510 driver believes they are legal and, to my knowledge, no one uses them... The "other" cam I was referring to for the 510 was the factory production, as-delivered-to-the-USA stock 510 camshaft that cam in the 1973 model of the car... The update/backdate rules make that cam a perfectly legal, no-extra-documentation-needed camshaft choice for the 510...

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

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

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

Bill Miller
05-20-2004, 07:46 AM
Darin,

I mentioned the Olds' brake issue as an example where alternate parts were allowed. You being the information hound that you are, I figured you would either have the information, or be interested in finding out why those parts were allowed. Next time, I guess I should 'task' you w/ finding things out.

The Olds' brake issue seemed germane to the VW hub discussion The whole idea here is to give everyone a better understanding of the system.

Greg,

I don't know anything about the Datsun cam, and the only thing I know about the VW cam is what I've been told. I did some quick research on the VW cam by calling a couple of dealerships and askin for a cam for a '76 1.6 FI Scirocco. I got 3 different part #'s and a NLA. If the part is really a supercede (in either case, Datsun or VW), they should be allowed. However, as Darin points out, they need to be listed on the spec line of the car.

And there's an interesting point. The Olds' spec line says Saturn brakes, etc., but gives no part #'s.

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

Quickshoe
05-20-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Kinda like saying the Comp Board knew that my car was not available without power steering, and knew that my P/S system would overheat and melt lines, and knew that my water pump would cavitate, and considered all of this when they placed me into ITS many moons ago, so it would be an unfair competitive advantage to let me change out my crankshaft pulley.

If you believe that, interested in a bridge I've got for sale...?



So tell me more about this bridge.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

My perspective...

It is not the Comp Boards job to know about all the "warts" when they class the car. They, within reason, try to put it in a class at a weight that makes sense. It is our jobs as racers to decide whether or not the car makes sense for that class warts and all.

We won't know about all the warts prior to building the car, but that is part of the risk involved in building something that isn't yet proven capable.

FWIW, I am thinking of building a Civic Coupe HX that isn't currently classed. I can not get another size water pump pulley for it. The WP pulley is driven by the timing belt, behind the TB cover. This is something that I need to figure into my decision making.

It is always cheaper to learn from others' mistakes than making our own.

Have you thought about having custom pulleys made? How much larger pulley could you squeeze in there, if the pulley was available? Are there other years available that aren't listed on the spec line that you might be able to get added and then use the backdate/update rule?

Just trying to help you with your situation within the rules as they currently are.

grjones1
05-20-2004, 07:41 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:
Mr. Jones... I'm not sure exactly what you think the SSS cam has to do with anything here...
Darin,
I was confused and that's why I asked Bill for clarification. Understand, as fast as those 510s have proven to be at times, I am just curious as to what they are using: legally or otherwise.I am happy to hear that your cams are legal.

My position on this is that the rulesmakers appear to make some decisions fairly rapidly that may give performance advantages to some makes, but they are frustratingly slow to look at some changes that would allow us all to drive safer cars. It seems to me that if some cars are losing wheels because of weak hubs (Fiestas and Rabbits), some allowance would be immediately granted to correct the situation or we as drivers would overlook corrections that give no performance advantage but correct the problem (because the rulesmakers don't appear to want to be bothered. I think the hub issue has proven obvious (that is, enough cars have lost wheels in enough races for the CRB and ITAC or whatever could have been a little proactive in coming up with a solution: something of the order of "alternate hubs may be used that give no performance advantage other than reliability." It took me 30 seconds to write that; it would take them 3 years to come to a decision not to write it.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 20, 2004).]

Quickshoe
05-20-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
...but they are frustratingly slow to look at some changes that would allow us all to drive safer cars.

You are right Jones. It's probably because they want to avoid giving a performance advantage to some.

I believe, that as racers, we have other motives for asking for change, especially when we claim it is a "safety" issue.

grjones1
05-20-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
You are right Jones. It's probably because they want to avoid giving a performance advantage to some.

I believe, that as racers, we have other motives for asking for change, especially when we claim it is a "safety" issue.
Granted, some would claim "safer" when they really want "faster," but plese inform me of what possible performance advantage I would get with heavier or stronger hubs. (I guess the first thing anyone is going to say is I could run a 13-hour enduro without changing my hubs. But I don't run enduros, and really wouldn't you grant me that single advantage if you knew I wasn't going to lose a wheel while you and I were entering turn 1?
G

Tak
05-20-2004, 11:56 PM
No. (Unless the car needs a comp adjustment)
Interesting, but off topic, conversation... Back to the pully's, it now occurs to me that changing pully's is potentially a HUGE competition adjustment. If water pump cavitation (or power steering) forces an RPM limit, then changing pullys will let the motor turn higher RPM and MAKE MORE POWER!
I know this is the case with Rotary engines. Stock, they cavitate the pump at 6000 RPM. With alternate water pump and crank pullys (both allowed for rotaries), my motor never sees LESS than 6000 RPM during a race. Comparing the 4k-6k range to the 6k to 8k range, there is a mean 20 HP (at the wheels) difference.
Perhaps this is also why the ECU rule affects cars differently? Different cars (eg Hondas) gain more RPM than other makes...
Tak
# 29 ITA (Rx-7)
SFR SCCA

Geo
05-21-2004, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Tak:
No. (Unless the car needs a comp adjustment)
Interesting, but off topic, conversation... Back to the pully's, it now occurs to me that changing pully's is potentially a HUGE competition adjustment. If water pump cavitation (or power steering) forces an RPM limit, then changing pullys will let the motor turn higher RPM and MAKE MORE POWER!
I know this is the case with Rotary engines. Stock, they cavitate the pump at 6000 RPM. With alternate water pump and crank pullys (both allowed for rotaries), my motor never sees LESS than 6000 RPM during a race. Comparing the 4k-6k range to the 6k to 8k range, there is a mean 20 HP (at the wheels) difference.

Intersting info. Perhaps bringing the Wankels back in line (rule-wise) with the rest of IT and elminating the allowance for the crank pulley, the RX-7s might be a very natural fit for ITB.

What do you Wankel boys think?


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

Quickshoe
05-21-2004, 12:29 AM
A 6000 RPM limit on a rotary will not only reduce the HP by up to 20HP, it will also force them to run a taller final drive, further limiting their performance. On top of forcing them to run 6" wide wheels.

I'd say no thanks.

Banzai240
05-25-2004, 12:02 PM
OK guys... This is a little pre-mature, but the ITAC ended up at the same place that this thread ended up in discussing this issue, so it was decided to put the matter out for membership comment.

Keep an eye open for this to be commented on in an upcoming Fastrack and make sure to write in or call with your opinions/ideas on the matter...

Thanks,


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

bill f
05-25-2004, 04:35 PM
To Banzai240:

Darin:

Back to the issue of crank shaft pulleys. I neglected to ask in the earlier post, one of the burning questions of the time. Namely, why was the rotary engine allowed the free crank pulley size, when the "boingers" were not?

I mentioned that in the request I made to the Comp. Board to consider the free pulley size (a few years ago). Nothing was mentioned as to the reason for the prejudice (toward the Rotary). I hate inconsistancies!!

Any information?

Thanks,

Bill

Banzai240
05-25-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by bill f:
Namely, why was the rotary engine allowed the free crank pulley size, when the "boingers" were not? ... I hate inconsistancies!!

Any information?

Thanks,

Bill

Bill and others... I don't know the history behind why the rotory gets free pulleys, but I know WHY they need them... Rev one over 6,000 RPM without slowing down the water pump and you'll overheat.

Most of the ITAC sees this as an inconsistency as well, though one could argue that allowing others to "port-match" and not the rotories is likewise inconsistent... but we're split on whether or not this would be "rules creep", or otherwise would be a necessary change for IT. Most of this reluctance seems to revolve around "unintended consequenses" of allowing this change.

I say they would be minimal, if at all... Others believe differently. Overall, the conversation went just like it did here on this site, and ended up deadlocked...

I for one see this as something similiar to the threaded-shock/strut rule... where you are allowed to do something, you just have to do it in the most round-about way possible. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Make sure you all write with some thought-out opinions so we can get this one right, OK?...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 25, 2004).]

Geo
05-25-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I for one see this as something similiar to the threaded-shock/strut rule... where you are allowed to do something, you just have to do it in the most round-about way possible. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

It comes down the things I mentioned early on. Do you allow free pulleys? Do you require pulleys with integral harmonic damper to remain stock? That one is under serious consideration folks. I know that there are people who are for changing this rule who will not be able to take advantage of it if you are required to retain the stock harmonic damper.

If we allow free pulleys it comes down to whether or not you believe they will increase the performance of the car. Greg says virtually no, I say noticably so. We have experience with the same cars so even folks in the same camp can disagree (and I don't want to rehash with Greg or anyone - I think I've stated the crux clearly and fairly).

FWIW, when we (the ITAC) were discussing it and I again came down against it, someone pointed out it could be the help I'm looking for with my 944. My response was (is) "I know, but I'm still not convinced it's the right thing for IT.

If the membership comes down squarely for it, I will change my position and order pulleys for my car. In the grand scheme of a race car budget, the $350 or so is going to go unnoticed.

My long winded point here is consider carefully all of the issues before you write. If you think the possible unintended consequences are small, OK. If they think they may not be OK. All I ask is that you consider carefully because I'll vote along with member response if it's clearly in favor.

(edit to complete a though I didn't complete initially)

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited May 25, 2004).]

Bill Miller
05-25-2004, 09:26 PM
Bill and others... I don't know the history behind why the rotory gets free pulleys, but I know WHY they need them... Rev one over 6,000 RPM without slowing down the water pump and you'll overheat.



I forget the car, and the thread, but wasn't there a request for an item that would essentially do nothing but increase engine longevity. IIRC, the response was that increased engine longevity was considered a 'competitive advantage'. I don't know why, but I thought this was related to the ITB Mustangs. Marcello???

Couldn't giving someone the ability to run the motor over a given rpm w/o overheating be considered the same kind of thing? Not trying to alienate the rotory folks, just trying to get to how it's good for IT when we have some rules that only apply to certain cars. And I know, here comes the porting rule for the rotaries. Different animal.

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

Geo
05-25-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And I know, here comes the porting rule for the rotaries. Different animal.


Why? I'm not being flip. Perhaps there is something I haven't considered. I don't know Wankels that well.


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

05-26-2004, 12:26 AM
good point george, allow the same rules for all engines and maybe the talk of moving the 7's to ITB would end although my experimentation with port matching stock rotarys was at best volatile with minute gains without opening the exhaust ports. I still think I must have done something wrong.

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Couldn't giving someone the ability to run the motor over a given rpm w/o overheating be considered the same kind of thing? Not trying to alienate the rotory folks, ...... And I know, here comes the porting rule for the rotaries. Different animal.



Good point. The ITA class HAS become known as the "Better have an RX-7" class lately.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Look, the original guys who classed the car did so with the knowledge of the pulley issue, and set the weight accordingly. Changing the rule post classification is a dumb idea. You do remember th ECU rule, right? Only ths time the RX-7 would slink even lower in the results....



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

Banzai240
05-26-2004, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Only ths time the RX-7 would slink even lower in the results....

I'm growing increasingly weary of hearing of the plights of the poor old RX-7... Sorry guys... but why does EVERY rule discussion for EVERY class that car has ever been in always end up revolving around whether or not the topic is good for the RX-7????

Yes, there are a lot of them out there, and yes, they are fun, cheap cars to race, but enough already! There are at least 3 different IT-ish classes in just about every Region where the RX-7 can enjoy good competition... Why do we always have to build are rules around what is or isn't good for THESE cars??? THERE ARE other cars out there to consider, you know...

...
...
...

OK, sorry guys... it's been a long day...



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

dickita15
05-26-2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
There are at least 3 different IT-ish classes in just about every Region where the RX-7 can enjoy good competition...
OK, sorry guys... it's been a long day...


Uh darin, I am sorry about the long day, but i assume you are refering to IT7 and Spec7 and well as ITA. If so the former 2 classes are not GCR classes and are avaialble in all areas. we have neither in the northeast. I really don't want the Comp board saying that a particilar car does not matter because it can always go run a spec class. Spec classes are more a sign that we have not solved the problem than a solution.
dick patullo
ner scca

Geo
05-26-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by dickita15:
I really don't want the Comp board saying that a particilar car does not matter because it can always go run a spec class. Spec classes are more a sign that we have not solved the problem than a solution.

Agreed.


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

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm growing increasingly weary of hearing of the plights of the poor old RX-7... Sorry guys... but why does EVERY rule discussion for EVERY class that car has ever been in always end up revolving around whether or not the topic is good for the RX-7????

Yes, there are a lot of them out there, and yes, they are fun, cheap cars to race, but enough already! There are at least 3 different IT-ish classes in just about every Region where the RX-7 can enjoy good competition... Why do we always have to build are rules around what is or isn't good for THESE cars??? THERE ARE other cars out there to consider, you know...

...
...
...

OK, sorry guys... it's been a long day...



First, I didn't bring it up.

Second, I used it to make a point, which was completely ignored. The point being that after-the-classification rules changes are a bad thing in general, and must be made very carefully.

Finally, I have tried, from the start of my posting and comments, to use the plight of the RX-7 as a banner carrier for the rest of the cars in the same boat. It just happens that the RX-7 is the best example of the situation, and as I have raced and developed one, I feel qualified to comment.

I'm sorry if my comments come across as self centered, or complaining about the "plight" of the 7.

And BTW, the only time I have had the chance to race in anything other than ITA was at the end of a 1200 mile tow at the ARRCs.

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

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

ITSRX7
05-26-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Couldn't giving someone the ability to run the motor over a given rpm w/o overheating be considered the same kind of thing? Not trying to alienate the rotory folks, just trying to get to how it's good for IT when we have some rules that only apply to certain cars.


My vote flip flopped during the call. I am very much against any car-specific rules and this is one but I do feel it needs to be grandfathered in. In this case, if you don't 'allow' rotories to rev past 6000, you kill the cars.

According to my dyno sheet in front of me, I loose 14% of my horsepower (S5 13B) if limited to 6K.

I think adding the rule for the class is creep - and killing it for the rotories is going two steps back for one step forward. No current rotory is an overdog in any class so it doesn't create equity to make the move while it undoes any semblence of current parity. Ya, I know, not guaranteed but it should be a consideration, IMHO.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
05-26-2004, 06:12 PM
Andy,

I'm not saying that it should be taken away from the wankers, err, I mean Wankels, yeah, that's it!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Really, I don't think it should be taken away. But, how many times have peoples' requests at relief been met w/ "Hey, you should have done your homework before you picked the car."

Hey, there's a thought. Take the free crank pulley away from the 12A crowd, and move them to ITB! <ducks quickly>

I think you know that my main gripe is the lack of internal consitency w/in the rules. This is just another example.

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

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,


Hey, there's a thought. Take the free crank pulley away from the 12A crowd, and move them to ITB! <ducks quickly>

I think you know that my main gripe is the lack of internal consitency w/in the rules. This is just another example.


That is a really old rule, but I think it went hand in hand with the original classification, so its ok.

However, if you are willing to move us 12A-ers to B, I would gladdly give you my crnk pulley. And my 7" rims. And 60 pounds.



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

Karl Bocchieri
05-26-2004, 07:00 PM
While your there ask why "bongers" are allowed to port match their intake and exhaust ports, and rotarys are not.

Tak
06-04-2004, 08:52 PM
Boingers vs Rotaries...If memmory serves, part of the intake opening into the rotary chambers is less than 1 inch from the gasket surface. That means port matching to 1" from the gasket surface would translate to bridgeporting a rotary. As a rotary racer (and my own engine builder), I don't want to screw with the porting...I support the no port matching on rotaries.
In terms of crank and water pump pullies, I don't know the history, but I suspect it's it's part of the displacement equivelency give and take.
Last, as for moving rx-7 to ITB and taking away pully's as a competition adjustment...remember that means we cant operate CONTINUOUSLY above 6k. We could still make occaisional bursts to high rev's. Like at starts and when passing people! It would be just like Nitrous! That is not a good competition adjustment.

Tak
#29 ITA
SFR SCCA