Beetle in ITC

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
But this one started to annoy me....

"Accuse" me of being on the ITAC???? You make it sound as if they are a bunch of back stabbing good for nothing guys with little intelligence and no integrity! Hardly!
I I think you, Mr. Jones owe these folks an apology, and a public one at that.


OK Jake, You spent a great number of bits and bites putting words in my mouth. If you can read that much into "accused," you are the one whose thoughts run in that direction. But to tell you the truth, I think you are twisting the dialogue to make a play for your own inclusion.

And as far as insults, you among others have insulted me numerous times and I invite you to review the post to see who insulted whom first. You've made fun of my car, you claim I make no technically supported claims when neither you nor the ITAC members have anymore idea of what HP an NB can make in IT trim than I do, and yet you have seen fit to class the car below its obvious potential; your little suck-up in Atlanta even drags up a bad lap time at VIR to discredit me. You have insulted not only me, but the people I race with, and even the racetrack I frequent. When you make a crack, it's just a joke, when I answer your supposed jokes with a joke, it's an insult, and I supposedly owe you an apology. If how you people treat people here is an example of fair play and reasonableness and representative of those people running the SCCA at the regional level no wonder members are running to other venues.

I've raced in SCCA since 1971 and I've seen a myriad of mistakes made, and people too damned caught up in their own egos and self-aggrandizement to admit their mistakes and find a way to correct them. And guess what from what I see here, it hasn't changed.

A public apology??! You owe me a public apology. You too Jake can GET BENT!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 29, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Actually, and I speak as a former NASA insider, its the ONLY thing that NASA does better than SCCA. BUT, that one thing is obviously enough to steal a great deal of drivers away from SCCA.

Far and away the number 1 complaint about SCCA that you will hear amongst NASA race participants is "SCCA doesn't have my car classed competitively, NASA does."

It looks like thats changing, thank god.

Hold on. I take some exception to this. But I will allow for the fact I could be misinformed. But....

What classes?

Spec 944?
944 Cup?
SE-R Cup?
Spec Miata?
Spec RX-7?
Formula Mazda?
Honduh Challenge?

What classes are we talking about. NASA has no nationally organized classes that aren't spec classes that I've seen. Sure we can talk about he PS classes, but who races in them? Shoot, we went to a NASA race here in TX and ran against two other cars. A highly tweeked 911, a highly tweeked Corvette, and two other cars (only one of the two ran in either race) and neither of them lasted the whole race. If you call that a race.

I know NASA has some following elsewhere, but the only classes I hear about are spec or one-make classes. The only exception to that is the German car series in the north. Still not open to a wide variety of cars.

If I've missed something, please tell me. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Let me know if I've missed something. But when I hear NASA I think a variety of spec series and other locally organized specialty classes.


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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK Jake, ... putting words in my mouth. If you can read that much into "accused," you are the one whose thoughts run in that direction. But to tell you the truth, I think you are twisting the dialogue to make a play for your own inclusion.

1: If you were joking with the "accused" statement, you should have included a smiley. Due to the context of your other slams aimed directly at ITAC members, I thought it fit your MO.

2: There is no current opening on the ITAC. My inclusion is therefore impossible, and thusly illogical. No play here.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> And as far as insults, you among others have insulted me numerous times and I invite you to review the post to see who insulted whom first. You've made fun of my car, </font> Never...not me....

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> you claim I make no technically supported claims when neither you nor the ITAC members have anymore idea of what HP an NB can make in IT trim than I do, </font> actually the engine is a pretty well known item in the tuner world, and the ITAC DOES have an idea of its potential...the numbers you project are a bit beyond reasonable

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...and yet you .... </font> ( I have??Me?? I had nothing to do with the classing...you have the wrong guy again )
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...have seen fit to class the car below its obvious potential; your little suck-up in Atlanta even drags up a bad lap time at VIR to discredit me. You have insulted not only me, but the people I race with, and even the racetrack I frequent. </font> Again, wrong guy..not sure what you are referring to here, but I mentioned nothing of the sort in my posts.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ..... and I supposedly owe you an apology. </font>

No...you misunderstand...you owe me nothing...it's the members of the ITAC that you owe an apology to. Please reread some of your statements to them. I believe you have treated them in an unjust manner. I don't like injustice.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> If how you people treat people here is an example of fair play and reasonableness and representative of those people running the SCCA at the regional level no wonder members are running to other venues. </font>
Must be the red mist...Again, I am not an official or a committee member within the SCCA organization... you have the wrong guy.
(My volunteering is in the gopher area, race chairing, flagging, tech assisting, info booth organization and manning, and so on. I don't serve in the levels you seem to think I do.)



A public apology??! You owe me a public apology. You too Jake can GET BENT!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 29, 2004).]

Well, it appears that we will agree to disagree.



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

[Geo]

What do you call a smart blonde?


A Golden Retreiver. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Hey Greg, pass the Reynolds Wrap. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, it appears that we will agree to disagree.


Your problem, Jake, is that you can dish it out but you don't want to eat it.

You are guilty by association with Scott and your agreement with the board's decision.

I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Hey, I tried this yesterday and it didn't work...what gives?

The SCCA/NASA thing is very regional.

The Spec classes, out here, are bigger at SCCA than NASA (Spec Miata+Spec Racer Ford+Spec Rx7 > Spec every NASA class combined).

The Honda Challenge classes are huge here...that is a different market. Lots of hybrid (engine swap variety), motor mods beyond what is IT legal. When you can't do this or that to the motor, or put this kind of motor in that kind of chassis you are not allowing a ton of Honda enthusiasts to join the party.

I am not saying that is a good/bad thing...just different. Can't have something for everybody. Right now, what the SCCA offers suits a lot of people, but those that is doesn't go elsewhere.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Your problem, Jake, is that you can dish it out but you don't want to eat it.



OK, this is it..last time down the vortex for me..I hope... so hard to avoid getting sucked in!




You are guilty by association with Scott and your agreement with the board's decision. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif "Guilty by association?" You can do better than that...look if I said something, fine. If he says something, you can't hang ME for it! (Shrugs shoulders)




I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

Sigh...another point missed. First, I was referring not to the general topic, but the name calling and credential slamming you've partaken in regarding the ITAC guys who volunteer their time and bravely post here. No reason to apologise for your opinion that the car can produce whatever HP, or even your larger view of dominance.

I just feel your comments and attitude are not appropriate, especially considering the recent revitalization of the ITAC, which appears to be making real progress....

Your "bet" or "offering" or whatever misses the point as well. It's not just about HP, it's about the Beetle becoming the dominant beat all comers car in ITC that you say it will become. Most here disagree, and I will wait and see, I guess.



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

[Catch22]

The appeal of NASA seems to lie mostly within things like the Spec classes like the SeR thing and the Honda Challenge (which is by far NASA's most popular classes). Ironically enough these classes offered places for cars that were not at all classed (Hybrid Hondas, Integra Type R) or badly classed/weight Specd (SeR, Civic DX, Integra GSR, etc.) by the SCCA. Again, with emphasis added... NASAs most popular race classes are taking advantages of SCCAs mistakes and omissions.

Seems pretty easy to fix to me. Repair the mistakes (as has already been done with the SeR for example) and class as many of the omissions as possible (for example, if the E36 BMW is an ITS car, why isn't the Integra Type R??? Look at the numbers and scratch your head.). Do these things and suddenly, just that easy, you are doing EVERYTHING better than NASA and they stay firmly rooted a distant 2nd in US amatuer racing.
Keep playing status quo and protecting the competitiveness of 30 year old cars... Thats not going to work out all that great in the end.

And Jake, remember that you are trying to reason with a man who has asserted publicly that the ITAC is a puppet of VW, has apologized for insulting you by calling you a member of that group, has insinuated that anyone that disagrees with his position is gutless, keeps referring back to the state of ITC in one series at one track as representative of his position that all is healthy, and hates me because I had the nerve to...
1. Disagree with him (How DARE I!!!) and
2. Call him out on all of his silly crap.
If you want to try to reason with him, fine. I have decided to just stand outside his cage and poke him with a stick for my personal entertainment purposes. Any hope of reason flew away towards the VW headquarters on black helicopters 5 pages ago.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:

I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ


First off, if it CAN'T achieve 144hp at the crank, then we'd better remove some weight for it in ITC, because it's going to be too heavy for the class if that's the case...

Second, I'll do you one better....

You provide the ITAC with documentation that the NB's 2.0L I-4 is capable of making MORE than 144hp at the crank in IT trim, and I'll personally, as a member and chairman of this ITAC, see to it that this classification gets corrected. A 30% increase would be in the neighborhood of 150hp or so, and if you can show us that this is indeed achievable with IT prep, I'll see to it that corrections get made.

The problem here is that you are accusing US of not knowing what kind of HP this thing might be capable of, but the truth is that YOU don't know either... We've made some assumptions, based on past experience and what technical details are available, and we went from there...

We KNOW what a Honda, a VW, and a 510 are capable of, and have used those cars to come up with a reasonable process for classifying cars in ITC. Care to tell us some real hp values for the Fiesta? (if you have already, I'm sorry but I missed it, so please tell again) I would love to have more data points to use in refining the process. Problem is is that very few are willing to reveal the real numbers.

OK, while this has all been entertaining, I'm going RACING! The track beckons and I'm obliged to answer it's call!

Double Regional w/ Vintage and a Historics show at Bremerton Raceway this weekend. Come on out if you're in the area!

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ

Darin may have eluded to it above but 144hp at the crank is EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID IT COULD MAKE (115 + 25%). If we are both right, the car has the target pw/weight ratio we wanted in ITC. Add to that: real front heavy, struts and an I-beam, narrow wheels for the weight, 2760lbs......and I think you will find we are logically in the ballpark.

I know YOU don't, but others seem to.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
The SCCA/NASA thing is very regional.

But while IT may be a regional class, it's nationally recognized and I can race at Texas World Speedway or Watkins Glen or Laguna Seca or Road Atlanta, etc., and still race in the same class with the same rules. Try to do that in NASA.

------------------
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 July 30, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You too Jake can GET BENT!</font>

Me, me! I'm next after Jake!

(crinkle, crinkle, crinkle...)

I like cats too. Let's exchange recipes.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
The appeal of NASA seems to lie mostly within things like the Spec classes like the SeR thing and the Honda Challenge (which is by far NASA's most popular classes). Ironically enough these classes offered places for cars that were not at all classed (Hybrid Hondas, Integra Type R) or badly classed/weight Specd (SeR, Civic DX, Integra GSR, etc.) by the SCCA. Again, with emphasis added... NASAs most popular race classes are taking advantages of SCCAs mistakes and omissions.


But that is exactly my point. If NASA is primarily offering spec classes and one make classes, how can "fair" classing of cars even be brought up? Let's see NASA offer classes where there are over 300 cars classified in one category. Then we can compare. But don't compare spec classes to a category wtih over 300 different makes and models. Absolutely NOT the same.

From where I sit, NASA isn't doing any "fair" classing. They are just running a lot of spec and one make classes. Additionally, NASA doesn't really administer most of those classes. They are administered outside NASA and NASA just provides a place to run. I know the folks involved in SE-R Cup and 944 Cup and know this to be true. Their attitude is basically "bring us enough cars and we'll let you run your own class."


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK Jake, You spent a great number of bits and bites putting words in my mouth. If you can read that much into "accused," you are the one whose thoughts run in that direction. But to tell you the truth, I think you are twisting the dialogue to make a play for your own inclusion.

Then later....


Originally posted by grjones1:
You are guilty by association with Scott and your agreement with the board's decision.


Seems to speak for itself. http://images.bimmerforums.com/smilies/nuts.gif



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

[grjones1]

And Jake, remember that you are trying to reason with a man who has asserted publicly that the ITAC is a puppet of VW, ..., has insinuated that anyone that disagrees with his position is gutless, keeps referring back to the state of ITC in one series at one track as representative of his position that all is healthy, and hates me because I had the nerve to...
1. Disagree with him (How DARE I!!!) and
2. Call him out on all of his silly crap.
[/B]

*I have never said "all was healthy" or anything close.
*I retracted the VW thing.
*I suggested someone who was willing to stand up to the powers that be had some guts, that's a far cry from "anyone disagreeing with me was gutless."
*I made a few references to substantiate the validity of my car as representative of a competitive ITC car for comparison with the NB.
* And you have made no technical argument that disproves any of my statements other than the ITAC considers 180 lbs to be an average driver weight.
*You attacked me personally with some pretty strong language, you belittled my driving record (when your own is nothing to tout as superlative); you suggest that the people I race against are not up to IT drivers in the rest of the country (when your own record shows you habitually race against 6 or 7 cars in class, where I have not raced aginst less than 12 in class in the last 12 years); and you even go so far as to besmirch one of the favorite racing venues on the East Coast, (because you evidently can't handle surface changes.)

I dislike you Scott because in my opinion you are not honest and as far as I can see you are a poseur. I've detected little technical insight or comprehension from anything you have declared. And your declaration of your conception of a condition doesn't make it any more accurate than my own. Just like Jake, you distort my comments to make your argument. That's not honest, Jake, that's "crap."

I don't mind being proven wrong other than suffering the same embarrasment anyone else would. But you Scott and Jake and a few others aren't men enough to recognize a mistake when it slaps you in the face.

Darin,
I beleive you stated somewhere you use 25% as a standard for HP increase for IT prep. Using your figure (and I believe that's pretty conservative), the Fiesta would make
81 Hp (up from the 65 stock). I used the same 25% increase for the NB and came up with 144. That gives the Fiesta a 1 Hp to 22 P/W (1780/81) (originally I used the actual race weight of 1910 to come up with the 1:24 figure) and the NB with a 1 Hp to 18 lbs P/W. I really don't know exact Hp for the Fiesta, we've never dynoed it. But I don't think its unfair to use the same speculative percentage for both cars. (That appears to be how you came up with the race weight for the NB.)

A 4 lb. P/W advantage (not even considering other factors) in my opinion precludes consideration of the NB for ITC.

And regardless of some misrepresentation of my attitude (and I think I said this before) I appreciate your efforts.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:

Andy, what is so bad about us having different opinions? I have read your posts-have you read mine? Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm asking legitimate questions. If you want to be on the ITAC, you need to expect that.

You have said in general terms:
The NB should be in ITC to add to car counts.
You wil move it if it is an overdog.
(feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

I said we don't need the car counts.
It will be hard to move the NB



Come on Al. We welcome healthy debate, but not stuff like this:


George-can you name the car? I bet it was before your time in IT.
And moving a car up would take 5 years.

I responded thusly:


ITB Accord to ITA.

If we thought the NB would upset the apple cart, we wouldn't have classed it there. ITC is our version of a 'vintage' class. Nothing has happened in there for years. We think this car freshen the choices while NOT upsetting the AC.

Seems simple. We have a difference of opinion. We debate things like E36's, car counts, you want MORE examples of what has been moved up...all failry reasonable until this gem:


There is a provision in the GCR that allows for the specifications to be changed within the first year of a classification or reclassification. That would be one method of handling this if it's an immediate problem...
That works only if the ITAC is willing to admit they made a mistake, and based on Andy's tone when I ask some simple questions semms unlikley.

This one got to me. What in my tone gave you this impression? We (Darin, Geo and myself) have stated many times that we would fix it if it was a mistake. I can't understand where you are coming from.

Let me just say this to try and end this all:

We weighed all the factors - pro and con. The current ITAC thinks this classification is a great thing for ITC - provided it doesn't prove to be an overdog. We don't think it will. If it does, I ASSURE you, it will get fixed. We understand how a change to this class will make some waves - but we think these waves will wash some more car counts your way without taking to much 'wood' out of your hands.

AB



------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Darin,
I beleive you stated somewhere you use 25% as a standard for HP increase for IT prep. Using your figure (and I believe that's pretty conservative), the Fiesta would make
81 Hp (up from the 65 stock). I used the same 25% increase for the NB and came up with 144. That gives the Fiesta a 1 Hp to 22 P/W (1780/81) (originally I used the actual race weight of 1910 to come up with the 1:24 figure) and the NB with a 1 Hp to 18 lbs P/W. I really don't know exact Hp for the Fiesta, we've never dynoed it. But I don't think its unfair to use the same speculative percentage for both cars. (That appears to be how you came up with the race weight for the NB.)

We said we used 25% for the NB, but that doesn't mean that we use that figure for every car... Some engines respond better to IT prep than others. I don't know a thing about your Fiesta, but I do know a little about VW Rabbits, and quite a bit about Datsun 510s... The REAL numbers for the 510 show it to have about a 20% increase with IT prep... but it's a 1600cc engine that made 96hp stock in the first place... Nissan apparently got it right... VW, on the other hand, is a 1600cc engine that only makes 71hp stock... They apparently weren't quite a thorough on their stock configuration, they misrepresented the numbers, or perhaps their emmisions or ??? just make them stock dogs... However, they show, as Mr. Miller admits, at least a 30% increase over stock...

My guess is, that if your Fiesta is even remotely competitive today, it's making a heck of a lot more than 80 some-odd horsepower... Without REAL numbers, one can only guess...



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

[RSTPerformance]

Does anyone know where I can find a moderator? Who is the moderator here anyway?

I remember I got a thread locked because someone got upset when I pointed out that wheel spacers are illegal unless needed to fit a tire on the car. Therefore also pointing out that most cars are illegally widening their track. That thread got cut off way before anything like this thread. Even our own SCCA comp board member has personal attacks posted on the web. We need to have this thread turned off before it does more damage to the SCCA IT community. The IT community is much better than this. Personal issues should be saved for E-mail and informative information posted here. This website is used by a ton of people and is posted everywhere on the web for people inquiring about IT racing. This is not what they or we want them to see.

Please someone find the moderator!

Stephen
[email protected]

[Tom Donnelly]

I think I understood the get bent, crinkle, crinkle, remark, but what kind of cat recipes are you talking about? I have an over-active imagination and I lost my aluminum foil. I don't recall cats being allowed per the GCR.

Where's Rod Serling when you need him.

Tom
(Who's logging off to go rebuild a transmission and find some peace)

[RFloyd]

slow cooked barbecue cat. Best with an older feline for extra tenderness, but if you have to use a healthier male, you might consider a crock-pot or other slow cooker for about 6 hours before grilling to soften him up. Avoid anything you find by the road as the bone chips are a killer. cook on the grill over medium indirect heat until it reaches the desired doneness. baste often with red pepper vinegar. Serve with beer.

And the GCR makes no mention of cats being allowed since they're intended solely for enjoying after the racing is all done.

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

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

Just so I understand what you said, and hopefully head off any future confusion, you stated that an IT-prep L16 is good for about a 20% increase. Given the 96hp stock value, that would put it at ~115hp in IT prep. Let's look at the Rabbit GTI. Assuming it can make that same 115hp in IT trim, that equates out to almost a 28% increase over stock.

For arguement's sake, let's say you can get 30% out of the VW, since it seems possible w/ the 1.6's (BTW, the stock figure is 75hp, not 71hp, for the FI 1.6). That would leave you w/ 117 hp for the Rabbit GTI in IT trim. So, here you have two cars, make similar power, at similar weights (2170# for the Datsun, and 2180# for the GTI). One has RWD, IRS, a 4spd, and a carb. The other one is FWD, beam axle, 5spd, and FI. Sure seems like a pretty decent match to me.

Here's a question for Al. I know it's not scientific, or anything like that, just looking for some information. And since he drives an ITC 510, and holds the ITC record at Summit Point, there's probably some relevance.

Al, can you recall the last time, if at all, an A1 GTI ever ran under your Summit Point record? I'll have to look it up, but I thought it was something on the order of a 1:32.8. I'll see if I can find the official number.

/edit/ What I saw in the WDCR website was from the April/01 MARRS race, a 1:32.654. I'll pull through the results, but I don't recall anyone ever running this fast, at Summit Point, in a Rabbit GTI.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited July 30, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
We said we used 25% for the NB, but that doesn't mean that we use that figure for every car... Some engines respond better to IT prep than others. I don't know a thing about your Fiesta, but I do know a little about VW Rabbits, and quite a bit about Datsun 510s... The REAL numbers for the 510 show it to have about a 20% increase with IT prep... but it's a 1600cc engine that made 96hp stock in the first place... Nissan apparently got it right... VW, on the other hand, is a 1600cc engine that only makes 71hp stock... They apparently weren't quite a thorough on their stock configuration, they misrepresented the numbers, or perhaps their emmisions or ??? just make them stock dogs... However, they show, as Mr. Miller admits, at least a 30% increase over stock...

My guess is, that if your Fiesta is even remotely competitive today, it's making a heck of a lot more than 80 some-odd horsepower... Without REAL numbers, one can only guess...


Darin,
Even I am getting tired of going over the same old territory, but please bear with me.

I think you are correct: my Fiesta obviously is making more than 80 some horse power (especially since Quicksilver built my motor)and some hellacious torque in the mid range. But not within 40 Hp and whatever torque of what that 2.0 is going to make, and what apparently is much more important to everyone else neither are the other VWs, Datsuns, Hondas, etc. in C. But you are willing to "guess" only a 25% increase for the NB is justifiable. Even when you know the 1600s show a 30% increase!?! I'm sorry but I just don't see the logic.

And now you make my point, you are only guessing. I'm not being pejorative, I'm only trying to convince you that not only are we in the dark about Hp, if you consider the superior brakes, equal suspension (according to you guys), and above all the gearing that newie bug is showing (which no one for some reason wants to bring into the equation), what presently exists in C wont have a chance. (If I used the close ratio box available for the Fiesta, I guarantee I'd win more than two races a year.)

I said it before, bring on the new faces, but don't start with an unknown 2.0 in a 1.6 class, even with added weight. There are too many other variables that just don't make it equitable.

OK, I quit. I'm Cassandra at the walls of Troy: "Dont let that wooden horse behind the walls." You are going to do it anyway, as others in the past have done, and we all live to regret it.

Again, I appreciate your indulgence.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 31, 2004).]

[Al Seim]

Bill, Darin:

Something to take into consideration when looking at those numbers - the 96 bhp for the 510 was gross not net hp. By the time the FI VW A1 came out, mfgs were using (as they still do) net numbers which are considerably lower. The factor varied by engine, but I think was typically 10-15% different. So a 510 "really" had maybe 83 bhp net (???) by todays measuring standard. If they really make 115 bhp in IT trim that's a 39% increase.

Al Seim
www.actdigital.com (http://www.actdigital.com)

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Geo:
Hey Greg, pass the Reynolds Wrap. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


I would but it doesn't seem to work, even when folded double! I'm moving on to plate steel.

"And then, there was that time at band camp,..."

TGIF

Gregg

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,
What I saw in the WDCR website was from the April/01 MARRS race, a 1:32.654. I'll pull through the results, but I don't recall anyone ever running this fast, at Summit Point, in a Rabbit GTI.

That's because Al doesn't brake like the rest of humanity. Not very often, but I've been close enough at times to his brake lights to know that for a fact.
Forgive me again, Al, for sticking my nose in.
GRJ

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK, I quit. I'm Cassandra at the walls of Troy: "Dont let that wooden horse behind the walls." You are going to do it anyway, as others in the past have done, and we all live to regret it.

GRJ

Except we have the power to stuff the NB back into the wooden horse and send it back outside the walls of ITC.

How many ways can we say it? We hear your issues. We believe the performance potential is in the same envelope, we could be wrong...we don't think so.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Serious question here, why is the ITAC so afraid of the Rabbit GTI in ITC, but not the NB (and the Golf/Jetta IV)?

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

[ITSRX7]

Bil,

What is the situation behind said GTI? What letters have been written? What requests have been addressed? Please provide a quick history so I don't duplicate efforts.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Geo:
But while IT may be a regional class, it's nationally recognized and I can race at Texas World Speedway or Watkins Glen or Laguna Seca or Road Atlanta, etc., and still race in the same class with the same rules. Try to do that in NASA.


What I meant Geo was that the popularity of one versus the other varies by region.

To your point, if you have an ITS, A, B, or C car you are correct. What if you have an IT7, Spec7, ITE, SM, SF, or CF? You don't have the ability to race in the same class with the same rules anywhere within SCCA either.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
But you are willing to "guess" only a 25% increase for the NB is justifiable. Even when you know the 1600s show a 30% increase!?! I'm sorry but I just don't see the logic.


There is very simple logic to this... Newer engines have less to gain because the factory is already optimizing their potential...

You guys said it before... new engines have tighter tolerences and are generally getting more from the same cc's...

OK, I'm gone for the rest of the weekend... I'll be at the track if anyone wants to stop by and say HI!



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
What I meant Geo was that the popularity of one versus the other varies by region.

Gotcha.


Originally posted by Quickshoe:
To your point, if you have an ITS, A, B, or C car you are correct. What if you have an IT7, Spec7, ITE, SM, SF, or CF? You don't have the ability to race in the same class with the same rules anywhere within SCCA either.


Actually, SM is recognized nationally now with unified rules. But the others you are correct about to varying degrees. Point taken.

But what classes in NASA can you race in all the places I mentioned?


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

[lateapex911]

I know, I know, I said I wouldn't get sucked into the votex of illogic and namecalling again......and I won't!

I will let slide the recent comments, but I did want to wrap the thread up with a few awards.

First, the award for "Biggest Understatement", :
Although he only submitted ONE post in over SIX pages (sheeesh!), Mr Blethens' call for a moderator wins.
The judges did ignore some other posts that were contenders as they felt the poster wasn't entirely sane.

Second, the award for "Best one Liner", and the award goes to: Greg Amy! Nice job Greg! One judge reported spitting soup at the screen upon reading your post a few pages back. (Again the judges found much humor, but felt that the funniest posts weren't intended as such, and removed them from consideration.) Honorable mention to Geo for his very early post, but it wasn't a one liner.

Third, the award for "Best use of Art in a Post" goes to Mr. Knestis for his use of the graphic depicting a poster beating his head against a keyboard...we all felt that way, for sure!

Fourth, the award for "Best Judgement from a Regular or Semi Regular Poster" goes to Dick Patullo. Dick is always the voice of reason, but here he had the good sense to post........ nothing! The judges admire your restraint, (and admit to a bit of jealousy as well). Nicely kept out of, Dick!

And finally, the award for "Much Ado about Nothing, (while spreading anger in all directions)" , goes to.......ah...forget it on the last one...these awards are just for fun, no sense getting too obvious.

Have a great weekend guys, next week should return to normal civility, I hope.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 31, 2004).]

[badal]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Here's a question for Al. I know it's not scientific, or anything like that, just looking for some information. And since he drives an ITC 510, and holds the ITC record at Summit Point, there's probably some relevance.

Al, can you recall the last time, if at all, an A1 GTI ever ran under your Summit Point record? I'll have to look it up, but I thought it was something on the order of a 1:32.8. I'll see if I can find the official number.


Bill,
I had the archivist at the Bell Motorsports Museum attempt to locate those records, but she informed me the cat had hurled a hairball on them a few weeks ago and they had to be destroyed.
I do think if Chris Albin had brought his Rabbit GTI to SPR he would be in the 1:30 or 1:31's.


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

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I wrote the letter requesting the Rabbit GTI be moved to ITC (along w/ the 1.8 Scirocco) at the same time I wrote the letter to have the 1.7 cars moved. In fact, it was all part of the same letter. This was right after the A3 Golf was moved from ITA to ITB. I believe Derek Ketchie also wrote a letter to the same effect. At the time (I don't remember which FasTrack it was in), the request was denined because all the cars were deemed too fast for the class. Although, a few months later, the 1.7 cars are getting moved, at the suggestion of the ITAC.

With the NB classification in ITC, as well as some of the other recent moves, it seems that the ITAC is using the top performing cars in a class to establish the benchmark. I believe Darin actually said something to this effect several months ago, in reference to many of the ITS cars that were moved to ITA.

From what I can see, it sure looks like the Rabbit GTI is a close match for the performance potential for the 510. Which, while it's a top performer in ITC, is still not up to the Hondas, in some people's opinion. I know it's hard to look at these cars objectively, because of all the history, etc. w/ them, but I'd appreciate it if you'd try.

BTW Darin, I still want to see that evidence that you claim to have.

Al,

Sorry to hear about the 'feline malfunction'. And, while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Albin, and what he can do in a VW, your opinion is just that, an opinion. I know the cars can run in the 1:33's, but I just don't know how much faster they are than that.

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

[grjones1]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 31, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Geo:
But what classes in NASA can you race in all the places I mentioned?


None that I am aware of. I was trying to illustrate that the situation of local classes (avoiding further confusion by calling them 'regional') is not unique to NASA or SCCA.

Being in Group 1 of a race schedule sure has its' benefits. Trailer packed up, car ready to go Sunday AM, came home, swam and had a BBQ!! Even have time to get my IT.com fix.



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

[16v]

I did a little poking around. Talking to 2.0 Xflow people, those with fully built up street motors from the aftermarket parts bin are "only" making 130hp at the wheels on a dyno. Mind you, most of the parts they are using to get these numbers would not be IT legal.


Food for thought in the debate

------------------
Doug http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
NER.org (http://ner.org)
the16v.com (http://the16v.com)
briansgarage.com (http://www.briansgarage.com)

[This message has been edited by 16v (edited August 01, 2004).]

[gran racing]

Doug,

If the performance upgrades are not IT legal, does it really matter what the HP was? It would be like saying my prelude is capable of 250 HP. Sure, with a turbo, cams, and 100 shot of nitrous.

Guess I'm not getting the point you are trying to make.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by 16v:
I did a little poking around. Talking to 2.0 Xflow people, those with fully built up street motors from the aftermarket parts bin are "only" making 130hp at the wheels on a dyno. Mind you, most of the parts they are using to get these numbers would not be IT legal.
Food for thought in the debate

And I'm not trying to start up another ballyhoo, but you say "at the wheel," which is how much at the crank, which is where I think the estimated 144+ would be made?

And were these "built up" street motors without a cat. conv., with racing exhaust pipe, .40 over, and with .5 raised compression, etc.? Just curious.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 01, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

I think Doug was commenting on how likely these cars are to make 145ish hp in IT trim.

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

[gran racing]

Ahhh. Got it.

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

[16v]

yes Bill and Dave. I just throwing out an example of just how much can be made from the motors with "the works"

[ITSRX7]

So take away the illegal stuff and I bet you are right in the 144 crank/hp range. Right were we guestimated.

So far, so good.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

From the Autothority chip people. Expect this to be a best-case scenario since it's their published marketing information...

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/autothority.jpg

Chip on an otherwise stock 2.0, by the way.

K

[JeffYoung]

300 posts, name calling and acrimonious nonsense on a car that has not run one lap yet, that it is unlikely anyone will build.

Interseting to say the least.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

What do you figure the driveline loss is on one of these cars? 10%? 15%? 20%? more? If it's only 10%, Doug's numbers would indicate that ~145hp is all you're getting out of these motors, even w/ non-IT legal modifications.

Kirk,

Hard to tell from the graph, but it's looking like they're claiming 125-127 hp out of just a chip. I agree, that's probably pretty optimistic. But, it does make me wonder what a chip that was programmed for an IT-prep (increased compression, over-bore, optimized exhaust, etc.) would do.

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

[ITSRX7]

I use 15% as a rule. I know it's different for every car but it's all estimates anyway.

I still think that 145hp is a reasonable estimate.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

I have a proposal to help resolve this issue: Each person who's participated in this conversation can put $200 in the kitty, we'll have an independent shop build a full-boat engine for my MkIII, and I'll post copies of the dyno sheets for anyone who wants to see them...

K

[Geo]

Or better yet, we charge $200 per post. This thread will die the death it should have long ago.


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

[Bill Miller]

Now THAT'S a creative way to get an engine built!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

[Bill Miller]

300!!!


(In just 9 days!!!)

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

[captdanh]

I Had to do a double take here. I thought I was on the Production web site! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

[16v]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I have a proposal to help resolve this issue: Each person who's participated in this conversation can put $200 in the kitty, we'll have an independent shop build a full-boat engine for my MkIII, and I'll post copies of the dyno sheets for anyone who wants to see them...

K

why not skip the BS and go over to VWvortex and ask the NB or 2.0 owners themselves. They will gladly provide dyno numbers and sheets. That's where I got my info



------------------
Doug :)
NER.org (http://ner.org)
the16v.com (http://the16v.com)
briansgarage.com (http://www.briansgarage.com)

[planet6racing]

But, Doug, why would we want to confuse this all with facts? You can use facts to prove anything remotely true! (thanks to Homer Simpson for that one!)

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Knestis]

Originally posted by 16v:
why not skip the BS and go over to VWvortex and ask the NB or 2.0 owners themselves. ...

A. Because VWV NB owners are full of crap and will lie high

B. Because my BS idea gets me a new engine

C. All of the above

K

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
300!!!

(In just 9 days!!!)



Bill,

Is this a record?

G

[itbgti]

Sorry for asking this (I know it was in one of the 300 posts.....):

What is the weight the NB has to be at for ITC (~2700?)

What size wheel does it have to run?

Thanks,
Alan

[Geo]

Originally posted by 16v:
why not skip the BS and go over to VWvortex and ask the NB or 2.0 owners themselves. They will gladly provide dyno numbers and sheets. That's where I got my info

They've already built and dyno tested an IT legal engine for the NB?


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

[turboaudi80]

Here is a copy of an email I sent to Andy B.

If I can ever drag Tim Mullen to the dyno, we can at least get some #'s for the A3 2.0

Andy,

I hear that there is a big stir on the IT list about the NB in ITC. Here is my take, as a professional in the business of making these cars:

15" minimum wheels -- the smallest VW makes in that bolt pattern.
Nice brakes -- better than the 93 ITB golf
Similar motor to the 93 ITB golf (same head+lesser low end+better engine managemnt= a wash)
The transmission is more durable, but it doesn't really need it in IT trim.
probably stiffer chasis, never a bad thing
Aero CD? don't know.

Sounds like an ITB or ITA car to me, may be with a little less weight than 2700.

Let me know what you think, because we have a 99 at the shop right now.

Eli Garrett
Manager
Shine Racing Service
44 Production Rd.
Walpole, MA 02081
508-660-7974

[ITSRX7]

Just talked with Eli on the phone (he is a personal friend as well).

Data pertinent to this thread:

1. Cam is the limiting factor on this motor
2. 144HP? "No way on a legal motor"
3. Dominant in ITC? "Not at 2760."

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 03, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Just talked with Eli on the phone (he is a personal friend as well).
Data pertinent to this thread:
1. Cam is the limiting factor on this motor
2. 144HP? "No way on a legal motor"
3. Dominant in ITC? "Not at 2760."
AB

OK Andy, I want to present this with as little possibility of incrimination or paranoia as possible, but this is the way the thought process goes when one reads these things:

At fisrt Eli reports: "Sounds like an ITB or ITA car to me, may be with a little less weight than 2700. Let me know what you think, because we have a 99 at the shop right now." Sounds like some of the things I've (GRJ) said may indeed be well founded. Guy at Shine (premiere IT VW builder) thinks it should be a B car.)

Then after he (a "personal friend of yours") talks to you on the phone "cam is limiting factor...; 144, no way; dominnant in ITC, not at 2760..."

OK what changed his mind after he talked to you? And is the G-grind legal for the car? Because that might relieve the "limiting factor" on Hp.

He has a '99 at the shop (ready to build for someone?)
OK, I think I perceive some contradiction. I may very well be wrong. I do not believe you have any underhanded motives other than wanting your original decision to be justified - which is of course not unreasonable. But do you see how I may perceive statements when they appear not to agree always with themselves? Did he talk about the gearing?
If you have time, please clarify.
GRJ

[itbgti]

I hate to speak for others, but this is my interpretation (I have spoken with both Eli and Andy today...I HATE name dropping)

The car is a perfect candidate for ITC based on many factors...most important, weight. At 2760, it is a perfect fit for ITC. Now, as Andy has said in past quotes, if this car begins to dominate the ITC field (i.e. shattering track records) then it WILL be corrected. However, many people (including yours truly) does believe that this is a good fit as it stands today.

To get it down to a weight for ITB, MAY be difficult (I dont think anyone has tried yet)...but time and experience will tell. I personally would like this car as another ITB VW option...it could be pretty damn cool....but obviously not at its current weight.

ITA--I really dont think that car should ever be in A.

I forget who said it (kudos and credit given)...but Spec Bug is a GREAT idea...maybe not in the near future, but it is out there....somewhere...waiting...for youuuuuuuu.

Regards,
Alan

[badal]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
300!!!


(In just 9 days!!!)


Big deal-These guys are up to 27 pages:
http://forum.1320stangs.com/index.php?show...topic=5555&st=0 (http://forum.1320stangs.com/index.php?showtopic=5555&st=0)



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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK Andy, I want to present this with as little possibility of incrimination or paranoia as possible, but this is the way the thought process goes when one reads these things:

At fisrt Eli reports: "Sounds like an ITB or ITA car to me, may be with a little less weight than 2700. Let me know what you think, because we have a 99 at the shop right now." Sounds like some of the things I've (GRJ) said may indeed be well founded. Guy at Shine (premiere IT VW builder) thinks it should be a B car.)

Then after he (a "personal friend of yours") talks to you on the phone "cam is limiting factor...; 144, no way; dominnant in ITC, not at 2760..."

OK what changed his mind after he talked to you? And is the G-grind legal for the car? Because that might relieve the "limiting factor" on Hp.

He has a '99 at the shop (ready to build for someone?)
OK, I think I perceive some contradiction. I may very well be wrong. I do not believe you have any underhanded motives other than wanting your original decision to be justified - which is of course not unreasonable. But do you see how I may perceive statements when they appear not to agree always with themselves? Did he talk about the gearing?
If you have time, please clarify.
GRJ



...and I knew this was coming. I stated Eli is a freind in the interest of full-disclosure. As with all ITAC members, we have nothing to hide.

I called Eli because he works for one of the most respected VW tuners in teh country. I too, wanted his take - and he wanted mine. Since he has a real job that doesn't allow him to follow a 300+ post thread, he wrote up the e-mail to me and then sent it to this list.

After I explained the thought process and the calulation process and theories, he agrees that, at 2760lbs, it won't be a killer in ITC. At first look, he thought ITB along with the A3 they just completed for a customer. I told him it wasn't entirely impossible that we could experiment with the A4 Golf in ITB at 2450 while this car runs in ITC at 2760. *I* think it's a great idea.

Furthermore, we talked about the engine and it's ability to make power. It's strengths and weaknesses, etc. 144hp? No way.

So - what does the guy at Shine REALLY think? He thinks it could get down close to ITB weight - but is also convinced it isn't the right choice in ITC at 2760.

Sorry to burst your bubble!

..and the G-grind cam being legal for this car??? Why would you even ask that? Of course it isn't.

AB
(edit - spelling)

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)



[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 03, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Sorry to burst your bubble!
AB


No bubbles burst. First, I feel pretty good. My "knee-jerk reaction" was the same as Eli's: the NB is a B car. He too feels it could get down to B weight (same as I). I was wrong in my Hp estimates, but so were you guys, remember you estimated 144, the same as I? Now our only differences are (again no input on the gearing or whether the G-grind is allowed on it) you want to "experiment" for what I believe you believe are good reasons in that you see it as rejuvenation of the class. I see the experimentation as threatening the integrity (competitiveness) of the class.

I started this whole thing off on the wrong foot (in anger) for that I don't feel pretty good. For intuitively perceiving a B car being placed in C, I don't believe I am entirely wrong. But as you have hammered in "we'll see." Again Good Racing and thank you for your forthrightness, your candor, and perhaps even your patience.

G. Robert Jones
ITC 22 Ford Fiesta
WDCR
N 175061

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 03, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
No bubbles burst. First, I feel pretty good. My "knee-jerk reaction" was the same as Eli's: the NB is a B car. He too feels it could get down to B weight (same as I). I was wrong in my Hp estimates, but so were you guys, remember you estimated 144, the same as I? Now our only differences are (again no input on the gearing or whether the G-grind is allowed on it) you want to "experiment" for what I believe you believe are good reasons in that you see it as rejuvenation of the class. I see the experimentation as threatening the integrity (competitiveness) of the class.

I started this whole thing off on the wrong foot (in anger) for that I don't feel pretty good. For intuitively perceiving a B car being placed in C, I don't believe I am entirely wrong. But as you have hammered in "we'll see." Again Good Racing and thank you for your forthrightness, your candor, and perhaps even your patience.

G. Robert Jones
ITC 22 Ford Fiesta
WDCR
N 175061

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 03, 2004).]

Now this is a post I can get my arms around. Thanks for the 'tone'!

I can see how the first reaction would be ITB. It was ours too. But I think that the weight it can get to would have it languishing in ITB forever. Your first post was just plain over the top.

As far as the power, I personally feel vindicated from some of the comments in this thread. We use a 25% POTENTIAL adder for engines of this design (4cyl sohc, smallish in size). Estimates from top engine builder? 138ish. Keyword? LEGAL. Eli personally doesn't run the G-grind in his VW...they know there are TONS of used stock cams out there...that's how 'legal' the local Shine cars are.

I stand by our decision but also stand by the committment to fix the problem should we upset the competitive balance in ITC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

The curb weight on the A4 Golf is ~45# less than that of a NB. How do you think the Golf will be able to make 2450#, but the NB won't? Is the NB perceived to be that close to making 2450#?

Robert, the G-grind cam hasn't worked in a VW since the A1 chassis cars. It's a solid lifter cam, and all the gas motors from the A2 on, have used hydraulic lifters. Probably not a bad idea to do a little research before making flip comments.

Al,

Yeah, but they're mustang guys that drag race. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

The curb weight on the A4 Golf is ~45# less than that of a NB. How do you think the Golf will be able to make 2450#, but the NB won't? Is the NB perceived to be that close to making 2450#?




Experiment...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

I for one am glad that the current regime is willing to take some chances. It was extreme conservatism that put 2-liter Hondas and Neons in ITS and I am not sad to see that tradition fade away...

K

[Greg Amy]

You know, I can't remember if I'm the good twin or the evil one...

[grjones1]

It's a solid lifter cam, and all the gas motors from the A2 on, have used hydraulic lifters. Probably not a bad idea to do a little research before making flip comments.
------------------
Bill,
But of couse the hydraulic lifter cam could not be ground to the profile of the G-grind?! But to tell you the truth I had forgotten the difference (much the same as your having forgotten that the Rabbit has always been a Golf in Germany). Nevertheless, thank you for that info, why didn't you correct me sooner? And my "flip comments" serve a purpose: no one has yet explained why VW people are permitted the G-grind, and other marques are not given the same advantage. But this returns the thread to the "vortex".

GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I for one am glad that the current regime is willing to take some chances. It was extreme conservatism that put 2-liter Hondas and Neons in ITS and I am not sad to see that tradition fade away...
K

And the extreme conservatism was perhaps a result of the old regime's unwillingness to face irate participants who resist extreme changes (which just occurred to me as a sign of old age.)

And even though I made the comment (on the practice of initially classifying cars in S) in the first post, I really thought that was a bad idea originally. I think researching and working to class a car correctly the first time is the way to go. (And I'm not saying now that that is not what the ITAC has tried to do, we obviously have come round to simply disageeing on the correctness in the case of the NB.)
GRJ

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
...no one has yet explained why VW people are permitted the G-grind, and other marques are not given the same advantage.

This has, actually, been explained many times in previous threads, but I'll repeat it here... there really IS no legal way that the VW people can use this cam... The reason that no one comes right out and gives an explanation is because they don't have any documentation to back them up... It's always something more along the line of "... I recall something about...", or "... well so-and-so told me that..."...

All it's going to take is someone to pony up and actually protest one of these cars...

Personally, I'm not holding my breath waiting for proper documentation to arrive, and I'm not really going to lose any sleep over it...


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
This has, actually, been explained many times in previous threads, but I'll repeat it here... there really IS no legal way that the VW people can use this cam... The reason that no one comes right out and gives an explanation is because they don't have any documentation to back them up... It's always something more along the line of "... I recall something about...", or "... well so-and-so told me that..."...

All it's going to take is someone to pony up and actually protest one of these cars...

Personally, I'm not holding my breath waiting for proper documentation to arrive, and I'm not really going to lose any sleep over it...


Darin,

An earlier post from Bob Burns:

"When I owned my ITC Rabbit, I carried the evidence with me with the car's logbook. The guy who built the car got a copy of the VW parts microfiche that showed the G cam as the replacement for the stock cam in a '79 Rabbit. If you walked into a VW dealer in the early 80s and asked for a replacement cam for a '79 Rabbit, you got a G cam. The ITCS clearly states that factory superceded parts are permitted. The ITCS also states that these superceded parts are to be listed on spec line. So, it would seem that the G cam only meets the GCr halfway."

So evidently, the documentation exists and the only thing wrong (legally) is an administrative error that has failed to have the cam listed on the spec line. The VW people have good reason to believe the cam is legal. The bone of contention is the same allowance is not permitted to other marques.
Now here's the rub as I understand it in the case of the Ford: All superceded parts for Fords are not listed in a standard Dealer parts manual, they come from SVO or "Ford Racing," and I'm not just talking about super modified or NASCAR parts, I'm talking about such benign pieces as the European Fiesta XR2 camshaft. It's listed, but it's listed from "Ford Racing." So you see if I present "the paperwork" the response will be "Oh no, we can't allow "racing" parts to be used in IT" eventhough the cam in question was part of a European production car, just like the G-grind. So you see the wording in the ITCS cannot cover every contingency and no one wants to "lose sleep" over considering every finite issue. And we wind up yelling at each other instead of resolving the issue.
GRJ

[ITSRX7]

This may require a new thread but...

Superceded parts (regardless of dealer nomenclature) are parts that the CRB/BoD have approved for use IN ADDITION to the stock parts which are still available. Examples must be documented, then approved and then listed on the spec line of the specific car.

Replacement parts are parts that are no longer available from the manufacturer and have a 'replacement' part number listed. "Part number 1234-ABC is discontinued by XYZ Manufacturer. Replacement is 1234-DEF". Usually an updated version for a variety of reasons.

Since this is an intereting issue, I will request the CRB to issue a clarification on the G-Grind. Some think it's legal and to the letter right now, it isn't. I will get a clarification on the CRB's current stance.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
This may require a new thread but...
AB


Thanks Andy. And I know I'm pushing but if the G cam is found acceptable, will you give me your thoughts on the XR2 cam and the FF head for the Fiesta. Remember NO OEM parts are available from Ford for the car. The XR2 offers the same conditions as the G cam. The FF head (unmodified by owners) has the same specifications as the stock Fiesta head. I can prove that with documentation from Quicksilver or a number of builders. The only advantage to the FF head for us is that the casting is equal throughout the head so it does'nt crack as easily as the federal heads. [Every used head we have tested (and I'm talking 10-20 heads, we have to repair the cracks to race the car)] has been found cracked regardless of mileage on the donor car. Again thanks for your indulgence.
GRJ

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
...

Superceded parts ...

Replacement parts ...


In the interest of completeness, include those "equivalent" parts that ARE still available from OE sources but can be had through the aftermarket - per the recent proposal from the ITAC.

I don't know if I'm using the term correctly here but it would be helpful for the organization to officially define what each is, how they are different, and what standards of law apply to each - all in very general terms. This might head off individual battles about specific parts on specific cars.

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
In the interest of completeness, include those "equivalent" parts that ARE still available from OE sources but can be had through the aftermarket - per the recent proposal from the ITAC.

I don't know if I'm using the term correctly here but it would be helpful for the organization to officially define what each is, how they are different, and what standards of law apply to each - all in very general terms. This might head off individual battles about specific parts on specific cars.

K
Don't mean to continually but in K, but you provide pure pristine logic, and that would take care of my little individual problems.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You did deserve that Phd.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 04, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">But of couse the hydraulic lifter cam could not be ground to the profile of the G-grind?! </font>

A custom grind that was never produced for the car? Yeah, that'll fly. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

I'm still doing research on the original US 1.5/1.6/1.7 Rabbit cam(s), as well as the Rabbit GTI cam, and the G-grind cam.

And Robert, I never 'forgot' that a Rabbit was known as a Golf in Europe. Not sure what gave you that impression.

Darin,

Glad you're back safe from the race weekend, hope all went well. Have you had a chance to dig up that evidence on the VW motors yet?

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
A custom grind that was never produced for the car? Yeah, that'll fly. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
And Robert, I never 'forgot' that a Rabbit was known as a Golf in Europe. Not sure what gave you that impression.


Bill,
A European cam that was never produced for an American Rabbit/Golf is "flying," why not the same grind on the NB?

You made a quip a few pages ago, "Robert, the last Rabbit sold in this country was 20 years ago." I assumed that if you remembered a Rabbit is a Golf (and I'm fully aware of the mechanical and cosmetic changes between an American Rabbit and an American Golf, so don't go there), you wouldn't have made that statement. That's all.
I really don't wish to continue the vituperation, but if you are going to quip, I am going to quip back.
G. Robert

[Geo]

To address why the G-grind VW cam might be legal vs other cases....

I have not had time to verify this, but rumor has it that the G-grind cam has officially superceded the old cam. Sally Soggysocks is rebuilding her Wabbit and goes to the dealer to get a cam. The parts guy looks up the part number and the dealer documentation says the original cam is NLA and has been replaced with the G-grind cam.

This is the rumor. Supposedly this was backed up some years ago by a letter from Volkswagen of America to verify that this supersession is offical and every Joe Blow that wants a new cam from teh dealer for their Wabbit will received the G-grind.

Subtle, but important difference from cases is that in other cases there are factory parts that can be used in the application and may or may not be available from the factory's "performance" or motorsports division. This clearly is not a supersession. For almost all makes you can find parts from other applications in the parts bin that not only will work but are also desireable. But if they are not official supersessions by the manufacturer, it's not legal.

The line is somewhat fuzzy here of course. Ultimately it comes down to the CRB (usually with a recommendation from the ITAC) to make the call. I assure you nobody is playing favorites. In fact, I can assure you the ITAC has spent a lot of time on this issue and continues to do so.

I will agree personally that the issue of replacement vs supersession parts has been muddied in the ITCS. In this I do disagree with some of my colleagues in the ITAC. But, we continue to work on this issue. I mention this not to publicly disagree with my colleagues, air dirty laundry, or try to further a point. I'm doing it to point out once again that reasonable people can disagree and it still happens in the ITAC. We continue to work on this issue however. We all are trying hard to bring it into better clarity.

BTW, my personal disagreement is not what the ITCS says, but rahter what it should say. I think the wording got screwed up. I think superceded parts should not require line item listing, but replacement parts should.


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

[Bill Miller]

A European cam that was never produced for an American Rabbit/Golf is "flying," why not the same grind on the NB?


Pretty simple Robert, the G-grind cam was a factory cam, VW listed this as the part for the US cars when the original part was NLA. It's the only factory available part for the car, how would it be anything but legal? Now, a custom grind that was never produced for the application in question. It doesn't matter if they made the same grind for another application or not.

Here's another example. The A2 cars have a larger bore throttle body than the A1 cars. That's the legal part for those cars. Since it's a legal part, by your logic, I should be able to run that on an A1 car.

As far as this supercede/replacement issue goes, here's a question. We'll use the VW cam example, because the background seems to be pretty well laid out here. You've got 2 cars, X and Y. Both are ITC VW Rabbits w/1.6 FI motors. Both cars are 1979 Rabbits. Car X is running the original cam that was delivered in the car in '79, while car Y is running the G-grind cam that he bought at his local VW dealership last year. Driver of car X protests driver of car Y for an illegal cam, and the driver of car Y does the same thing to the driver of car X. Protest gets heard, and they call the local VW dealer requesting the p/n for the cam for these cars. Dealer gives the p/n for the G-grind cam. What's the overall outcome?

I can see this happening, as the dealers probably don't keep all of the old p/n's when replacement parts have been issued. I don't ever recall seeing the p/n for a cam in a VW service manual. How do you prove which one of these cams is legal? Are they both legal?

Here's a question I asked before, that I'll throw out to the ITAC folks again. Has anyone been able to find out how/when/why the Saturn hubs were allowed the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 cars in ITS?

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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Geo:
To address why the G-grind VW cam might ... I think superceded parts should not require line item listing, but replacement parts should.


Using the terms as I understand them, you have hit precisely on the nut of the issue as I understand it. Thanks.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Dealer gives the p/n for the G-grind cam. What's the overall outcome?

I can see this happening, as the dealers probably don't keep all of the old p/n's when replacement parts have been issued.

I know for certain that Nissan lists the original P/N as well as any supersession parts. I would imagine other manufacturers do as well. They have to be able to cross reference.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Using the terms as I understand them, you have hit precisely on the nut of the issue as I understand it. Thanks.

K

I agree that these terms need to be defined more clearly Kirk.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Pretty simple Robert, the G-grind cam was a factory cam,...

Bill,
Please! Thanks for your points, they are germane to the G grind discussion, but my remark was with tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't serious. Sorry if I confused you.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
To address why the G-grind VW cam might be legal vs other cases....

Subtle, but important difference from cases is that in other cases there are factory parts that can be used in the application and may or may not be available from the factory's "performance" or motorsports division. This clearly is not a supersession. For almost all makes you can find parts from other applications in the parts bin that not only will work but are also desireable. But if they are not official supersessions by the manufacturer, it's not legal.

The line is somewhat fuzzy here of course. Ultimately it comes down to the CRB (usually with a recommendation from the ITAC) to make the call. I assure you nobody is playing favorites. In fact, I can assure you the ITAC has spent a lot of time on this issue and continues to do so.
...
But, we continue to work on this issue. I mention this not to publicly disagree with my colleagues, air dirty laundry, or try to further a point. I'm doing it to point out once again that reasonable people can disagree and it still happens in the ITAC. We continue to work on this issue however. We all are trying hard to bring it into better clarity.

BTW, my personal disagreement is not what the ITCS says, but rahter what it should say. I think the wording got screwed up. I think superceded parts should not require line item listing, but replacement parts should.


Geo,
This is as good an explanation of the situation as I've read. (Not that that necssarily means anything to anyone.) But the problem is that because of the situation as you aptly describe it, ITC cars other than the VWs are, and have been for years, racing against a camshaft that out performs any other in the field (I have no specs immediately at hand but one must assume the lift, duration , and ramp speed are superior to other federal stock cams). And we have no means presently to match the "good fortune" of the VWs. I believe this is not a question of particular cars not having been competitive (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are not responsible), but a case where rules have been inadequately imposed that grant a competitive advantage to one marque (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are responsible).

Now, whether or not the cam is a replacement or a supercession, the situation is other marques don't get the same break. And although I believe the "ITAC has spent a lot of time on this issue and continues to do so," it may be time to resolve it one way or the other.

Thanks for your continued and I hope immediate attention.
GRJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
But the problem is that because of the situation as you aptly describe it, ITC cars other than the VWs are, and have been for years, racing against a camshaft that out performs any other in the field (I have no specs immediately at hand but one must assume the lift, duration , and ramp speed are superior to other federal stock cams).


All manufacturers may supercede parts at anytime. Disallowing a supersession part would not be fair either. It's a complicated issue. We're not trying to skirt the issue, just make sure if we do anything (including accepting status quo) that we are doing the right thing.

BTW, if VWoA superceded the original federal cams with the g-grind, I have to assume they are also federalized (although this has me wondering). I can't say I know for sure, but I would have to imagine any such part that is superceded must also be approved by whatever agencies approve engines for use in cars sold in the US. Maybe that's a federal loop hole though.


Originally posted by grjones1:
And we have no means presently to match the "good fortune" of the VWs.

Let's step back from this a bit.

Some cars have better cams than others. Or better something than others. In the case of a superceded part, you simply must accept it as if that part came on the car when it was built. The Wabbits did not get a performance adjustment. The manufacturer simply changed cams if we believe all the lore around these cams (and this is open to investigation and debate right now).


Originally posted by grjones1:
I believe this is not a question of particular cars not having been competitive (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are not responsible), but a case where rules have been inadequately imposed that grant a competitive advantage to one marque (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are responsible).

I don't look at it quite the same way. I think the rule may have been written in mud, but I don't know that I agree it is being inadequately imposed and certainly not unfairly imposed.

Manufacturers can and do supercede parts every day. It's their prerogative. IT rules are written to simply accept this.

We're down to semantics, but it helps us draw lines. If one manufacturer supercedes a NLA part with one that happens to perform better, that's their prerogative. If others simply list the part as NLA with no supersession listed, despite a part that may work from another car, that's their prerogative as well. It's a subtle distinction, but one that must be made.


Originally posted by grjones1:
Now, whether or not the cam is a replacement or a supercession, the situation is other marques don't get the same break. And although I believe the "ITAC has spent a lot of time on this issue and continues to do so," it may be time to resolve it one way or the other.

Again, it's semantics, but nobody is being given a "break" here. The issue of supersession vs replacement is critical and though they are quite similar, they are also different. IMHO the wording in the rules got screwed up and we also don't have clear working definitions to help us either.

All of this said, my personal concern (and that of much of, if not all of, the ITAC) is whether the proper documentation actually exists somewhere. We hear about it a lot, including in this thread. If the documentation exists, we are only left with poor rule writing and/or lack of clear definitions. I think we'll settle this one. It honestly may not happen immediately because quite frankly there are bigger fish to fry. But it's clearly on our radar screen. Even if all we end up doing is confirming the stories about this cam and its legality, that will still be an accomplishment.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
[/B]

Thanks, George.
GRJ

[apr67]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Here's a question I asked before, that I'll throw out to the ITAC folks again. Has anyone been able to find out how/when/why the Saturn hubs were allowed the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 cars in ITS?



I belive this is because in Showroom Stock form these cars had a bad habit of breaking the hubs in an unpredictable fashion. And ergo it was allowed as a 'saftey issue'. I have no inside knowledge, but this was hashed out on either the wheeltowheel mailing list, or more likely on the old Compuserve Racer forums.

Alan Russell

Feeling old.

[badal]

Regarding G Grinds:
There is a specific protest procedure in the GCR for checking cams. 13.4.1.E
Basically, it involves procuring a known stock example of a cam. Both it and the cam in question are sent to Kansas for examination (Cam Proctologist)

It stands to reason the stock cam would be obtained from a local dealer.

Therefore, the cam the dealer provides would be legal if it is a superseceded/replacement/whatever you want to call it, as long as it is listed for that year/make/model.

In conclusion, the G grind provided by the dealer would be found legal.

Class dismissed.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by badal:
Regarding G Grinds:
It stands to reason the stock cam would be obtained from a local dealer.

Therefore, the cam the dealer provides would be legal if it is a superseceded/replacement/whatever you want to call it, as long as it is listed for that year/make/model.
In conclusion, the G grind provided by the dealer would be found legal.
Class dismissed.

Al, The problem of course, as I'm sure you know, is that VW has the only dealers providing a European spec cam for ITC model cars. (I know: "tough shizitzki"!)
GRJ
Am I going in circles here? Gee, I thought I could turn left and right??!??



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 05, 2004).]

[zracer22]

Devil's advocate:

So what? Put it in ITC. If it dominates the class, then it's only a sign of growth and moving forward. The E36 did it to ITS, and the CRX did it to ITA. Why should ITC be exempt from the process?

[Knestis]

I think the point on the G-grind cam is that the SCCA defers to the manufacturer to make its own decisions about supercede parts.

The QUESTION is what kind of documentation is going to be held as the standard of law to define what IS or is NOT a supercede. Since each manufacturer may do it completely differently, the standard must accommodate a broad variety of practice (e.g., "published through official service bulletins"). Otherwise, each supercede decision WILL have to be made by the CRB and that is a horrible idea.

The fact that no other manufacturer has done what VW seems to have done just doesn't matter, unless the question at hand is whether the existing "supercede" rule should be changed.

K

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...The QUESTION is what kind of documentation is going to be held as the standard of law to define what IS or is NOT a supercede. Since each manufacturer may do it completely differently, the standard must accommodate a broad variety of practice (e.g., "published through official service bulletins"). Otherwise, each supercede decision WILL have to be made by the CRB and that is a horrible idea.

Exactly. And it gets worse, because lift and duration figures, which is what will probably be published in "official service bulletins", are just part of the story.

In order to fully describe a cam one needs a polar plot of lift, i.e. lift throughout a full rotation. This lobe profile exists for both intake and exhaust valves, so a true spec for a "stock" cam must overlay both valves' polar plots to account for overlap.

Simple, eh? Yeah, right. Like you're gonna find that at the parts counter.

At some point someone has to say, "Close enough."

Gregg

[edit: spelling]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited August 05, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by badal:
Regarding G Grinds:
There is a specific protest procedure in the GCR for checking cams. 13.4.1.E
Basically, it involves procuring a known stock example of a cam. Both it and the cam in question are sent to Kansas for examination (Cam Proctologist)

It stands to reason the stock cam would be obtained from a local dealer.

Therefore, the cam the dealer provides would be legal if it is a superseceded/replacement/whatever you want to call it, as long as it is listed for that year/make/model.

In conclusion, the G grind provided by the dealer would be found legal.

Class dismissed.



Sorry Al, but you fail here. Just because a dealer gives you a part, it does not mean it's legal. It's just not that simple. It's further complicated by the wording in the ITCS.


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

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> the situation is other marques don't get the same break.</font>

Robert,

You're twisting things a bit there aren't you? What 'break' do the VW's get? This is the cam, supplied by the dealer, for the car. It just so happens that the part was previously sold in Europe, before it was supplied in the US.

And just how don't marques, other than VW, get to take advantage of the same process?

You want to harp on something that may not be exactly cricket, go after the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hubs. Interesting comment about the safety issue. If that's really the case, the A1 VW's should be allowed to use the A2 hubs. It's a well known fact that A1 VW's are prone to breaking front hubs.

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

[badal]

Originally posted by Geo:
Sorry Al, but you fail here. Just because a dealer gives you a part, it does not mean it's legal. It's just not that simple. It's further complicated by the wording in the ITCS.





Then where do you get a known example of a stock cam? And I said it would be "found legal". That does not mean it is legal, just that it can't be proven illegal.

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

[This message has been edited by badal (edited August 05, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by zracer22:
Devil's advocate:

So what? Put it in ITC. If it dominates the class, then it's only a sign of growth and moving forward. The E36 did it to ITS, and the CRX did it to ITA. Why should ITC be exempt from the process?

Careful , you are beginning to sound like the "devil". And he's trying to be "forgiven".
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Robert,

You're twisting things a bit there aren't you? What 'break' do the VW's get? This is the cam, supplied by the dealer, for the car. It just so happens that the part was previously sold in Europe, before it was supplied in the US.

And just how don't marques, other than VW, get to take advantage of the same process?
[quote]

What's being favored here are cars that were produced and imported in large numbers. The G cam exists because there are enough Rabbits hopping around to justify even having the part available. Cars like the Fiestas, Opels, and X1/9s, to name a few, have no dealer support. So we have no "means" to take advantage of any supersession/replacement rule. We do have importers who will supply us OEM parts and use parts lists from European and OEM performance departments, but they aren't included in the rule because they are not "dealers". That's the "break" I'm referring to.
GRJ
___________________________________________
You want to harp on something that may not be exactly cricket, go after the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hubs. Interesting comment about the safety issue. If that's really the case, the A1 VW's should be allowed to use the A2 hubs. It's a well known fact that A1 VW's are prone to breaking front hubs.

Addressed this issue in another post about six months ago. I'm all in favor of safe hubs for everyone, as long as they don't mean larger rotors, etc. I beleive you were privy to that discussion. I think I said any rule that adds to safety (including removal of the passenger side door glass (which serves no purpose), especially one that resolves the weak hubs on cars being raced should be written immediately. But, I was shot down with such indisputable logic as stronger hubs would give a car an advantage in an enduro. I figure if someone can offer that up as a good reason to disallow keeping wheels on the cars, what's the use? If I were racing an A1, I'd use the good hubs and whoever protested me could suffer the ostracism and ridicule he deserves.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 05, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by badal:
Then where do you get a known example of a stock cam?

From a dealer of course. As long as they are still available, either as the original cam or as a supersession.

The problem that exists is parts-bin engineering. A dealer may know a given part will work, but if the manufacturer didn't officially suspercede the original part with it, then it would not be legal even though it fits and you got it from the dealer.

Let me temper this with saying that I believe the above is the way it is supposed to work. The wording is muddy and definitions lacking leaving the situation open to argument.

As a working group with over 300 cars (and growing) it's nearly impossible to look at allowing parts-bin engineering (not that it hasn't happened obviously, see the discussion about the Olds), so it comes down to what the manufacturers do IMHO. We just need to straighten out the wording and/or create working definitions.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
What's being favored here are cars that were produced and imported in large numbers. The G cam exists because there are enough Rabbits hopping around to justify even having the part available. Cars like the Fiestas, Opels, and X1/9s, to name a few, have no dealer support.

Too bad, so sad. What's your point? It's not the responsibility of the BOD, CRB, or ITAC to say "oh, this car needs a break because there is A, B or C."

It sounds like I'm being harsh, but that's the reality here.


Originally posted by grjones1:
So we have no "means" to take advantage of any supersession/replacement rule. We do have importers who will supply us OEM parts and use parts lists from European and OEM performance departments, but they aren't included in the rule because they are not "dealers".

You're taking two differnt things here and trying to merge them together. VW didn't offer a "hot" cam from their European parts bin per se. They officially superceded the original cam. Manufacturers change part numbers and parts performance all the time. That another manufacturer hasn't done this is no reason to allow performance OEM products from other markets and/or applications. Again, if the legend of the G-grind is true, you simply have to look at it as if VW offered the car for sale with this cam because of their supersession.


Originally posted by grjones1:
I think I said any rule that adds to safety (including removal of the passenger side door glass (which serves no purpose), especially one that resolves the weak hubs on cars being raced should be written immediately.

The bottom line is we could argue ALL SORTS of performance enhancing items on the basis of safety. That one will not get off the ground. And you can argue that you want something that is not performance enhancing, but better reliability, but I say that's not even going down the bunny slope. That's a black diamond (advanced and very dangerous for your non-skiers, IIRC).

------------------
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 August 05, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by badal:

Then where do you get a known example of a stock cam? And I said it would be "found legal". That does not mean it is legal, just that it can't be proven illegal.



Lets say you're a VW competitor, and bought out a failing dealerships part supplies years ago for your specialty repair and racing business. You happen to have a bunch of 1978 VW original equipment cams, with the original correct part number.

Your competitor does not, but needs a cam, so he goes and gets one from the dealer in 2003. As they no longer have the original, they hand him the "g grind" and off he goes.

A third competitor gets wind of this and protests him. He provides the documentation of the correct part number, and even provides your name as a source of the actual part, a new (NOS) sealed in the box cam.

The follow thru has you shipping the part to Kansas, the Stewards shipping the protested "G grind" to Kansas, where they are both run on the "Cam doctor", which as I understand it, provides the polar plot Gregg refered to.

A third cam is procured from VWNA by the independent source that does the actual testing. (This is not the standard practice, but was the procedure followed in a recent SM camshaft protest, so I feel it is appropriate) They also try to source an original part, but it appears you have purchased the last of the NOS ones.

Test results show: The cam supplied as NOS has different polar plots than the other two, which match each other. It also has a different p/n than the other two, which also have p/ns that match each other.

So, what will the decision be?

1: The protest is upheld as the G grind does not meet the specs of the original cam?

2: The protest is upheld because the G grind does not have the correct p/n stamped on it as does the original cam?

3: The protest is disallowed because the source of the original cam is not considered to be trustworthy?

4: The protest is upheld because the G grind part number is not listed as a line item in the ITCS?


All of the above?

The crux of your question is: Who does the onus of proof fall upon....the protester or the protestee? In other words, innocent until proven guilty or vice versa?

Some interesting related GCR tidbits:

In the ITCS, it states the parts that are non original ARE allowed, providing that the "Documentation of.....must be supplied to the Club Racing Board, and the ...part numbers listed ...in the specification line."
OK, fine, but it leaves out the important standard: WHO supples the documentation?

And another, in the section regarding protests, and the procedure for cam checking by the head office: 13.4.1.E.2, "A known stock example of the camshaft in question must be provided with the protested camshaft...."

Again...by whom? And how is "known" verified??

Thoughts?



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

[Greg Amy]

Therapy is expensive, popping bubble wrap is cheap.

You choose.

[grjones1]

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B] George,
i was asked what "break" the VW people were getting with the rule, and I was simply explaining how the VWs were getting that break. I wasn't looking for any sympathy, especially from this crowd. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

On the safety thing, I strongly disagree with your position there. When racecars are losing their wheels habitually and you have the means to keep those wheels on the car and don't allow use of the means, you are simply being bullheaded. I can't imagine what possible "speed" advantage a heavy-duty hub permits. (And please don't come up with "if I know my wheels won't fall off, I can go faster." And please don't talk about if I service or replace my hubs regularly they won't fall off, they will and they do. I understand your position: you don't want to have to consider every claim for a safety item that you know may be a performance enhancer. And I appreciate the reasoning, but in the case of front hubs, that is definitely not an issue. And I'll be just as bullheaded on this one, so let's keep our disagreement in line. You have the power to ignore me and keep the rule as it stands, I have the power to howl at the moon.
GRJ

George, I must add: when the guy in that legal ITC Rabbit doesn't make it back to his wife and kids after losing his wheel because of weak hubs, at the end of the 1.5-mile straight at VIR and rolls his Rabbit and himself up into a little ball, will you be as unwilling to determine the difference between a safety issue and a performance one?

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 05, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 05, 2004).]

[badal]

Jake, My original post had the part coming from the dealer. And George, of course I meant it ould be a part specified for the car. I think you and I are arguing the same point.
So if the G grind is the standard, I guess it is conceivable an original stock cam could be not legal.

And if you have a Fiat or Fiesta, apparently you can run any cam you please as there are no Fiat Dealers or Ford stock cams available. GRobert, shame on you for not picking up on this and keeping your mouth shut!

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by badal:

And if you have a Fiat or Fiesta, apparently you can run any cam you please as there are no Fiat Dealers or Ford stock cams available. GRobert, shame on you for not picking up on this and keeping your mouth shut!

As a matter of fact Al, I made a similar comment about two volumes ago. Have a little faith will you? I'm here, I'm just trying to be timely (and mannerly) with my remarks.
G.

[badal]

Sorry G Robert. No serious offense intended.
Hey!I just realized its been a while since I saw a Datsun dealer. I smell loophole!

[grjones1]

Originally posted by badal:
Sorry G Robert. No serious offense intended.
Hey!I just realized its been a while since I saw a Datsun dealer. I smell loophole!

No offense taken. You got it, Babe! No dealer, no new parts available, nothing illegal.

Hey, please join us at VIR with the 510 in the Fall, just to let people know how competitive the MARRS contingent can be away from Summit. (God knows you don't want me having to hold up the banner.) By the way, I passed that red Civic (SARRC record holder) on the first lap of Sunday's race before I lost it at Hogpen. But don't tell anybody.
G.


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
Therapy is expensive, popping bubble wrap is cheap.

You choose.

Sounds an awful lot like crinkling Reynolds Wrap too. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by badal:
So if the G grind is the standard, I guess it is conceivable an original stock cam could be not legal.

A very nice try, but no (OK, there may be some weird exception).

When a manufacturer supercedes parts, the original part number is usually listed. All supersession parts with be listed as well and in a notes area of the original part, all supersession parts are usually listed. ALL of those part would be legal.

Hold on, I have to adjust my Reynolds Wrap while popping bubble wrap....

OK, I'm back. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by badal:
And if you have a Fiat or Fiesta, apparently you can run any cam you please as there are no Fiat Dealers or Ford stock cams available. GRobert, shame on you for not picking up on this and keeping your mouth shut!

No habla Ingles. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

[Bill Miller]

If I were racing an A1, I'd use the good hubs and whoever protested me could suffer the ostracism and ridicule he deserves.


Why would someone that protests illegal parts 'deserve' [sic] ridicule and ostracism? This kind of attitude is a) pretty disturbing, and B) one of the reasons why we keep hearing that everyone in IT is cheating.

And yes Robert, I was part of the hub discussion. In fact, I asked the question about the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hubs then, and got no answer. Darin/Andy/George (and any of the other ITAC/CBR members that may be lurking), how about some info on this? This seems like a major exception to the rules. And, I don't think GM listed the Saturn hub as a replacement/superceding part for the other cars.

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

[apr67]

Bill.

I don't think the Olds hub was a little problem like A1 rabbit hubs are. My A1 rabbit would go 20 races or so on a hub (as long as I used GOOD quality OEM German hubs, not mexican!). I think the olds might not have lasted nearly as long. But that was miles ago.

Of course, if we are talking about saftey, then pinto's would be required to run a fuel cell, right?

Alan

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why would someone that protests illegal parts 'deserve' [sic] ridicule and ostracism? This kind of attitude is a) pretty disturbing, and B) one of the reasons why we keep hearing that everyone in IT is cheating.


Bill,
It's kind of like driving from your house ten miles in any direction without breaking a traffic law, almost impossible. For example, how many people give a turn signal before turning out of their driveway? We went through all this and I have a feeling you are baiting me in an attempt to have me say cheating is OK, and I'm going to quote Thomas Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..."

No, Bill, I don't think cheating is OK, but I do think that when rules are inadequately prescribed and rulesmakers refuse to go to the effort to perfect them, they must be dealt with in whatever fashion reasonable men find available.

Who decides when they are inadequate and establshes the available means? The community that must operate within those rules.
GRJ

In the words of the indomitable Bad Al Bell,
"Class dismissed." (Which I consider the best line in this whole harangue.) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by apr67:
Bill.

I don't think the Olds hub was a little problem like A1 rabbit hubs are. My A1 rabbit would go 20 races or so on a hub (as long as I used GOOD quality OEM German hubs, not mexican!). I think the olds might not have lasted nearly as long. But that was miles ago.

Of course, if we are talking about saftey, then pinto's would be required to run a fuel cell, right?

Alan

Fuel cells are highly recommended and allowed. Heavy duty hubs are considered illegal.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[Knestis]

The "try it in ITC" approach might actually fly since it sounds like the current ITAC has the stones to work to undo something if it appears to be a mistake.

This will of course require that the CRB step up as well and maybe the hub gimme on the Olds would be a good test case to see if the system at large is willing to change something back, in the face of objection from a small opposition with a vested interest to lose.

Maybe it gets put in broader terms as a recommendation from the ITAC to scour all of these oddball allowances out of the ITCS.

K

EDIT - it's embedded in this suggestion that I agree with others here that asking for specific allowances using "safety concerns" as a rationale is a terrible idea.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 06, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:


EDIT - it's embedded in this suggestion that I agree with others here that asking for specific allowances using "safety concerns" as a rationale is a terrible idea.

K,
In this instance, you really disappoint me. But I am thouroughly aware, you will lose no sleep over it.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
Sounds an awful lot like crinkling Reynolds Wrap too. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


Now this is the kind of attitude that gets to me. It just occurred to me that beyond my own ramblings how much shorter this thread would have been without the insipid aluminum foil quips. (And I'm calling the quips insipid, not the quippers. (See, nice.)
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I'd argue loudly that I'm among the most pro-safety club racing drivers around.

I wear a four(!) layer suit, use multi-layer gloves and socks and a skirt on my closed-face helmet, buy only the best harnesses and seat available in the world, and have just received my Isaac head and neck restraint system. Don't go suggesting that I'm a shirker on this front without looking at the amount of time, money, and *weight* that I have invested in my rollcage.

It's not that I don't believe that we can make IT cars safer - I do. I just don't have any faith in the motivations of racers as a group. I have seen WAY too many changes suggested nominally for the good of "safety" that are either thinly-veiled arguments for (a) a competitive advantage, (B) a general increase in speed of the category as a whole, or © some sense of what "race cars are supposed to look like."

We are allowed to remove interiors and headliners because someone made the case on the grounds that they are a fire hazard. (I was around when this change happened.) What has the savings been in real terms, thanks to that change? How many fires in IT cars have made it to the passenger compartment while the driver was still in the car? How many cases of fire in classes where the interiors must remain have been aggravated by these materials?

It's like political arguments that get put in terms of "what's good for kids." You CAN'T argue against KIDS, can you? If someone is worried about their Olds hubs, they need to replace them.

Argued to its logical extreme - always an interesting exercise - we can make every IT car infinitely more safe by requiring that they stay locked in garages. Heck - they'd be safer not even being built, since people hurt themselves in their garages. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'd argue loudly that I'm among the most pro-safety club racing drivers around.


It's not that I don't believe that we can make IT cars safer - I do. I just don't have any faith in the motivations of racers as a group. I have seen WAY too many changes suggested nominally for the good of "safety" that are either thinly-veiled arguments for (a) a competitive advantage, (B) a general increase in speed of the category as a whole, or © some sense of what "race cars are supposed to look like."

Argued to its logical extreme - always an interesting exercise - we can make every IT car infinitely more safe by requiring that they stay locked in garages. Heck - they'd be safer not even being built, since people hurt themselves in their garages. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K
K,
I'm somewhat vindicated in seeing that I'm not the only one who loses his objectivity, when he's made angry. And I thought I was the only one on this thread who could exhibit so little faith in his fellow man as to beleive that every call for a safety consideration hides ulterior motives. Sounds like mine is not the only house visited by the black helicopters.

It's great that you use all the latest safety equipment, but you also drive a car that has well-designed front hubs, so you don't have to worry about your wheels falling off. Evidently the A1 people do have a problem.

Now, please explain to me with other than the concern for precedence argument and your abject cynicism, what possible speed advantage a heavy duty hub provides. What possible motive would I have other than keeping my wheels on the car?

And please don't begin with the "wart" argument. No one could possibly predict which cars are going to exhibit design flaws until they are raced. (And I'm not suggesting all design flaws must be considered, only those which are obvious safety hazards and can be corrected without giving a performance advantage.

And, K, cages don't necessarily have to be "heavy" to exhibit structural integrity. And one fire in one car is enough of an argument to get rid of flammable material. Talk to Earnhardt, Jr.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Now this is the kind of attitude that gets to me. It just occurred to me that beyond my own ramblings how much shorter this thread would have been without the insipid aluminum foil quips. (And I'm calling the quips insipid, not the quippers. (See, nice.)
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 06, 2004).]

GR, it's just an attempt to make people laugh amidst the arguing. In my case, I thought Greg was being funny and tried to respond in kind. I don't see any harm being done and I must say, Greg's comments are the only ones in this thread that truly gave me a chuckle.

I don't know that Greg directed his fun any anyone in particular. Now, I'd buy you both a beer, if I could only get his damned foil out of the pitcher. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
GR, it's just an attempt to make people laugh amidst the arguing. In my case, I thought Greg was being funny and tried to respond in kind. I don't see any harm being done and I must say, Greg's comments are the only ones in this thread that truly gave me a chuckle.

I don't know that Greg directed his fun any anyone in particular. Now, I'd buy you both a beer, if I could only get his damned foil out of the pitcher. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


George,
I've initiated so much diatribe, I'm assuming every jab is aimed directly at me. But anyone who is willing to buy me a beer is OK in my book. (Boy, am I easy.) And believe it or not, I do appreciate the humor.
G.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Geo:
...and I must say, Greg's comments are the only ones in this thread that truly gave me a chuckle.

Well thanks!

Okay, I will admit that Greg's sense of humor is razor sharp and delivered with a hair trigger, but don't I at least get honorable mention? Or how about Jake? He is always good for a grin, not to mention unbounded insight.

Did someone say "beer"? TGIF.

Gregg

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'd argue loudly that I'm among the most pro-safety club racing drivers around...buy only the best harnesses and seat available in the world, and have just received my Isaac head and neck restraint system.


I also feel like I am one of the most pro-safety racers around too.

Since this thread has been all over the place, I don't mind initiating another hijack.

What seat do you have? Recaro, LaJoie, Racetech, or ? Did you research the various FIA certification standards to decide which FIA seat was better than the next?

My current car (Formula Ford) has a Pennon Composite IndiBead seat in it. I love it and feel pretty darn safe. Many of the open wheel guys sit right in/on the aluminum pan and firewall bulkhead over the fuel cell. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

I will be in another car sometime soon and will be purchasing a seat. I have yet to do much research and am interested in what you found.


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

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by grjones1:
...what possible speed advantage a heavy duty hub provides. What possible motive would I have other than keeping my wheels on the car?

I can't speak for Kirk, but I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

If I could run heavier duty hubs I could stress them more without worrying about failure.

Maybe it would be more desireable to have heavier spring rates, stiffer bar rates, wider track, stickier rubber or other brake compounds which equate to higher temps.

I could utilize the money normally spent replacing the weak hubs on fresh tires on a more regular basis.

Allowing me to upgrade to heavier duty hubs will allow me to go faster than I otherwise could. The hubs themselves will not make me faster but will allow me to utilize other legal components which will.



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

[Quickshoe]

Deleted duplicate post.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited August 06, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Geo:
.... and I must say, Greg's comments are the only ones in this thread that truly gave me a chuckle.



NOW I'm pissed!!!!!!!!!

First, I take the "You're no man" crap GRJ hurls at me, THEN I go to the MAT for you ITAC guys defending your very integrity, (and take even more derision and suggestions of a personal agenda), then I even post a semi funny "Awards" post, just to lighten things up...and THATS the thanks I get???
"Gregs the only guy to give..." you even a chuckle?? Well, say no more!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 06, 2004).]

[Knestis]

First - I'm a whole long way from angry. You haven't SEEN angry. I'm not even mildly pissed off. (Note the use of the smiley face, Darren!) My objectivity remains intact and I'd remind you that the fact that one doesn't agree with another's position makes it niether wrong nor irrational.


Originally posted by grjones1:
Now, please explain to me with other than the concern for precedence argument and your abject cynicism, what possible speed advantage a heavy duty hub provides. ...

What Daryl said so well. I don't have anything to add.

D - I have a Recaro SPG Racer.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/itcockpit2.jpg

I did a lot of shopping around and since I absolutely wanted head restraints and was on SOME budget, my options were limited. I've used Recaro seats since the early '90s and am impressed with their strength - plain and simple, they are stouter than the other options.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
NOW I'm pissed!!!!!!!!!

First, I take the "You're no man" crap GRJ hurls at me, THEN I go to the MAT for you ITAC guys defending your very integrity, (and take even more derision and suggestions of a personal agenda), then I even post a semi funny "Awards" post, just to lighten things up...and THATS the thanks I get???
"Gregs the only guy to give..." you even a chuckle?? Well, say no more!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif



I'm embarassed and must now walk over to the wall to have rotten tomatos hurled at me.

I forgot about your post Jake. Of course, it's been hard to keep the 300+ posts in this thread together in my head. Launch away!


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

[lateapex911]

Nahhhhh...I was kiddin'!

Just thought the thread had been lacking some irrational emotions and some misplaced anger, so i threw that in...

Sorry about forgetting the smiley a few carriage returns down!

No worries! And no tomatoes!

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:

If I could run heavier duty hubs I could stress them more without worrying about failure.

Maybe it would be more desireable to have heavier spring rates, stiffer bar rates, wider track, stickier rubber or other brake compounds which equate to higher temps.
Allowing me to upgrade to heavier duty hubs will allow me to go faster than I otherwise could. The hubs themselves will not make me faster but will allow me to utilize other legal components which will.


Sorry Daryl, just doesn't hold water at least in my case: Since I've changed to heavier springs, bigger bars, and stiffer shocks, and added a front sway bar, I've broken fewer hubs. Cornering speeds up, hub replacement down. Probably something to do with holding the hub stationary (i.e., less play even under increased stress) is my purely intuitive guess. Nice try with countering my statement but your speculation is not based on fact, at least in my practical experience.

I don't think I know of anyone who limits their use of "other legal components" which allow them to go faster, because they have weak hubs.

And, tell me Daryl, how many hubs has your FF broken, that is without having hit something?

And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends.
Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 07, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
NOW I'm pissed!!!!!!!!!

First, I take the "You're no man" crap GRJ hurls at me, THEN I go to the MAT for you ITAC guys defending your very integrity, (and take even more derision and suggestions of a personal agenda), then I even post a semi funny "Awards" post, just to lighten things up...and THATS the thanks I get???
"Gregs the only guy to give..." you even a chuckle?? Well, say no more!
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif


Jake, as far as your making it as a stand-up, don't give up your day job. But if I threatened your virility, I apologize.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
First - I'm a whole long way from angry. You haven't SEEN angry. I'm not even mildly pissed off. (Note the use of the smiley face, Darren!) My objectivity remains intact and I'd remind you that the fact that one doesn't agree with another's position makes it niether wrong nor irrational.
K

Oh, I don't know,K, when someone goes off on what a safety nut he is to make a point that considering allowing better hubs in a racing class is out of the question.: and when someone suggests that anyone seeking a safety item be allowed in the rules is just looking for a performance advantage, I detect more than a little irrationality.

Disagreeing with me doesn't necessarily make you wrong or irrational, your argument is what I find less objective and more irrational than any I've ever heard from you.
GRJ

[Catch22]

Originally posted by grjones1:
By the way, I passed that red Civic (SARRC record holder) on the first lap of Sunday's race before I lost it at Hogpen. But don't tell anybody.
G.


I want to be really careful as to not impose too much fact on Mr. Jones' arguments, but I just HAVE to correct a couple.

First off a red Civic does not hold the track record at VIR. Last I checked the record was a mid 2:27 by a Ford Escort. I admit that I don't know the driver and can't recall the name.
The red Civic you refer to is likely Mr. Mark Senior. A very fast driver and great competitor, but typically about 3 seconds off the VIR record. Thats the the only SARRC red Civic I know of, other than mine (which by the way popped a 2:27 in the ECR earlier this year). We were under the track record, but it didn't count because it was an enduro. The driver was Trever Degionne who went on to win the race co-driving with my girlfriend Renee.
This is fact.

The longest straight at VIR is not, as Mr. Jones has noted several times, 1.5 miles long. It is 4000 feet long (per the VIR website). If my math is correct, thats a little over .75 miles. So while it adds dramatic effect to claim VIR has a 1.5 mile long straight, it is pretty far (about twice as far) from actually being true. Also, for what its worth, the front straight at VIR is 3000 ft, the same as listed for Summit Point.
These are facts, assuming my math is correct.

Now that those little details are out of the way...

Bad Al... I've watched him many times before I raced with SCCA. I know he's fast and look forward to racing him someday. GRJ... If you run with Badal, you must be fast as well. Congrats, hope to see you soon as well. I spend my weekends chasing Will Perry and Vesa Silegren. If you don't know them, I'm sure Al does, ask him.

Finally, I'll just say this one more time (I don't know why, just compelled I guess). My intentions were never to attack GRJ's skills or abilities. I was only attempting to demonstrate WHY you cant use your results or entry counts or speeds at ONE TRACK in ONE SERIES as a data point in any argument. I used your performance at VIR, which was far lacking in comparison to your Summit performance, to demonstrate this point. You took it personally, went blind, and started rambling. Fine, OK, Whatever.
But hopefully you are starting to "get it," and it looks like you are.

Again, when Beetles start showing up and E36ing everybody my name will be on the petition right next to yours, but in the meantime trust, support, and for christ sakes don't verbally abuse your local ITAC.

Scott, who'll gladly share beers with Al and GRJ but will still argue that they are very wrong while doing it.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Catch22:
I want to be really careful as to not impose too much fact on Mr. Jones' arguments, but I just HAVE to correct a couple.

First off a red Civic does not hold the track record at VIR. ...The red Civic you refer to is likely Mr. Mark Senior. The longest straight at VIR is not, as Mr. Jones has noted several times, 1.5 miles long. It is 4000 feet long (per the VIR website). If my math is correct, thats a little over .75 miles.
Now that those little details are out of the way...

Bad Al... I've watched him many times before I raced with SCCA. I know he's fast and look forward to racing him someday. GRJ... If you run with Badal, you must be fast as well. Congrats, hope to see you soon as well. Finally, I'll just say this one more time (I don't know why, just compelled I guess). My intentions were never to attack GRJ's skills or abilities. I was only attempting to demonstrate WHY you cant use your results or entry counts or speeds at ONE TRACK in ONE SERIES
Scott, who'll gladly share beers with Al and GRJ but will still argue that they are very wrong while doing it.


OK, Scott I'll concede all points as you wrote them here. I really thought Mark Senior held the ITC record at VIR, my mistake. And as far as distances at the tracks : the straight at Summit feels like .9 miles, and VIR like 1.5 miles in the Fiesta. In fact I often have a cigarette and turn on the radio if you know what I mean. I think I included the lefthand sweeper before the downhills in my recollection of VIR. But no excuse, I was in error. That extra 1000 feet (three football fields), however, might call for a little higher final drive, than the one I use at SPR. (the SPR setup you found so incredulous). I of course will not concede the "one track, one series" issue, but that's something we can look forward to throwing beer cans at each other over.

I don't "run with" Al, I was on the track the same time as he when he was driving the 510. I might stay a little closer to him these days, but that's all I can claim.

I'll drink that beer with you Scott, and, you know, argue as long as we can stay awake. I look forward to seeing how good that Civic is, but do me one favor, leave those rear brakes connected, I think they're doing more than you imagine.

Oh, and I did get by Mark on that first lap, and overcooked Hogpen trying to put some distance between us, knowing he'd be back pretty soon for a repass.

G. Robert


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 07, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends.
Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.


You know Robert, there's this old saying about talking and removing doubt. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You know Robert, there's this old saying about talking and removing doubt. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif


Bill,
If you know how much Butler-Builts are these days, you know just how tongue-in-cheek my remark was. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
GRJ

[Quickshoe]

Grj,

I thought a page or two back you might have had your prescription refilled http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif Guess not.


Originally posted by grjones1:
And, tell me Daryl, how many hubs has your FF broken, that is without having hit something?

Zero. The part is engineered well enough to handle the stresses it encounters.

If Kirk was concerned about impressing his buddies he would have purchased a HANS, instead he is concerned with his safety, he has an ISAAC.

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



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited August 07, 2004).]

[badal]

A very nice try, but no (OK, there may be some weird exception).

When a manufacturer supercedes parts, the original part number is usually listed. All supersession parts with be listed as well and in a notes area of the original part, all supersession parts are usually listed. ALL of those part would be legal.

George,
If you can't obtain a known stock example of the original cam, which by definition of supercession, you can't, then how do you prove the original cam is original?
A part number is NOT good enough.
You may know, and I may know the original cam is original and therefore should be legal, but there is no way to prove it.

BTW, Dave Flinchbaugh, A MARRS guy from PA is the VIR lap record holder in an Escort.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by badal:
BTW, Dave Flinchbaugh, A MARRS guy from PA is the VIR lap record holder in an Escort.
[/B]

And could that be the same Dave Flinchbaugh whose Escort my Fiesta finished in front of at MARRS I last Spring (and forgive me for reporting this Dave). Ummmm, things are beginning to take a turn. (Thanks for correcting my mistaken VIR ITC record holder, Scott.)
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You know Robert, there's this old saying about talking and removing doubt. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Now, Bill, I thought we were refraining from "personal attacks." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
G

[Catch22]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And could that be the same Dave Flinchbaugh whose Escort my Fiesta finished in front of at MARRS I last Spring (and forgive me for reporting this Dave). Ummmm, things are beginning to take a turn. (Thanks for correcting my mistaken VIR ITC record holder, Scott.)
GRJ



I'm not sure if you realize it, but this kind of proves MY point.

I'll elaborate...
Beat him at your home track.
Wayyyyyyy behind him at a different track.

Kind of like if a Beetle starts killing everyone in the MARRS series... At Summit Point...
Does this mean that the Beetle is mis-classed???
What if the same Beetle (just for example <wink> ) went to VIR and lost by 6 to 8 seconds per lap???
Would it still be an overdog?
Or maybe, like a certain guy in a Fiesta, its just really good a Summit point???

Heck, my car is extremely good at Roebling Road because the crappy 4 speed gearbox does not hurt it at all. I can damned near run ITB times there. Does this mean it should be moved to ITB??? Even if I ONLY run it at Roebling Road???
Good God I hope not.

So tell me again how results and points standings at one track, in one series, are meaningful data... I'm still trying to understand.

Scott, who's car sucks so bad at CMP he's never going back and is like driving something dragging a boat anchor through Turn 7 at Road Atlanta.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Grj,

I thought a page or two back you might have had your prescription refilled http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif Guess not.
{quote ]

Now, Daryl, I thought we were refraining from "personal attacks."

Zero. The part is engineered well enough to handle the stresses it encounters.


I must point up that we have two apparent advocates (K and Daryl)of considering a request for stronger hubs as a cloaked performance enhancement request. Both apparently experts on how stronger hubs allow performance equipment that could not otherwise be used. When I think it's probably the other way around: because we change the suspension geometry and place the hubs under maximum stress, some of the hubs which are up to street use, are not up to competition use. Now they argue that if I can put on stronger hubs, I'll be able to alter the geometry and use the car for competition. Excuse me is that not what we are about? And I guess if we take this logic to it's extreme (K's favorite exercise) what they are telling me is after I have spent the money to build my car according to the rules, race it, and discover that the hubs will break because they cannot take the stresses of competition, I should park my car in the garage and try not to stumble over anything.

These great bits of wisdom coming from two happy participants whose cars don't have a hub problem. Gee guys, your whole response is replendent with reasonable consideration for us all.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm not sure if you realize it, but this kind of proves MY point.
I'll elaborate...
Beat him at your home track.
Wayyyyyyy behind him at a different track.

Scott, I'm really worn out with this argument, but I and you can only base our perceptions on the data that is in front of us, whether it be at one track or twenty. To a degree your point is well taken except for the fact (and I really don't like making excuses for a bad performance until I prove I can do better) my times at VIR (and I don't expect you to believe it until I prove it) were due to available tires. I know how much better my car handles with new Hoosiers and I know what kind of acceleration and top end I can achieve at VIR.
For example, I don't (and I assume you don't either) normally lift on the uphill esses. But I was having to feather all the way through because the year old Toyos I was using just wouldn't grip and I would drift off line until I lifted. That's two seconds lost right there and I won't bore you with the slippery nonsense going on in the downhills and elsewhere every lap. And I know that 6 seconds you so enjoy throwing up at me is really within reach. But I can't expect you to believe it until I do it. So let's just let this one die, until I can get back to VIR and prove one of us wrong.
GRJ

I will add that I think if you ask any of the 30 or so people I've raced with in ITC, they will confirm that my Fiesta is representative of a competitive ITC car, regardless of what track we may be attending.

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 07, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Boy am I glad I was racing this weekend! Phew.

Point of interest: Miata front hubs are said to last only 15 hours before failure. Haven't seen any letters requesting a better part. It's a wear item on your 'weapon' of choice. There are tons of these types of wear items on everyones car. You learn the cars and you maintain accordingly. It's racing.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
NOW I'm pissed!!!!!!!!!

Geez, man, did the aliens forget to remove your anal probe?

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Chaos, panic, and disorder -- my work here is done.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Boy am I glad I was racing this weekend! Phew.

Point of interest: Miata front hubs are said to last only 15 hours before failure. Haven't seen any letters requesting a better part. It's a wear item on your 'weapon' of choice. There are tons of these types of wear items on everyones car. You learn the cars and you maintain accordingly. It's racing.
AB

AB, I won't comment on the patronizing I detect in your tone here because I'm refraining from "personal attacks." (I wish there was a little happy face I could type that stood for "personal attack" instead of typing "personal attack" over and over.)

Gee, after racing a $500.00 Ford Fiesta since 1991, I don't know anything about "maintaining wear items" thanks for pointing that up.

More important, 15 hours equates to 12 MARRS race weekends: two 15-minute qualifying sessions and one 45-minute race. If I could get two weekends (2 hours and 30 minutes) out of a set of stock front hubs with any degree of assurance, I'd be a happy man. I'm sorry but your analogy begs the question.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 07, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by grega:
... Chaos, panic, and disorder -- my work here is done.

Hey, Greg - what's the difference between a hamter and a gerbil?

Answer: Gerbils are mostly dark meat.

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Hey, Greg - what's the difference between a hamter and a gerbil?

Answer: Gerbils are mostly dark meat.

K

I get it. Until you think of an answer, you resort to slapstick.
GRJ

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Both apparently experts on how stronger hubs allow performance equipment that could not otherwise be used.

I don't consider myself an expert on the subject, but I'm flattered you find it apparent.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">we change the suspension geometry and place the hubs under maximum stress, some of the hubs which are up to street use, are not up to competition use.</font>

I don't see your opinion as that different than mine.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">These great bits of wisdom coming from two happy participants whose cars don't have a hub problem.</font>

I don't know about Kirk's car, but my car doesn't have hub problems. It does have its' share of other problems.

The motors don't last long under the stress we dish out. Better parts would help that, but then some would just twist them even tighter, wouldn't they?

I apologize for the prescription comment. It was an attempt at humor. After one of your posts a few days back I was waiting for someone to close this thread by requesting a group hug.



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

[ITSRX7]

GRJ,

My point is that everyone has wear issues. I am not sure why the hub issue even came up other than Bill asking us to dig up the history of some other committees decision.

FWIW: If I had a car that broke/wore out it's front hubs in 2 hours, I simply would have changed cars by now. It seems like an unnecessary risk/cost. But, you seem to be having fun - so more power to you.

I can tell ya'll that the prevailing wisdom on the ITAC is to avoid any car-specific rulings at all costs.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Bill Miller]

Damn, Andy beat me to the 400th post!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Since you brought it up Andy, did you guys ever find out how/when/why the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hub deal was done?

Also, I'm still waiting for that VW engine information that Darin says he has. Did he forward those emails to you, by any chance?

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Damn, Andy beat me to the 400th post!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Since you brought it up Andy, did you guys ever find out how/when/why the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hub deal was done?

Also, I'm still waiting for that VW engine information that Darin says he has. Did he forward those emails to you, by any chance?



Nope and nope.

While I understand your curiosity Bill, the hub thing is pretty low on the priority list. Current letters, clarifications and a strategic direction are filling the minutes now.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

I get it. Until you think of an answer, you resort to slapstick.
GRJ

Actually, no. When I read something like this...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends. Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.</font>

...I just give up, 'cause I don't have the faintest idea what is going on any more.

It's called disengagement and is useful to conflict resolution. You can have the hub argument. I don't know what I'm talking about. I lose.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 08, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Nope and nope.

While I understand your curiosity Bill, the hub thing is pretty low on the priority list. Current letters, clarifications and a strategic direction are filling the minutes now.

AB



Ok Andy, I guess I need to write a letter.

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

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know what I'm talking about.

K


Finally. Over 400 posts and Kirk admits it.
Everyone can go home now. It was tough, but a job well done.

Scott, who just disengaged as well

[grjones1]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">we change the suspension geometry and place the hubs under maximum stress, some of the hubs which are up to street use, are not up to competition use.</font>
I don't see your opinion as that different than mine.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">These great bits of wisdom coming from two happy participants whose cars don't have a hub problem.</font>

I don't know about Kirk's car, but my car doesn't have hub problems. It does have its' share of other problems.

The motors don't last long under the stress we dish out. Better parts would help that, but then some would just twist them even tighter, wouldn't they?
...I was waiting for someone to close this thread by requesting a group hug.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Daryl,
There's a great deal of safety difference between stressing a motor that might break, and stressing a hub that will definiely break- the first does not usually result in a wheel falling off. The second usually does result in a wheel falling off: Come on I appreciate a good rebuttal but these aren't just apples to oranges, they are apples to cheese omelettes.

By the way, your FF motor is almost identical to my Fiesta motor (in case you didn't know).

And even Scott and I are talking about things an an even-tempered plane. So the "group hug" has already happened, I think.

GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
[B] ...I just give up, 'cause I don't have the faintest idea what is going on any more.

It's called disengagement and is useful to conflict resolution. You can have the hub argument. I don't know what I'm talking about. I lose.
K
B]
K,
You and I both know, that wasn't a disengagement or a concession, it was a snub.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
GRJ,
My point is that everyone has wear issues. I am not sure why the hub issue even came up other than Bill asking us to dig up the history of some other committees decision.
FWIW: If I had a car that broke/wore out it's front hubs in 2 hours, I simply would have changed cars by now. It seems like an unnecessary risk/cost. But, you seem to be having fun - so more power to you.

I can tell ya'll that the prevailing wisdom on the ITAC is to avoid any car-specific rulings at all costs.
AB

AB,
I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, where stock hubs are proving not to be up to the rigors of competition (frequent and repeated, failure) alternative heavy duty hubs which do not provide any other mechanical advantage (i.e., larger rotors different attachment points, etc.) may be used.

And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car, because the ITAC and CRB do not want to make the effort to rule on what has proven to be on a number of different makes and classes a serious safety issue.

I know you think that I am simply trying to relieve myself of normal wear and tear maintenance: the fact is even after close attention to maintenace on some hubs, they still fail habitually, and we really are throwing the hub failure dice everytime we go out. Yes I've been ignored on this for years, and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. Lord knows, you've spent enough time looking at and changing racing harnesses that fail, what, once in 100,000 uses.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:

......I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, .... alternative heavy duty hubs .......may be used.

And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car,.....
...... and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. GRJ

I thought I had disengaged myself, but the pull....is....soooo...strooong...must ..resisssttt.

But I can't. Sigh...

A comment or two.

The hub issue is no different than any other part. How about the Borgward conn rods? They almost ALWAYS break at 6950 revs...or sometimes earlier, in a car with a 7000 redline. Isn't spreading oil all over the track in T12 at Road Atlanta in a pack of cars a safety concern?

I know, don't rev past 6900 and all is fine. Proper use, proper maintenance and all that.

If the Borgward driver solicited the ITAC/CRB for an alternative conn rod based upon safety concerns, what would they say??

I imagine they would be loath to grant a change to the specific model, (Note here that your comment about your request not being model specific is way too vague and lacking controls to ever be considered) and would suggest the bottom line would be:

...."Caveat emptor", and "Due diligence"....

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Oh...I don't think you can find a better example of a "snub" than this comment:


Originally posted by grjones1:

And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends.
Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.
GRJ



Yes, I will agree with Bill's earlier response as well.



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

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There's a great deal of safety difference between stressing a motor that might break, and stressing a hub that will definiely break-</font>

This is so absurd, it's not even worthy of comment. Let's see how you feel the next time someone grenades a motor in front of you.


Andy,

I just reviewed the Olds/Pontiac spec line again, and I see that, not only did the cars get the Saturn hubs/bearings, they also got to convert from rear drum to rear disc. Maybe it was because the Saturn stuff wouldn't work w/ drum brakes (probably the case).

I'll admit that I didn't look at every car in every class, but does anyone know of any other cases where one model has been allowed to use parts from other models, that aren't listed on the same spec line?

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:

AB,
I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, where stock hubs are proving not to be up to the rigors of competition (frequent and repeated, failure) alternative heavy duty hubs which do not provide any other mechanical advantage (i.e., larger rotors different attachment points, etc.) may be used.

The issue is simple: who decides which models hubs are sub-par? How many hours? How many races? This would be a rule that had to go into effect for the entire category, not just selected cars. It's a classic example of rules creep. Every car has it's wear items, replace as neccessary.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car, because the ITAC and CRB do not want to make the effort to rule on what has proven to be on a number of different makes and classes a serious safety issue.</font>

See above. Some cars make good racecars, some don't. I don't think rules for an entire category should be changed to accomodate a single make. Should we allow power steering-fluid coolers because the SE-R's and NX2000's cook thier fluid? You could argue that is a safety issue as well but it is just a pimple on the ass of that car - and you choose to live with that pimple when you choose that weapon.


I know you think that I am simply trying to relieve myself of normal wear and tear maintenance: the fact is even after close attention to maintenace on some hubs, they still fail habitually, and we really are throwing the hub failure dice everytime we go out. Yes I've been ignored on this for years, and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. Lord knows, you've spent enough time looking at and changing racing harnesses that fail, what, once in 100,000 uses.
GRJ



The belt issue has been and still being address at the CRB/BoD level. The ITAC has nothing to do with that unless we are specifically asked to make a recommendation - and haven't been yet.

I understand where you are coming from but I think that when you look at things from a 10,000 foot level, somethings may not make the same sense that they do when you are looking atthings from under your OWN CAR.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[grjones1]

[/b][/QUOTE]
The hub issue is no different than any other part. How about the Borgward conn rods? They almost ALWAYS break at 6950 revs...or sometimes earlier, in a car with a 7000 redline. Isn't spreading oil all over the track in T12 at Road Atlanta in a pack of cars a safety concern?
...I imagine they would be loath to grant a change to the specific model, (Note here that your comment about your request not being model specific is way too vague and lacking controls to ever be considered) and would suggest the bottom line would be:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Come on Jake, blown engines and oil on the track are accepted conditions. I really don't see a corner worker warning me that my wheels are coming off the car is a possibility, but at least I get a red and yellow flag when oil is spotted and a yellow when an engine goes. The two events and issues as you pose them are not the same.
Guys I am NOT requesting a change for specific models, I'm requesting a change allowable for ALL models!!!

I believe we can document without too much trouble from flag and tech reports how often wheels have come off different cars because of hub failures. how many harnass failures can you document?

Harnesses are being changed because they might break, hubs are not allowed to be changed or altered even when it is known that they will break. Where's the logic?

I wasn't snubbing K, indeed I was implicating what I perceive as a bit of elitism on his part (the use of Recaros) (and I'm not suggesting K is elitist, only that his use of the Recaro may be considered elitist.) And I was poking a little fun at his suspicion that my request for hubs might have an ulterior motive. I humbly request you make the effort to read between the lines on occasion. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
AB



And I understand your position, Andy, but if this were not an issue with cars in addition to my own, I would not even suggest consideration.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
AB



And Andy, SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps and change to standard brakes if they choose. I think I'm right on this one (I know we got rid of our PS servo years ago for just the same reason, they fail.
GRJ
GRJ

[Greg Amy]

...SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps...


Uh, we can? Woo-hoo! That's news to me!! Get outta the way, I'm off to the garage!

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer at no additional charge. - GA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grega:
Uh, we can? Woo-hoo! That's news to me!! Get outta the way, I'm off to the garage!

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer at no additional charge. - GA

Not only do you offer sarcasm, but your lines are much easier to read between ...

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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And Andy, SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps and change to standard brakes if they choose. I think I'm right on this one (I know we got rid of our PS servo years ago for just the same reason, they fail.
GRJ
GRJ


Robert,

Which GCR did you read this in? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif


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

[therooster]

"...I really don't see a corner worker warning me that my wheels are coming off the car is a possibility..."grjones

I have an Audi that has a similar design to the VW's. I have also worked on/driven a 2.0l 16V A1 Rabbit w/approx 200hp that lived it's life on the track with a Time Trial Club. If you pay attention and maintain your car you pretty much know that your risking breaking a hub. You do not need a corner worker to tell you. My experience is they do give a little warning.

Chris

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...your lines are much easier to read between ...</font>

That's 'cause I put extra spaces in there between 'em...

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by grjones1:
blown engines and oil on the track are accepted conditions.

Absurd.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I really don't see a corner worker warning me that my wheels are coming off the car is a possibility, but at least I get a red and yellow flag when oil is spotted and a yellow when an engine goes.</font>

Nor do I see one warning me that my crank is about to become a two piece design. I'll get the same yellow when your wheel falls off and a possible surface condition flag if it spits enough parts, grease, and brake fluid out.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Harnesses are being changed because they might break, hubs are not allowed to be changed or altered even when it is known that they will break.

What? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif You certainly can change your hubs. Nobody said you have to keep them on until they break. You seem to be so caught up in being correct that you don't appear to even read what you type.

I am aware that our motors are similar. However, legal replacement heads for my motor are easy to come by. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

I'm out for a while, this is getting tiresome.

I thought everyone knew that it is the hamsters that are mostly dark meat.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grega:
Uh, we can? Woo-hoo! That's news to me!! Get outta the way, I'm off to the garage!

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer at no additional charge. - GA

You got me on this one, I was confusing power steering with power brakes - Try putting in HD brake fluid in your power steering pumps, and don't get a hernia celebrating your rhetorical victory.

GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Absurd.
Nor do I see one warning me that my crank is about to become a two piece design. I'll get the same yellow when your wheel falls off and a possible surface condition flag if it spits enough parts, grease, and brake fluid out.
[/B]

When an engine blows in the car I'm driving or the guy's in front of me, I can disengage the clutch, steer, and brake. When a wheel leaves front of the car, I can neither steer, brake, nor does it do any good to declutch, I can hold on and pray. Now if you guys want to make some farfetched comparisom to the two events in order to degrade my request, have a ball, but don't expect too much respect for your abilities to compare apples to apples. And I know, "I don't know the difference between a power steering pump and a power brake servo," but at least I can admit a mistake when I make it.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Deleted duplicate.

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
What? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif


Changed" as in "modified" Daryl, nuances of the language appear to escape you.
GRJ

[Catch22]

I like Hershey Bars... With almonds.

Now those "Symphony" bars... Absolute heaven. And I'm really not much of a dessert or sweets kind of guy. But chocolate and almonds just harmonize. Hmmmmm. I wish I had one now.

PS - Hamsters taste like frogs, which taste like snake, which tastes like chicken.

[apr67]

GR.

If the hubs are a saftey concern to you, change them to a stronger design. Sure, some total utz could protest you, and prehaps win, but saftey is more important than ANY win, and if you feel it is that much of a saftey concert.

Just Do It.

Some IT VW's have used Golf hubs for quite a while.. Or modified escort hubs.

Alan

[grjones1]

Originally posted by apr67:
GR.
If the hubs are a saftey concern to you, change them to a stronger design. Sure, some total utz could protest you, and prehaps win, but saftey is more important than ANY win, and if you feel it is that much of a saftey concert.
Just Do It.
Some IT VW's have used Golf hubs for quite a while.. Or modified escort hubs.
Alan
Alan,
We may see eye-to-eye on this one. See my Thomas Jefferson post.
GRJ

[Diane]

Originally posted by apr67:
GR.

Some IT VW's have used Golf hubs for quite a while.. Or modified escort hubs.

Alan

*Which* Escort hubs? They break too in our experience. Not as much as the Fiesta's seem to though.

Feel free to email me, I would have done so but our profiles don't keep our emails.

diane - at - mathermotorsports - dot - com

Thanks,

Diane

[planet6racing]

Um, guys, the Saturn hubs are not a HD design. While they last a little longer than the front hubs, I always have a spare set with me ready to go.

I'd get into the design problems and all that for them, but it's not really relevant.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Joe Craven]

In regards to the A1 VW, I've witnessed a brand new high quality hub break on it's first weekend of use. I've personally had a hub break and I went straight into a wall at 80mph and totalled the car. It wasn't even my car, I was driving a stint in a short enduro race! It's a safety issue, and I'm beginning to see alternative reasons why spec racing classes can be popular.

The hubs are a safety issue, much like parts on other cars. If you all keep pushing for global rule changes affecting all cars, I don't think we can ever reach consensus. Model specific rules should be simpler to implement.

The future of IT is at stake here. If the sanctioning body doesn't want to address safety, reliability, parts availability, competitiveness, etc. etc. etc., then the classes will die. If the solution is - don't race the car because of the reasons listed in this thread, then we have to make a choice. The choices we make probably won't bode well for the future of the class when we have little input as to improvements, only to be told to build a different car.

Joe Craven
Capri ITB/PS3/E3
Capri ITA/DSP/E2/PS2
A1 VW ITB/VW Cup/E2 - still has legal hubs which haven't broken yet due to constant maintenance.

[apr67]

Originally posted by Diane:
*Which* Escort hubs? They break too in our experience. Not as much as the Fiesta's seem to though.


Diane, I don't know because I found with the VW's if I used GOOD GERMAN hubs that had good castings, I could race forever. You might try calling some VW prepshops and ask them what to use. I would imagine 'bigger' is better.

[apr67]

Wow Joe.

I drove a pretty fast full on A1 in B for several years. Never had a failure. I did do maintainance, about every 10 weekends we put new hubs and bearings in.

You might contact Chris Albin and see if he can offer some suggestions. He was the brains behind my rabbit. I know that we did look at casting very closely, because some had stress risers right where they would break, and we tigthed the big nuts a bit more than the manual and checked them religiously (like tire pressure and lug torque).

Alan

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Joe Craven:
In regards to the A1 VW, I've witnessed a brand new high quality hub break on it's first weekend of use...
The hubs are a safety issue, much like parts on other cars...

Joe Craven

A1 VW ITB/VW Cup/E2 - still has legal hubs which haven't broken yet due to constant maintenance.



So, is it a safety issue or a need for "constant maintenance" issue?



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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by oanglade:
So, is it a safety issue or a need for "constant maintenance" issue?

Excuse me, Joe.
Ony,
If a "brand new high quality hub" breaks in its first weekend of use, how could it be a maintenance issue? I know, "if the bearing were improperly installed," but I'm sure Joe knows how to install a bearing, and this kind of thing happens quite frequently.
GRJ

[Diane]

Originally posted by apr67:
Diane, I don't know because I found with the VW's if I used GOOD GERMAN hubs that had good castings, I could race forever. You might try calling some VW prepshops and ask them what to use. I would imagine 'bigger' is better.



I should have attached my sig. I have Escorts and the hubs are a PITA even for the street car. Seems once you kill the factory one you are doomed. And NHIS kills the right front anyway, although I got a good number of races out of mine, Tim was not so lucky. We bought a press but still tend to have the dealer do them as they will replace the part if it fails quickly (and not on the track)

As you mentioned VWs use Escort hubs, and then you mentioned good German hubs, I am wondering if logic will allow my Escort to use them as well with modification. *For the car that doesn't see the track!*

I'd email you but don't have your addy, sorry for the OT post, we just did one hub last week and I've been watching the other side (replaced last year) since spring. How "non-car people" drive cars with bad parts for so long is beyond me! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif



------------------
ITB Escort GT
NER

[Peter Olivola]

I get the feeling this is about one post away from degenerating into a Monty Python routine.


Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by oanglade:
So, is it a safety issue or a need for "constant maintenance" issue?

Excuse me, Joe.
Ony,
If a "brand new high quality hub" breaks in its first weekend of use, how could it be a maintenance issue? I know, "if the bearing were improperly installed," but I'm sure Joe knows how to install a bearing, and this kind of thing happens quite frequently.
GRJ

[Joe Craven]

GRJ is right, if it breaks in the first weekend then it isn't a maintenance issue.

I've seen this car/driver break hubs more frequently than even my aggressive personal maintenance interval. These are top quality German hubs (name starts with an L) installed by a German specialist shop who I also use for my own hubs. I've never broken a hub in a car I own and I change the hubs and bearings pretty regularly. That same shop does the work so they have never made a mistake on my car. BTW, I know that all of us (in the GTI Cup) have been really keeping our front hub bearings very very tight.

BTW, I have a few theories on this. One is that there can be minor defects in brand new hubs. The hubs are probably stressed beyond their original designed capabilities so any inclusion or other defects will make them fail much faster. One other theory is that less experienced drivers put more stress on these hubs. The cars are usually setup to understeer and they occasionally enter turns too fast which results in front end plowing and they have more off road excursions and berm bouncing which put more stress on the hubs.

BTW, we do a lot of enduro racing and find that we can definitely break a perfectly installed, best quality hub within 12 hours on Toyo tires.

[Bill Miller]

The A1 hub problem is a well known, and well documented issue. It was mentioned in Greg Raven's book back in the mid-80's. I've heard of the Prod guys getting them cryo-treated, which has increased their life. Torquing the living crap out of the axle nuts is key. And, I always use new axle nuts every time I take them off.


I'm not sure if cryo-treating the hubs would be legal in IT or not.

As far as spares, I always had a fully built set of front corners w/ me at the track, along w/ a pair of axles. There was more than one occasion where they were needed, either by me, or by a competitor.

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

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm not sure if cryo-treating the hubs would be legal in IT or not.

It should be. To disallow an optional safety purchase which is unrelated to performance is indefensible.

From a post I made earlier today on another thread on this forum:

"We have a customer who had a rotor explode on a 1/2 mile oval track. Not a big deal for circle track guys (they're always crashing into something), except one of the fragments bounced around in the engine compartment and lodged against the throttle linkage forcing it wide open.

So there he was heading into the turn 3 wall with full throttle at 130+, and all he could do was watch."

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Greg Amy]

I had a cooling system problem at the ARRC last year: the #3 rod went out the front of the engine and tok out the radiator...

What do you guys think about the New Beetle in ITC? Good, bad, indifferent?

[ianb]

I have not read all of the posts, but has the issue of wheel size been addressed? It looks like wheels would have to be 16 x 6. This is narrower than stock and not available. Hopefully the same reasonable logic of where the NB is classed will be applied to wheels

[Joe Craven]

NB good or bad?
Depends
With Comp adjustments - definitely good
W/O Comp adjustments - to be determined.

IT is getting increasingly broken. It sounds like people are working on it and I hope it isn't too little or too late.

Back to the NB, I'd be surprised to hear if someone is willing to invest the $$$ to build a car for a series dying a slow death. I still love the concept of IT and I hope it can be saved.

Classing the NB in ITC is a positive step if the next very difficult steps are followed. That is the tbd part.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Joe Craven:
IT is getting increasingly broken. It sounds like people are working on it and I hope it isn't too little or too late.

Back to the NB, I'd be surprised to hear if someone is willing to invest the $$$ to build a car for a series dying a slow death. I still love the concept of IT and I hope it can be saved.



Italics mine.....this is an interesting comment. By "series" do you mean ITC, or IT as a whole?? I would agree that ITC will wither without new classifications, but I disagree that IT as a whole is dying. (And the NB in C is a great move, whether or not the 1% of us here have a problem with it or not)

Perhaps we are seeing regional issues? Here in the NE, we have seen, without doubt, record IT turnouts. Car counts at Lime Rock and NHIS are very solid for B, A and S. Over 30 is not uncommon for A and S, and B is often over 20. C however, is less, but gets close to 10 on occasion.

I understand the MARRS series (Mid Atlantic Road Racing Series, I presume) is said to have C counts in the low teens on a regular basis, and the ARRCs, if I am not mistaken have shown increasing car counts with more drivers traveling greater distances over the years.

In my casual observations, I remember seeing strong IT counts for Laguna and Sears, but I haven't been watching those nmbers carefully so I may be mistaken.

While I agree that IT has some issues that need addressing, I wouldn't say it was dying a "slow death" by a longshot.



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

[gsbaker]

Greg,

I deserved that. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

G

[oanglade]

Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by oanglade:
So, is it a safety issue or a need for "constant maintenance" issue?

Excuse me, Joe.
Ony,
If a "brand new high quality hub" breaks in its first weekend of use, how could it be a maintenance issue? I know, "if the bearing were improperly installed," but I'm sure Joe knows how to install a bearing, and this kind of thing happens quite frequently.
GRJ


I ask because on the same post he mentions that they break on the first weekend of use and also that he uses legal hubs that have not broken because of constant maintenance. Then we get a couple of other posts from people that have run the cars with those hubs for a long time without problems.

I understand that the hubs are a known problem. What I am trying to understand is if there is anything that can be legally done to use them and keep them from failing. Since he mentioned that he runs legals hubs that have not broken yet due to constant maintenance, then it sounds like there is something maintenancewise that can be done to keep them from being an issue. Maybe he changes hubs after every 2 sessions. I'm just trying to learn more about it.

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

[oanglade]

I hope that ITC continues on for a long time. More and more I think that ITC is where the smarter Club Racer goes after realizing that you can have as much fun as the ITS guys for a fraction of the cost.

For the amount of money that we've spent on our super low budget ITA Miata, we could probably afford a contending ITC Honda.

I hope that people build New Beetles and that more cars are classified into ITC to bring more life into the class.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by oanglade:

... I'm just trying to learn more about it.


Now, I understand.
G.

[badal]

Originally posted by oanglade:
I hope that ITC continues on for a long time. More and more I think that ITC is where the smarter Club Racer goes after realizing that you can have as much fun as the ITS guys for a fraction of the cost.

For the amount of money that we've spent on our super low budget ITA Miata, we could probably afford a contending ITC Honda.

I hope that people build New Beetles and that more cars are classified into ITC to bring more life into the class.



For the amount of money that would be spent on a New Beetle, you could buy a contending ITA Miata.

So they guys in ITC who are there because of cost issues will find it hard to compete with they guys with budgets to build NB's.


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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:

So they guys in ITC who are there because of cost issues will find it hard to compete with they guys with budgets to build NB's.


So what? There are guys in ITS with $4000 RX-7's...are they entitled to an equal shot at a checkered flag even though they have an underprepared car given equal drivers? Nope.

If you are talking apple to apples, a top prepped NB and a top prepped 510/CRX/insert ITC contender here, SHOULD be on equal footing given our research and resultant minimum weight.

Just because it may cost more to build doesn't mean it will be faster.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Just because it may cost more to build doesn't mean it will be faster.
AB

Really doesn't matter, most people in IT are there because of low cost, as has been stated. So maybe this whole thing is a "tempest in a teapot": If the NB cost that much to build, no one will race it anyway. And of course the whole argument that the NB was classed in C to help "rejuvenate" the class is of course meaningless.

Or maybe the hubs will prove inadequate, and the guys will opt to build another car. Gee, everything is beginning to make so much sense. What was I thinking?!!
GRJ

[badal]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
So what? There are guys in ITS with $4000 RX-7's...are they entitled to an equal shot at a checkered flag even though they have an underprepared car given equal drivers? Nope.

If you are talking apple to apples, a top prepped NB and a top prepped 510/CRX/insert ITC contender here, SHOULD be on equal footing given our research and resultant minimum weight.

Just because it may cost more to build doesn't mean it will be faster.

AB





If the whole idea is to increase car counts, why do you think driving up the cost of racing will help them?

I didn't say it would be faster because it cost more, did I?

If it is faster, the cost of being competetive goes up, and the car counts go down.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by badal:

If the whole idea is to increase car counts, why do you think driving up the cost of racing will help them?

If it is faster, the cost of being competetive goes up, and the car counts go down.


Al,
We've got to stop typing at the same time.
G.

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:

If the whole idea is to increase car counts, why do you think driving up the cost of racing will help them?

I didn't say it would be faster because it cost more, did I?

If it is faster, the cost of being competetive goes up, and the car counts go down.



IF the NB isn't an overdog, why does it drive up the cost of ITC? All the same cars are and will be competitive. It's another choice for people who may want to go to ITC to have.

Look, we can all agree if it is too fast for ITC, it is a bad thing in many ways BUT we don't know if it will be too fast and we THINK, given research and experience, that it won't be.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Knestis]

There are people with whom I have spoken who don't like the "image" of ITC simply because the cars are all old.

I personally decided that one criteria for my model choice would be that it was not more than one generation out of production - so it wouldn't look like the $500 cars we see smoking down our public streets.

That might be perceived as elitist, however. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[badal]

Andy,
In all this exhausive research you did, how did stock top speeds compare? It looks to me like a stock NB will go 10-20 MPH faster than the existing cars.

I don't see this mentioned as a criteria anywhere, but higher top speed sure makes passing easier.

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

[Catch22]

Originally posted by oanglade:
More and more I think that ITC is where the smarter Club Racer goes after realizing that you can have as much fun as the ITS guys for a fraction of the cost.



Exactly what I did. And its true, its just as much fun for a whole lot less money



For the amount of money that we've spent on our super low budget ITA Miata, we could probably afford a contending ITC Honda.

100% true. You probably would have had money left over as a matter of fact. Problem is that not enough people take this into account BEFORE they build a car. They pick a car they WANT to race, get halfway through the process, and realize they don't have the cash to compete in that class.
This is where ITC comes in. You CAN, without any issues, build a frontrunner for $10K or less. You can buy frontrunning pre-raced cars all day long for less than $5K. Then you learn that tire and brake pad wear is minimal, then you learn that spare motors and trannies range from free to dirt cheap (when was the last time you picked up a free Miata tranny??? I have 4 trannys for my car and haven't paid for one yet), then you learn that body panels are dirt cheap (try and find a $20 fender for a Miata or a BMW) and you wonder why ITC isn't the most popular class instead of the class that needs life breathed into it.

1. Word needs to get out that it IS actually cheap to race in ITC.
2. Need new cars classed to spark interest.
3. See #1

Scott, who says you don't race in ITC because its cool to do so. You do it because you can have just as much fun as the other guys and still afford to take your family on a nice vacation every year.

[Catch22]

Originally posted by grjones1:
If the NB cost that much to build, no one will race it anyway. And of course the whole argument that the NB was classed in C to help "rejuvenate" the class is of course meaningless.



Partially valid but not totally.
I personally would not currently build a NB for ITC because it would be cost prohibitive. But SOMEBODY(S) more than likely will do it. And when these somebodys do it, their $15000 Beetles aren't going to be any faster than my $10000 Civic. I'm sure of it.
The same way I often see a 1974 240z run with, and often beat, several $40000 BMWs. I expect to see $5000 Civics beating $15000 Beetles.

But I do agree that this isn't THE car to rejuvy the class because they certainly aren't cheap, and many folks will choose to spend that same money to go to ITA or SM simply because its "cooler" to race there. BUT, classing a late model, popular car in ITC is certainly a step in the right direction if not the answer to all the problems.

Scott, who is currently working on the paperwork to request classing for several 90s models of Fords, Mazdas, and Toyotas.

[oanglade]

I think that, when people go racing in IT, they start with a car they know or like or already have and not exactly look into which class is faster, etc. Some people do take it into account and might discount the idea if they can't see how "their" car might be competitive, but some others don't care. What is important is for the car to be classified so that the choice is there.

If there are people that want to race and they already have or really like the NB, then some will be built.

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

[This message has been edited by oanglade (edited August 10, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:
Andy,
In all this exhausive research you did, how did stock top speeds compare? It looks to me like a stock NB will go 10-20 MPH faster than the existing cars.

I don't see this mentioned as a criteria anywhere, but higher top speed sure makes passing easier.



The constant defense of every piece of minutia is sooo fun... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

With the same hp to weigh and gear ratios that are virtually free I don't think you will see a 20mph difference in top speed.

Having said that, certian cars in certain classes have their advantages. Some may be nimble and quick - some may be heavy but fast. It's a fact of life in every class RIGHT NOW.

Sorry you don't like the decision.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[badal]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The constant defense of every piece of minutia is sooo fun... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

There goes that tone you keep denying...
Not to mention you don't answer a single question I ask.

With the same hp to weigh and gear ratios that are virtually free I don't think you will see a 20mph difference in top speed.

I don't care what you think, facts are facts.

Having said that, certian cars in certain classes have their advantages. Some may be nimble and quick - some may be heavy but fast. It's a fact of life in every class RIGHT NOW.

Not in current ITC.

Sorry you don't like the decision.

Sorry you get to make decisions that don't concern you.
Sorry you can abuse your power.
Confused you ignore my questions.

AB





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

[ITSRX7]

Al,

What's with the attitude? Why can't you agree that the ITAC and the majority of this board have a different opinion than you do?

What question didn't I address? Or was it just that you didn't get the answer you like?

I answered on car counts - I disagree with your hypothosis.
I answered on cost - doesn't drive anything up if the car is not an overdog.
I answered on top speed - what 'facts' do you have? I assume you will trot out the following: stock top end, stock weight/hp, IT weight/hp then apply gearing accross the board to support your assertion that the NB will be 20 MPH faster than your 510.

Abuse my 'power'? Now that is a good one.

I am officially done. If you have concerns and ould like to write the CRB, please do so. You WILL NOT bring me back into this thread. You are now outside the 'circle of trust'. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Geo]

Originally posted by badal:
Andy,
In all this exhausive research you did, how did stock top speeds compare? It looks to me like a stock NB will go 10-20 MPH faster than the existing cars.

I don't see this mentioned as a criteria anywhere, but higher top speed sure makes passing easier.



You're assuming it can reach top speed on a race track and other cars reach top speed and just maintain that top speed while the NB will still be accelerating.

I seriously doubt the NB will be able to reach top speed except perhaps on a few rare tracks with tremendously long straights.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
IF the NB isn't an overdog, why does it drive up the cost of ITC? All the same cars are and will be competitive. It's another choice for people who may want to go to ITC to have.
AB


Now let's see, if the NB is simply "competitive" but not an overdog and eventhough it cost conservatively 33% more to build than any other ITC car, people will race it anyway and add to the numbers of ITC simply because they think the NB is a neat car?!

Sounds reasonable to me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 10, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
I seriously doubt the NB will be able to reach top speed except perhaps on a few rare tracks with tremendously long straights.


George,
I understand that the courses in Texas may be limited, but in the East, we have places like Road Atlanta, VIR, Watkins Glen, etc. with enough straight to get your ITC car to terminal velocity for at least as long as it takes to pass other cars.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 10, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 10, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Al,

...You are now outside the 'circle of trust'. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
AB


What is this "circle of trust" thing? Uh oh, the black helicopters are beginning to circle again.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

Isn't it difficult to predict what top speed will be unless you know the gearing the competitor chooses? Watkins Glen? Ain't no way a nearly 2800 pound car is going to hit top end on that up hill straight, unless it has a high gear ratio, and then its top end will be lower than stock.

I really think this is reaching for straws here....

And accusing a AB for "abuse of power", now thats a new low!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

(not a smiley)

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

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You WILL NOT bring me back into this thread.</font>

Oh, but I bet I can, YOU SLACKER!

(Ooops, sorry about that. The Prozac is wearing of....ah, I feel better now...mmm.....)

Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after...

[Greg Amy]

Prozac still wearing off, still wearing...still....mmmmmm......)

[This message has been edited by grega (edited August 10, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Watkins Glen? Ain't no way a nearly 2800 pound car is going to hit top end on that up hill straight, unless it has a high gear ratio, and then its top end will be lower than stock.

I really think this is reaching for straws here....


At least I didn't mention Lime Rock!

But I have a feeling stock top in on an NB is greater than IT top in for anything else presently in ITC.
GRJ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
:0 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif, etc.

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You CAN, without any issues, build a frontrunner for $10K or less. You can buy frontrunning pre-raced cars all day long for less than $5K</font>

Scott, that may be stretching it a bit. I'll buy <$15k and $5k - $7.5k for the built, front-running cars.

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

[planet6racing]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Now let's see, if the NB is simply "competitive" but not an overdog and eventhough it cost conservatively 33% more to build than any other ITC car, people will race it anyway and add to the numbers of ITC simply because they think the NB is a neat car?!

Sounds reasonable to me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif
GRJ



Umm, it wouldn't be the first time. I'm case and point. I have well over what it would have cost to built a CRX into my Saturn. Don't think it won't happen just because you wouldn't do it.

That said, can this topic finally just die?


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Knestis]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
...

That said, can this topic finally just die?



Which one?

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by planet6racing:

That said, can this topic finally just die?


Bill,
I believe you have the option of not clicking on the title?!
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I am officially done. If you have concerns and ould like to write the CRB, please do so. You WILL NOT bring me back into this thread. You are now outside the 'circle of trust'. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
AB

"I'm going to take my ITAC, and go home"! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
GRJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
Oh, but I bet I can, YOU SLACKER!

(Ooops, sorry about that. The Prozac is wearing of....ah, I feel better now...mmm.....)

Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after...

Greg, readjust your Reynolds Wrap.


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

[lateapex911]

In this thread we have discovered my magic ratio.

Two funny posts can keep me from responding to one wise ass paraniod post.

Keep the funny stuff coming, help me resist the votex!

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
In this thread we have discovered my magic ratio.

Two funny posts can keep me from responding to one wise ass paraniod post.

Keep the funny stuff coming, help me resist the votex!

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:



Does it mean we win, if the other guys give up?
GRJ

[emwavey]

Just for the record, for posterity, or whatever you want to call it. I congratulate the ITAC for classifying a newer car, the New Beetle (NB) and moving some others from ITS to ITA.

I say this knowing full well that not only will most likely be racing with NASA in Hon"duh" challenge next year instead of ITA, but IF and when I race in ITA, I'll have to deal with the likes of Greg Amy... damned ITS cars coming into ITA. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Bold move dudes!... hopefully this will resound through the masses and generate interest in SCCA, Improved Touring, but more specifically in ITC.

-dave, who's refering to himself in the third person, and who's going to race in an "over-dog" ITA car so his excuses for not winning are left only to fall upon himself, the driver... wait that's me... damned platic wrap in my ears are confusing me now... hey where's that prozac?

------------------
-dave
8)
Got Photos?... post 'em here: http://y3k.shacknet.nu:31338/gallery/

[x1/9racer]

Just adding my two cents to this mess...
I currently race a Fiat x1/9 in ITC. I race this car not because I believe it to be the ultimate ITC weapon(everybody knows that comes with a big chrome"H" on the nose), but because I love the car. If you choose to compete in C or any other class of racing in a 20-plus year old orphan, it has to be because you love th car, for whatever reason. It is ridiculous in my opinion to expect the comp. board to guarantee the competitiveness of any 20-30 year old race car. For the health of the group as a whole, newer cars must be classed. Unfortunately, newer also means faster. Some day, if the class lives that long, the current batch of fast Hondas will be outclassed. Evolution is an undeniable fact of life when it comes to racing. Again, just my opinion...

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just adding my two cents to this mess...</font>

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!