How About Making Adjustable Cam Gears Legal?

[Catch22]

Hear me out on this one for a second.

Its already legal to re-key your timing gear to adjust cam timing, so why not make it easier and just allow adjustable gears?

I see no change at all in terms of performance potential over the current rule, just an easier way to get the same result.

Or am I missing something?

[seamus88]

I agree!

[jc836]

Although there is room to agree-it is rules creep. Sadly, my experience with the CRB about suspension parts shows their reluctance to alter to status quo.

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

[zracre]

yes it would be easier for us honda guys, but there are so many cars in IT, what about the poor guy (or gal) on a budget with a car that no manufacturer makes one for?? too many variables on that one i think...definitely rules creep.

[Knestis]

To clarify - the rule allows the use of offset keys to bring the valve timing back to stock, right?

Now, whether anyone checks to see if valve timing is per factory spec or not is a huge supposition but I'll bet that it will be impossible to isolate one issue (stockness of valve timing) from another - how we achieve it.

I'm going to surprise Scott by agreeing with him but I'll bet that it's a non-starter. Somone is going to decide that it will be "too easy to cheat," which is exactly why the suggestion makes sense.

K

[Banzai240]

Didn't we just go through this discussion???

A letter about this was already presented to the CRB/ITAC and we did NOT recommend this request...

There is NO need for this change... Grids are full of cars racing just fine WITHOUT this change... It's STRICTLY a performance based change and has very little to do with making racing more practical...

I can all but guarantee you that the ITAC would NOT recommend this change, and I'm pretty sure that if we did, the CRB would turn down the recommendation...

If you want this kind of modifications, then you should probably look to Production or wait for the new "B/D-Production" classes...

In my opinion, we have enough work to do just trying to get the classes balanced out somewhat, without trying to throw another wrench into the spokes with a change like this... I wouldn't want to be responsible for helping the BMWs or Acuras, etc., get even faster! Do you guys have ANY idea how much someone with 4-valve/DOHC arrangements could improve there system if they (I...) could adjust their (MY!) cam timing in this manner??? Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...

Just one more thing to add to the costs of building a motor...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Catch22]

But Darin, the BMW and Acura folks can ALREADY legally adjust their cam timing. Thats my point. Why not make it easier for those of us who have a little less skill with a grinder or don't work at a machine shop???

<shrugs>
Sorry. It makes sense to me. Its not changing *anything* just making things easier.

PS - Who wants to bet me $20 that some of those top E36 BMWs have already re-keyed and maximized their cam timing...?
Anyone?

[Greg Amy]

Scott, you're both right *and* wrong: the BMW engine has ECU-controlled cam timing (VANOS). That's why these damn things make so much power with Motec...

So, the BMW drivers are just laughing at us plebes with crankshaft offset keys...GA

[Matt Rowe]

The rule clearly states the purpose of the cam key allowance is to return cam timing to factory spec after machining a head. It also clearly states the DOHC cars must use a key on the crank only. The biggest gains in cam timing on a DOHC is typically adjusting one cam against the other which is not allowed. If there are some guys out there doing this already then a protest would be in order.

I would have to agree with Darin, a set of cam keys is typically cheaper than adjustable pulleys and can accomplish the same thing. Since the only adjustment is to factory spec it should be a rare occurence as you shouldn't be using it to tune the car. So there isn't a real need to make this easier. Plus, as a post classification change some cars would benefit more than others from a lighter cam sprocket. And I know how much some guys hate post classification changes. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Matt Rowe]

Greg,

Damn, I knew I was forgetting something. Maybe we should require the BMW's to unplug the VANOS system as an example of an legal part perfroming an illegal function? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I would have to agree with Darin, a set of cam keys is typically cheaper than adjustable pulleys and can accomplish the same thing.

Just be careful here... You are NOT allowed to use offset keys in the cams of a DOHC car... Offset keys may only be used in the crank pulley for DOHC cars...

If you allow these cars adjustable timing gears for the cams, watch them really wake up...

Wrong direction in my opinion...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[racer-025]

Maybe I was smoking too much on the weekend. But I would like to see IT go the other way. Currently, there is too much rules creeping and IT is slowly moving towards Production. IMO, if you want a modified race car, get out of IT and move up the ladder. There are too many racers bailing on IT and moving back into spec series' (ie: SM) and/or moving into NASA so they can race their modified whatever. IT was created to have a series for the old SS cars, and I think it is now too modified for the newbie that just wants to have some fun racing on the track. After all, this class is susposed to be entry level road racing. AND to think some people want this series to go National! $6-10k engines now in IT - unbelieveable! I also think that there are too many "big fishes" swimming in this little pond...

I would like to see engines go back to completely stock with no mods whatsoever. That would surely even out the competition for the poor racer. BTW, sorry for the thread hi-jack.

[This message has been edited by racer-025 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just be careful here... You are NOT allowed to use offset keys in the cams of a DOHC car... Offset keys may only be used in the crank pulley for DOHC cars...

If you allow these cars adjustable timing gears for the cams, watch them really wake up...

Wrong direction in my opinion...




Hey Darin, read Matt's post again. He states the restriction on the DOHC cars in there.

[on topic content]I agree w/ Darin, we don't need these in IT.[/on topic content]


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

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

[on topic content]I agree w/ Darin, we don't need these in IT.[/on topic content]




Prepare for the sea to rise and the ground to open up. Bill,Darin and Joe agree on something....Hell is mighty cold today... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

The allowance to return cam timing to stock is a good one. If there were actually a protest my guess is a number of cars would end up on the trailer. With that said there is no reason to put more of them on the trailer. The advantage to an adjustable gear and the only reason anyone would puch for it is. You dyno the car for a HP setup and a torque set up. You then dial the cam for what ever track you are running.
The BMW deal is a factory part and should have been considered in the original classification of the car...(key word should'a)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by racer-025:

I would like to see engines go back to completely stock with no mods whatsoever. That would surely even out the competition for the poor racer. BTW, sorry for the thread hi-jack.


Sunbelt shipped more than 50 Spec Miata motors between the 2004 ARRC and April 1, 2005. AT OVER $5000 a pop.

Be careful what you wish for.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[racer-025]

Hmm, I wonder what is actually done to those Sunbelt SM engines? Does that price include the core?

I can take a decent Honda SOHC engine and rebuild it myself using OEM parts including bearings, rings, gaskets and get a 3-angle v-job, manifold matching and plain the head for under a K note. Of course this doesn't include boring and new pistons and I'm doing all the work except the machining.

They are probably spending a little more time measuring everything (than me) but they probably have a dedicaded assembly shop for those engines. They also must be installing many new parts, ie: cams, valves, etc. So, if that prices includes the core, I'm guessing that of course they are making some profit there...

[This message has been edited by racer-025 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[DavidM]

There was a thread a while back about the holy grails in IT that shouldn't be touched. The engine was one of them.

David

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

In my opinion, we have enough work to do just trying to get the classes balanced out somewhat, without trying to throw another wrench into the spokes with a change like this... I wouldn't want to be responsible for helping the BMWs or Acuras, etc., get even faster! Do you guys have ANY idea how much someone with 4-valve/DOHC arrangements could improve there system if they (I...) could adjust their (MY!) cam timing in this manner??? Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...

Just one more thing to add to the costs of building a motor...




Damn it Darin, if your perceived to be the gran pooba on the AdHoc committe don't you think you sould be a little more neutral on your recommendations. Since when is it allowed that the recommedations of the committee would be focused on keeping the Acura's and Hondas slower so the Nissans can catch up. The idea of a cam pulley falls in the same catagory as other things like no passanger door glass, bushings etc. All of these things are being tweeked one way or the other to try and maximize the car for the race. The stupid idea that the cars should be old showroom stock cars or that this is a place for old beat up pieces of junk to race is part of the reason that there are people going to clone racing like spec miata or spec ford or spec spec. The race weekend is getting too expensive and there is no logical crossover from IT to Prod. If you want to improve the level of competition and to keep the drivers from leaving for NASA or EMRA is to make it easier to join classes, and make it simple to limit the "rules creep" If the rule says that the timing can be adjusted to bring it back to stock, then fine check the car for stock cam timing, not the fact that somebody spent $75 for a adjustable pulley instead of putting shims in it. If the rule says that the cam timing has to be stock than that's simple to figure stock is stock. I don't care how you get to stock just make sure when I put my thousand dollars up that we can measure stock. The cam pulley is simply a tool to get you there. If the rule says it has to be 0 degrees and the cam timing is 6 degrees you fail you are penalized and that's that. Simple end of story, but if that same car can run in limited production where the rules allow for adjustments then why should I have to start replacing parts (and incur additional costs) rather than simply dialing the timing back to stock and race.

If the limited prep/prod rules require no door glass, and IT does not we have to hump around a piece of glass to run in two classes.

Focus on the future not the desire to make your particular car more competive to the Acura's and Honda's. If a driver want to try out a national class why should he have to change parts instead of simply changing tires and resetting adjustments to match the class rules.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by racer-025:
I can take a decent Honda SOHC engine and rebuild it myself using OEM parts including bearings, rings, gaskets and get a 3-angle v-job, manifold matching and plain the head for under a K note. Of course this doesn't include boring and new pistons and I'm doing all the work except the machining.

They are probably spending a little more time measuring everything (than me) but they probably have a dedicaded assembly shop for those engines. They also must be installing many new parts, ie: cams, valves, etc. So, if that prices includes the core, I'm guessing that of course they are making some profit there...


If you had a rule where the engine must be "stock", then you'd have to be doing all these same things... AND, like T2 or SS, boring an engine would not be allowed, so you'd be buying new blocks with every instance that the engine couldn't just be honed...

The IT engine rules are plenty adequate currently to allow you to build a VERY nice, dependable, and powerful racing engine... Now that Forged Pistons are technically and expressly legal, AND you can now use other-than factory supplied OEM camshafts, etc..., I think that the rules are plenty liberal to suit the purposes of IT... Namely to allow those modifications necessary to have a great racecar...

If you want more performance, there is Production or GT... both of which would LOVE to have the additional participation... And, if you are truely just in the for "fun", as many of you state when asking for requests like this, then you won't mind not being competitive in those classes. You can simply take advantage of the liberal modification rules to add your adjustable timing gears and go have more "fun"...



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:

Damn it Darin, if your perceived to be the gran pooba on the AdHoc committe don't you think you sould be a little more neutral on your recommendations. Since when is it allowed that the recommedations of the committee would be focused on keeping the Acura's and Hondas slower so the Nissans can catch up.

WHAT IN THE HELL are you talking about??? You'd better go back a re-read pal... I have absolutly NO personal interest invested in this discussion what-so-ever... I was only throwing out those names as an example of how changing this rule would effect IT as a whole...


Originally posted by: Banzai240
Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...



You are WAY OFF BASE and I find it laughable that you'd even suggest such a thing...

If you guys don't understand the ramifications of allowing cars with overhead cams, Especially DOHCs, to have adjustable gears, then you'd better go back and read some articles on basic car performance... There is a REASON why the rules specifically limit these cars...

On the other cars, it's no more difficult to come up with an offset key for cam or crank than it is to come up with adjustable timing gears for "most" cars...

And, by the way... the Nissans don't have a need to "catch up"... so where that came from I have NO idea... If you think I've supported any recommendation based on my personal bias toward Nissans, you'd better go do some research, because you have NO idea what you are talking about...

Maybe you'd better go back and re-evaluate your opinion on this matter, because this attack on me was totally and utterely off the mark and completely pointless...

The ITAC, AS A COMMITTEE, ruled this change down just a couple of months ago for all the reasons that have been stated, the most important being that it was NOT in the best interests of IT... If you can't handle that, that's your issue to deal with.

AND, by the way... it is not the job of the ITAC to be concerned with every aspect of Production racing... Our rules have been rather consistant over the past 10 years, and Production went off in it's own direction with the LP rules, knowing well and good how the IT rules were written and what would be required to make that transition... I've been there and done that with that fight and your current LP rules are the result (in other words, any attempt at reasoning this out with that camp fell on deaf ears...) Production made it's rules knowing full well what the IT rules were... I see no reason why IT should NOW change it's rules to make it easier to go to Production... If Production was concerned about IT car making the transistion, they should have written their rules to accomodate...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Tom Blaney]

As I stated before, if the rule said that the timing has to be stock, than why is that so difficult for you to measure. The rule allows you to bore 40 over not 42 over simple and very measurable. The rule said the cam timing has to be stock (be it single cam double cam or pushrod) measurable not even too hard for you to understand. The rule says that the head can be milled X amount, fine measurable. So the engine builder is following the specifications for bore, milling, and now he gets to cam timing, it might change based on the fact that the head is milled (are you able to follow me sofar) now the hard part. The customer has two choices, modify the key (if possible at a shop charge) to follow moronic rules that some people perceive will prevent cheating to try and fit a custom offset key into the pulley or have the customer purchase an off the shelf item for 1/3rd the cost of machine work to set the cam timing back to factory setting (again measurable). A classic win, win. A competitor decides to protest you for illegal motor including cam timing, the steward pulls out his/her trusty dial indicator, looks at the shop manual, presto, cam timing is either correct(legal) or incorrect (illegal).

As far as the rest of it goes, what is so wrong will allowing the racer to use that car either regionally or nationally without major modifications.

[Joe Harlan]

Tom the problem is that in most cases the protest never happens so the cheater just continues to cheat. Cheating by as I posted earlier having 2 known settings for HP and Torque and we have now just given them an easy path to change it at the track. Second part of this deal. You will hardly ever find enough tools to degree a cam at the track let alone qualified tech folks to perform the test. Limits man there has to be some.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Tom the problem is that in most cases the protest never happens so the cheater just continues to cheat. Cheating by as I posted earlier having 2 known settings for HP and Torque and we have now just given them an easy path to change it at the track. Second part of this deal. You will hardly ever find enough tools to degree a cam at the track let alone qualified tech folks to perform the test. Limits man there has to be some.

This is part of the reason that the stewards were told to improve the way that specifications can be tested at or off of the track. In a protest last fall that I was one of the authors of, we fould out quite quickly how poorly prepared the region was to fulfill the requirements of the protest and although we won, it was still quite taxing for both sides of the fence.

The point of the discussion (and one of my pet peeves with the rules advisors) is that they seem to make rules that result in it easier for the cash rich to find ways to cheat while the cash poor can't afford. The exact example here is that the rule says stock setting, simple test simple result. Does it really matter how you get to stock, The poor guy can;t afford to have a cheater cam pulley manufactured to look like a stock pulley, but possibly could afford the $75 adjustable that will allow him to set the cam back to where it is suppose to be for less than the cheater pulley. Now they rich and poor are back on the same playing field. So by saying in he rules that the cam timing can be set back to stock, but only with "offset keys" you now create a situation where some cars can easily use an offset key (that might be sold by the competition department from one manufacturer and not the other). Does the "jensen healy" have a easly accessable offset key, but I bet the nissan does.

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, You loose the bet. Nissan does not offer an offset key to line up the cams. I am at a loss as to why you find the need to personalize this to brand type. I make a custom gear for the GT and prod motored Nissans. 275 bucks. What you fail to get is that not every car brand will be able to take advantage of a cheap gear. Second I have seen more 75 dollar gears cost people complete race engines from what I call Sh*t part failure. And offset key can be made in your shop with a ginder and a file and most of the time you can do it from a small block chevy (cheapest engine ever to build) keyway.
Lets keep this above board and not be making it out like somebody is protecting an investment cause it ain't the case.

Second part. I think it is great that the stewards want to improve their part of the system. The part of the system that fails is between us drivers. 95% of the time I here "oh he's a cheater" yet I less than 2% Of the races I have attended have I seen a mechanical protest.

[Tom Blaney]

If I am not mistaken, some of the Nissan's can use offset keys in the L series motors. The Honda/Acura cannot use an offset key in their cam pulley without modifying the pulley. The idea of a cheap piece of crap is immaterial in the discussion. The entire point of the discussions is that the rules are written without real understanding of the reason why. If the rule says stock cam timing who cars if and how you get to stock, just get back to stock. If the rule is written with some slant, as is the idea of an offset key than it allows for cheating or at worst an increase in costs to comply. For example the rule allows for offset plates for the VW and the Nissans, but not offset ball joints for the honda. If the rule stated that you are allowed a 10% variation in camber from stock that is measurable and easy to control, not some can have camber plates and some can't. So now the cheater in the group has his big bucks builder modify the control arm to get the camber that the other guy can do for a $150 camber plate.

Yes my slant is against a particular manufacturer expecially since I have listened to the tirates that went on about bushings and then did some research on what is available to all the competitors.


[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Greg Amy]

While I disagree with Tom's "black Nissan helicopter" paranoia, I have to agree with his technical points.

The rule states you "can" return the cam timing to stock setting, but doesn't require it; the allowable method(s) to return the cam timing to stock are outdated. Simply require stock cam timing and allow easy methods to get it there (adjustable pulleys). Measuring cam timing is ridiculously easy and can be done without removing any significant parts. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, I think you should re-read that whole section. When they talk about gears they indicate timing shall be stock. when the talk about the key they are allowing it's use as a method of returning the timing to stock. I believe the timing must be stock period and they are providing a method of getting it there if that method is needed.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As far as the rest of it goes, what is so wrong will allowing the racer to use that car either regionally or nationally without major modifications.

Nothing, and non-adjustable cam timing does nothing to keep someone from running an IT car in production. Sure they won't be competive but no even remotely legal IT car would be.

Greg, while in theory I agree that the rule should require stock timing and allow whatever reasonable means to get there. But, what about the common argument that an allowed part would quickly be seen as required to be competitive and raise the cost to fully prep a car? I can already see people going for that ultralight weight cam pulley to shave .2 grams of precious rotating mass. The current method allows stock timing to be maintained and does not offer a performance advantage, why expand the rule and give people more room to exploit it?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Greg, I think you should re-read that whole section. When they talk about gears they indicate timing shall be stock. when the talk about the key they are allowing it's use as a method of returning the timing to stock. I believe the timing must be stock period and they are providing a method of getting it there if that method is needed.

If you are allowed to shave the head to within the factory limit (plus or minus a percentage) but not to exceed a predefined compression ratio, than there is a good chance that the cam timing will be "off" because of the relationship between the centerline of the crankshaft and the centerline of the cam. So therefore unless you have an equitable way for ALL marks to re-adjust the setting back to factory, theoritically all of those who can't use "offset" keys are cheating.

If you look at the lap times of the front running IT cars at Lime Rock, they are not far off of the front pack within production, (and for that fact GTLite), so if I want to put some slicks on my car and run GTL but still want to swap back to ITA why not.


[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
Yes my slant is against a particular manufacturer expecially since I have listened to the tirates that went on about bushings and then did some research on what is available to all the competitors.


So, this attack boils down to someone calling you on an obviously illegal part? Nice form...

I can appreciate you wanting to make racing "easier", but if you recall all those conversations about "unintended consequences", this one has them written all over it...

Let's boil this down to brass tacks... WHO is being kept off the track because they can't use adjustable timing gears on the cams???

[sound=Crickets Chirping]


That's what I thought...

This is classic rules creep and not something that the current ITAC or CRB is interested in doing to this class...

The coil-over rule... that was totally outdated and we fixed that... This cam timing "issue" that you are creating here... it's every bit as relevent today to return cam-timing to stock with an offset pin or keyway as it was 20 years ago...

Let me put that another way... NO ONE in the automotive industry is out there installing $250.00+ adjustable timing gears to return their cam-timing to "STOCK"... It's ALWAYS done to adjust the timing to optimize performance... If anyone has experienced otherwise, feel free to correct me...

AND, if there are some cars where it's harder to do than others... that's the choice you made in cars... Every car has it's positive and negative points...

This whole converstation is ironical really... two years ago, all we heard about was preserving the "integrity of IT"... ("PCAs will be the end of IT", etc...) Now that the ITAC/CRB has been making suttle moves to correct some traditional issues with the class, suddenly the "integrity" of the IT rules aren't a concern anymore... ("Let's allow open ECUs", "Adjustable Timing gears", "short Shifters", "Lexan Winshields", etc... $$$$$ )

They are to the ITAC and CRB still... and will continue to be so long as we are selected to serve...

The bottom line here, in my opinion,... this is a strictly performance based notion and unnecessary for the purpose and intent of IT...


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

[Joe Harlan]

Tom , You really need to get all your facts.

The L series engine has 3 factory holes in the gear to return the cam timing to stock.

Every car out there runs a keyway on the crank pulley which is where you can offset the key to return your timing to stock. NOWHERE in the book soes it say it is ok to run anything other than stock cam timing.

As far a personal issue about bushings that is BS, I used to make the exact bushing for the 240z's until I realized it was not legal. Taking pot shots at Nissans because a person that drives a nissan proved you wrong is BS..... ANd trust me if it weren't for me Darin would be in an ITS GSR rather than the 240sx that I talked him into.

[Knestis]

Classic.

Joe is arguing with Greg when they appear to be saying the same thing.

Tom accuses Darin of Nissan favoritism without any evidence.

People argue against using a non-allowed part to do an allowed thing, on the grounds that unscrupulous indivdiduals do an illegal thing that they can current do with the ALLOWED part.

The only reason that I know to go to the Mercedes parts desk to buy offset keys to correct the timing on an 8v Golf - legal, legal, legal - is because it was common knowledge among people who ran SS versions of the same car.

There are two arguments here - at least - and mixing them up is NOT helpful.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
.. theoritically all of those who can't use "offset" keys are cheating.


Tom,

The rule states, and I quote:


From ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.f
Cars originally equipped with plastic/phenolic timing gears may substitute metal gears, provided that the design, dimensions, and cam timing remain as stock.



From ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.l
An offset key may be used to return cam timing to the factory specifications.


The only time in the rulebook that there is a REQUIREMENT for the cam-timing to be "remain stock", is when you are using a replacement gear IF you had a plastic gear to start with...

Otherwise, the book says you "MAY" use a key to return the timing to stock... You are NOT required to do it. I suppose it can be implied that the cam timing must otherwise be "stock", but if you'll note, the allowance for the offset key is in the section discussing shaving the head, so it can also be implied that if you shave the head, you are not "required" to return the timing to stock... you "may" use an offset key to do it, if you so choose...

There are many allowances in the rulebook that you MAY do, but are not required to do... If you perform an allowed modification, and it causes "other" effects to the motor, such as IF you shave the head and that throws your cam-timing off, you are given a method where you MAY correct this... BUT, you shaved the head at your own discression and the consequences of that action SHOULD have been taken into consideration prior to making the modification...

Race cars are a package deal... and understanding how one thing is going to effect another is all part of the racing equation...

If an allowable modification causes a negative effect on the performance of your car, I don't think it's good practice to change the rules to give another allowable modification. Case in point... Production and their ride-height rules, or lack there-of... Many of these LP cars KNOW that if they lower their cars too far, even though it's allowed by the rules, their handling will suffer, so they DON'T lower them...

Again, the rules give you a method for correcting your cam timing... Just because you don't like the method doesn't mean it's wrong, outdated, or that the rules need to be further opened up to make your life easier...

Here's an interesting side-note that goes right along with this discussion...

We received a letter asking us to allow the removal of idler pullies, etc.. The reasoning?? Now that crank pullies are free, these idlers, etc., get in the way of using really large diameter alternate pullies...

Ummmmm... then don't use such a large pulley...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

The only time in the rulebook that there is a REQUIREMENT for the cam-timing to be "returned to stock", is when you are using a replacement gear IF you had a plastic gear to start with...

Otherwise, the book says you "MAY" use a key to return the timing to stock... You are NOT required to do it.


Sorry Darin but I don't see the allowance for anything other than stock valve timing. I see a method (if needed) to return the cam to stock timing . Not all car need that method to return them to stock timing after shaving the head. But what I don't see is the allowance to have anything other than stock valve timing. Does the FSM give a timing spec after you cut the head to the allowed amount? I don't think so. Not being anal here just trying to get it correct.

And yes Kirk you are correct that Greg and I are saying the same thing I just don't read well all the time. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
But what I don't see is the allowance to have anything other than stock valve timing. Does the FSM give a timing spec after you cut the head to the allowed amount?

OK, if the head were allowed to be milled and you were NOT given the allowance to return it to stock, what would the "requirement" for cam-timing be??? In my opinion, and by any traditional reading of the GCR/ITCS, if the rules say you "may" do something, it is at your discression... If you mill the head, and it throws your cam timing off, you MAY return it to stock... I don't see anything in the rules that says you MUST return it to stock. Likewise, if you replace plastic timing gears, you are REQUIRED (MUST) retain the stock cam timing...

As with other rules, (pistons come to mind)... Once the rule allows something (head milling), there are some things that are implied from that allowance. In this case, one of those "things" is that your cam-timing could possibly be off... That is acknowledged by the allowance to correct it...

Now, should we make it "easier" for everyone to adjust their cam timing? Would we really be doing that? OR, would we only be making it "easier" for those with popular cars supported by the aftermarket??

There are many angles to this arguement, but it boils down to just HOW far do you want to open up the rules? I don't know how many cars are actually hindered by this supposed cam-timing issue, but I'm pretty sure it's far fewer than those that would be effected by us changing the rules to open up the allowances even more and increasing the prep-costs for an IT engine... Especially when there is little evidence that the change is truely needed to "enhance" the IT experience...

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

[Catch22]

Damn.
While I'm almost sorry I brought it up, I'll just restate it again and go away.

An adjustable cam timing gear won't get you anything that an offset key can get you. So you're not really changing anything by allowing the timing gear.

In short, someone that will cheat with a timing gear is likely already cheating with an offset key anyway.
Cheaters are cheaters. Making it harder for me to get back to stack timing isn't slowing them down at all.
Just my humble opinion.

You know, I once had a great uncle who never locked his house or his car. He figured a thief is a thief, and leaving the doors unlocked *might* keep him from having to replace a window along with all his stolen stuff.
<shrug>

[John Herman]

You're right, an adjustable cam gear (as in one) or an adjustable crank gear doesn't matter. However, for DOHC engines, you need two adjustable cam gears, so now not only can you adjust the cams with respect to the crank, but also to each other.

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That is acknowledged by the allowance to correct it...</font>

Almost Darin, The allowance is a method to do the legal thing and correct the timing to stock. Please find me a copy of a FSM that has specs for timing with a head milled .025?

Either you have to return it to stock or the rule is not enforcable.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Classic.

Joe is arguing with Greg when they appear to be saying the same thing.

Tom accuses Darin of Nissan favoritism without any evidence.

People argue against using a non-allowed part to do an allowed thing, on the grounds that unscrupulous indivdiduals do an illegal thing that they can current do with the ALLOWED part.

The only reason that I know to go to the Mercedes parts desk to buy offset keys to correct the timing on an 8v Golf - legal, legal, legal - is because it was common knowledge among people who ran SS versions of the same car.

There are two arguments here - at least - and mixing them up is NOT helpful.

K

If any of you knew anything about how a honda worked you would know that the "camkey" is part if the pulley and cannot be replaced" SO, as I have stated before (and some seem to want to ignore the fact) If you allow a modification than that modification should be allowed by ALL competitors. If the Nissan has 3 holes or a VW has a removable cam key that can be replaced with a offset key that can be filed to fit to adjust the cam timing, than the ability should be allowed to all cars. If the rules "imply" that the cam timing is not suppose to be modified to improve performance than the "assumption" should be that if it is checked than it should be at the factory stock specification (not may, not might). Otherwise how is it fair for the VW to replace the keys when the Nissan cannot rotate the cam gear and the Honda cannot. The argument is that the engine is suppose to be stock with the exception to specifice modifications. If the modification causes one motor to be "illegal" and another "legal" then why have the rule. If one motor can get back into specification within the rules and the other can't because the rule didn't account for all the motors that the rule is broken and should be fixed, otherwise the rule provides an unfair advantage to one or the other.

Again the bottom line is that the factory specifications for all modern motors are available, the rules define what range of modifications can be made to the specification. These specifications are the base line for how a motor is expected to perform, the method to get the motor to specificaion is basically immaterial provided if the motor is checked and out of specification than it is illegal. If the rules allow you to modify the motor to the defined specification but then rule you can't get it back in line than the rule is broken.

If a racer is going to run out of the defined specifications be it cam timing, popup pistons, big valves, whatever it is illegal, the fact that they used an adjustable part to get there makes no difference and the idea of it will control costs went out the window as soon as you said .40 overbore

[Bill Miller]

Here's an interesting thought, after reading the two different rules on cam timing. IF your car came w/ plastic/phenolic gears (like my old '74 Capri 2.8) that you replace (and who in their right mind wouldn't?) AND you mill the head, the way I read the rule, is that you are REQUIRED to run stock cam timing. Which means, you MUST use an offset key to get there. I agree that there is no requirement to return the cam timing to the stock value, if you have milled the head (excpet in the above mentioned scenario).

All that being said, I've reconsidered my position on the cam gear. People have made valid arguements that either an offset key, or an adjustable gear, get you to the same place. They've also made the arguement that cheaters will do it any way.

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

[Ron Earp]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you allow a modification than that modification should be allowed by ALL competitors. If the Nissan has 3 holes or a VW has a removable cam key that can be replaced with a offset key that can be filed to fit to adjust the cam timing, than the ability should be allowed to all cars.[/B]</font>

Talk about rules creep, transferring positive aspects of different designs to all cars will cause a lot of it!!

You pick your weapon and live with the shortcoming and advantages. Sounds like the Honda has a distinct disadvantage when attempting to return the cam timing to stock.


------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 20, 2005).]

[zracre]

If I have a nitrous bottle in my car and it is empty, will I make it through impound??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[This message has been edited by zracre (edited April 20, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Damn.
.....In short, someone that will cheat with a timing gear is likely already cheating with an offset key anyway.
Cheaters are cheaters. Making it harder for me to get back to stack timing isn't slowing them down at all.
Just my humble opinion.



I am going to offer a respectful different opinion here.

All cheaters are not created equal. Human nature is variable, and people fall on both sides, and at varying distances from the morality centerline.

Why make it easy for a guy to set his cam hot for the local races where he knows the competitors won't have the moxie to protest, or where the Stewards would be flumoxed at the requirement, but then set it right for certain races where the odds of a protest were much different??

Sure, the determined cheat will redo his cam (or crank) gear offset key, but there are far more guys who would love to "tweak it up" here and there. I don't build engines, but it seems to me that it would be easy to degree it for "stock", make a little mark, then degree it for "hot", make another mark, and so on. Trackside changes? Piece of cake! Hey, in a tight cometitive class, I can see a guy hotting it up just for qualifying, then returning it to stock right after the session....try protesting him! Trouble is, he is on the pole, and drives a car as wide as Senna, and wins the race.

We don't need that, thankyou!

I think the key (pardon the pun) word here is "temptation"...why make it easier and more tempting than it already is to cheat???

Now...a simple question. I created a need on my Honda to reset my cam timing to stock because I have made other allowed mods. Is my "new" cam timing better, or worse than stock?



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

[Daryl DeArman]

Yes, we have been through this before...

The word "MAY" can also be used to mean it is permitted...as I believe it is in the case of the "offset key may be used...."

This implies they want the timing stock.

If they didn't they would tell you that it can be changed. IIDSYCYC

Now, if you mill the head and can't get the timing back to stock by using an offset key then some would suggest "don't mill it that much...no permitted modification may perform another illegal function...."

Another rule that needs to be rewritten. I recall a recent clarification on the wheel diameter change because the rule didn't say what they wanted it to mean. Why not state that "Stock cam timing must be maintained. Offset keys and/or adjustable pulleys are permitted"?

If you think it should be allowed to be outside of stock, only if the head has been milled then why not allow adjustable pulleys on them as well?

[Joe Harlan]

Dear Mr. Blaney.....Please get a rule book a read the rules completely. The offset key is allowed at the crank also. If I recall correctly Honda still uses a keyway on the crank. Never make the assumption that the people you are dealing with don't know about the engines you are working with. I have just a couple of years of engine experience in domestic and import engines. The real deal is the people that argue the hardest for a rule normally have a personal motivation to get it done. Will we be seeing a custom gear for honda's on your website soon after the rule is passed?

[mowog]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Now that crank pullies are free,


Sorry for the detour, but crank pullies are now free? Did I miss something when I read the rules????

[Matt Rowe]

Crank pulleys will be free as of 01/01/06. The change was noted in FastTrack although I can't tell you which issue off the top of my head. Probably January or February

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[mowog]

Thanks Matt, that's what I thought. It seemed Darrin was saying they were free now.

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The word "MAY" can also be used to mean it is permitted</font>...

GCR 1.2.4


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This implies they want the timing stock.</font>

Nope, I disagree.

Any time a mod is permitted (e.g., shaving the head or block), any resulting change is also permitted (e.g., cam timing). Since performing this allowable modification must - by design - result in a cam timing change, the resulting cam timing change is allowed unless specifically disallowed.

While the ITCS "permits" retiming the cam to stock via an offset key at the crankshaft, it does not require it, therefore any resulting change in cam timing due to shaving the head and/or block is also permitted. You can use the "illegal mod" argument, but show me how you cna shave the ehad without channging the cam timing?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Another rule that needs to be rewritten.</font>

If that's truly the original intent, then yes. However, an ITAC philosopher once told me, "how in the bloody hell do you know that's not the intent they had in mind in the first place??"


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Crank pulleys will be free as of 01/01/06...</font>

Holy jumpin' JC, I just thought of something: how's that rule worded? Aren't the timing belt pulleys also considered "pullies"? Thus, did they just make crankshaft timing belt pullies free, too? This oughtta be fun...

[Tom Blaney]

Ok guys here's the deal (and this is the honest truth) I was in my office today on a very slow day. I don't watch the IT site much any more because it has become the same few people doing the same preaching or bitching depending on whose side your on.

So I saw Darin's usual post about ranting on the rules of law and how the world should see it. I decided to be a little childish and see if I can provoke him into another rant, I did and he responded in kind. I just confirmed to me that the site is not as useful as it use to be because of the rules banter.

I don't give a rats anymore about how Darian or anybody else perceives the rules are written.

I do apologize to everyone else on the site who took this too serious, it was not too cool.

Unfortunatly SCCA club racing is suppose to be about fun and friendship, it is not that anymore and I ahve to accept that.

Sorry
Tom Blaney

[Daryl DeArman]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
...but show me how you cna shave the ehad without channging the cam timing?

I can mill the head on my FV without changing the cam timing...How about all the motors that are cam in block design?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
[quote]Holy jumpin' JC, I just thought of something: how's that rule worded? Aren't the timing belt pulleys also considered "pullies"? Thus, did they just make crankshaft timing belt pullies free, too? This oughtta be fun...

Yeah Greg good catch. It is a little openly worded and a little correction now would save some trouble down the road. Especially since you have brought up this interpretation. I can already hear the sound of aluminum spinning on lathes as alternate crank pulleys are being made.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Knestis]

With repsect, Tom - I think you are missing the point. Or taking this too seriously. Or both.

It's the INTERNET. It's a medium that operates best out at the edges of logic, hyperbole, and politeness. It is NOT the real world. Anyone who goes away from a flame war actually pissed off at a real human being, to the degree that they will be nasty to them in person, probably should communicate in other ways but it does NOT have to be that way.

I for one learn a LOT from these exchanges. Sometimes it's obvious that there's a shit-stirrer in our midst, sometimes it surfaces new issues or questions, and sometimes it's a waste of time. Whatever. The odds still make it worth the time it takes.

But farting in church then stomping out complaining about how bad religion stinks doesn't further discourse - polite or otherwise - and isn't in anyone's interest. Stick around, yank Darin's chain every once in a while, apologize if you go to far, and contribute to the community - as disfunctional as it might be sometimes.

We all might understand issues like this better if we take them out and smack them around a little sometimes.

K

[Joe Harlan]

So Greg I guess we aren't saying the samething as Kirk would have you think. Shaving the head on a fiesta results in no cam timing change. So how is the fiesta compensated by the rules since a timing change would benefit them? To start with there is no intent because it is never spelled out the allowance was a way to put the timing back to legal spec. I know this because the other method on an l-series engine is to shim the cam towers which is clearly not legal but does the same job. I would again say the since nothing say you can change the cam timing to anything other than stock it must remain stock.

[ITANorm]

^^^
In the same way that "free ECU's as long as they fit in the stock box" helped the 32/36 DGV/DHSA guys. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

[racer-025]

Like I said earlier on in this topic, this is suspposed to be entry level regional road racing. $5 trophies are the reward. Some people seem to go very deep to win in this little series. It really doesn't make any sence to me. I race very hard and I want to win. However, if I'm blown away by a second and a half by that guy thats cheating - I just don't care. It's all fun to me. Some of us need to take a step back and take a good look at why we do this...

[joeg]

Joe--Any car--even a pushrod Fiesta--can benefit from bringing the cam timing specs up to snuff--or hunting for that verbotem sweet spot of advance or retard.

While I am not sure if anyone has developed an 'infinitely adjustable' cam drive for it, there certainly does exist stuff for pushrod V-8(s) superior to cam buttons or offset keys.

Cheers.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
... I would again say the since nothing say you can change the cam timing to anything other than stock it must remain stock.

...which is why the there are so many red herring in this net.

Look - If I were a REALLY industrious cheater, I would buy a Dial-a-cam for the Golf, use it to determine on the chassis dyno what kind of cam timing makes the most poop, then have a key ground to replicate that offst. I would have bought BOTH and it would STILL be cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Nothing in the current rules would have prevented me from doing this, because rules don't prevent cheating - enforcement of rules prevents cheating.

Scott is only suggesting that, since it would be ultimately cheaper - or only possible, for some - to do the allowed thing with adjustable gears, it is a reasonable request.

If that gets turned down for reasons way outside of the question at hand, that's not surprising but it is a little unfortunate. If cheating is the problem, we know the solution to that.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by joeg:
Joe--Any car--even a pushrod Fiesta--can benefit from bringing the cam timing specs up to snuff--or hunting for that verbotem sweet spot of advance or retard.


Cheers.

Joe I agree and understand. Then we get into what Kirk was talking about when it comes to enforcement. When I have the fiesta checked for cam timing how does the competitor explain the reason for the offset key in a push rod engine?

[planet6racing]

It's also not that hard to fill the key slot with weld and machine a new key slot. That could probably be done for ~$75-100 at just about any machine shop.

And I thought the inner door handle discussion was going to be the one to take off like washer bottles!

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
If that gets turned down for reasons way outside of the question at hand, that's not surprising but it is a little unfortunate.

K

If something like this is allowed, it suddenly becomes "necessary", which means that people will believe they MUST have this on their engine to be competitive. That WOULD truely be unfortuneate...

Like ECUs... if they were open, then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...

The more you allow, the more people "need"... That makes racing more expensive...

Again, not having adjustable cam gears isn't keeping ANYONE from competing today, and Tom is the only one thus far that seems to have a problem getting a Honda/Acura to be competitive witout them... There is no "need" for this change...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...</font>

Perception is not reality; ask any magician. "Feeling" something is so doesn't make it so; ask any Marxist.

If we are writing rules on perception or "feelings" rather than reality then something is really wrong here.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...and Tom is the only one thus far that seems to have a problem getting a Honda/Acura to be competitive witout them...</font>

No need to return the cheap shots, Darin; Tom is already competitive today. - GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Perception is not reality; ask any magician. "Feeling" something is so doesn't make it so; ask any Marxist.

If we are writing rules on perception or "feelings" rather than reality then something is really wrong here.

- GA

OK Greg... then the "reality" is that people would believe they needed these parts to be competitive and would purchase them...

No rules are being written (or NOT written, in this case) based on "feelings" or "perception"... They are based on what actually happens... What actually happens, however, is that people "feel" they need these parts, and they go out an buy these parts...

Didn't we just go through this with the whole wheel diameter deal?? Many didn't want the rule to change because they were afraid of the perception that you MUST upgrade to keep up...

You are reasonable people... you've seen this all before... how does the phrase go??? "Keeping up with the Jones'"???

That's not an intangible thing... it's what really happens... It's REALITY...

As for the "cheap shot" on Tom... He's the only one complaining, and he did initiate this diatribe... admittedly in order to provoke me... He deserves the shot... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for the "cheap shot" on Tom... He's the only one complaining, and he did initiate this diatribe... admittedly in order to provoke me... He deserves the shot... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif



Yeah Darin, God forbid that you be the bigger man and just let it go. You sound like some of the kids in my son's 4th grade class.


Like ECUs... if they were open, then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...



And you don't think that people now feel that they need to stuff a MOTEC into a stock housing? Tell me that's not what the top E36 cars have done?

As I said, I've reconsidered my position on the cam gear issue. If you can use an offset key to correct the timing back to stock, why shouldn't you be allowed to use an alternate means to correct the timing? If the timing has to be stock, it has to be stock. Pretty obvious if you have an adjustable cam gear, so no question, valve timing has to be stock. Not too easy to hide that. Whereas, it's not so obvious if you have an offset key, but again, if you do, valve timing has to be stock.

I see a lot of similarities to the old threaded-body shock rule. You could put sleeves on, but not use threaded-body shocks. You could turn the threads off and they would be legal.

If you have to run stock valve timing (if you are using an offset key or an adjustable gear), what's the issue, and where's the performance advantage? I think the perception is, that people will cheat, if you make it easier for them to do it. Maybe yes, maybe no.


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

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">God forbid that you be the bigger man and just let it go.</font>

Funny Bill, I read your statement and end up thinking the exact samething about you here http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Look - If I were a REALLY industrious cheater, I would buy a Dial-a-cam for the Golf, use it to determine on the chassis dyno what kind of cam timing makes the most poop, then have a key ground to replicate that offst. I would have bought BOTH and it would STILL be cheap in the grand scheme of things.


Exactly. The current rule doesn't make it any harder to cheat with cam timing than allowing adjustable gears. The current rule, as written, in and of itself stops nothing. I could do exactly what Kirk notes above to maximize my cam timing and then have my stock cam/gear cut and keyed to that setting... Voila!
Easypeasy.

Rules don't stop cheating.
Personal integrity or fear of getting caught stops cheating.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Rules don't stop cheating.


Let's allow aftermarket hood scoops... That would eliminate any questions about people "ram-air"...

We should also allow short-shifters... that would eliminate people cheating in that area as well...

Oh, and we should also allow control arm modifications... lop off the ends and weld on heims... that would eliminate any suspension concerns over the legality of which bushings are legal...

Let's see... Open up cams???... That would do away with the concerns over the legality of "superseded" parts...

Exactly where do you guys want to draw the line???

There are a hundred things that could be changed in the rules to make it "eaiser" to build a race car, and every one of them would add $$$ to the project... The more you can do, the more you will do, or the more you will HAVE to do to be competitive...

There is a reason why Spec Miatas, etc., are popular, and that revolves heavily around the fact that you can't do anything to them except tune and drive...

The Intent in IT is still stated as being "to restrict modiciations to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Adjustable cam gears are NOT NECESSARY... not even to have a GOOD race car... IT has survived for many, many years without this allowance... I personally don't see any evidence that it won't continue to do so...

HOWEVER... Feel free to submit a letter with this request and run it by the rest of the group and the CRB... Maybe I'm alone on an island somewhere and everyone else will welcome this change...

[email protected]



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

[GT240sx]

I only have a copy of the 2004 GCR in front of me but rule 17.1.4.D.1.f states: ....Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock.

This leads me to think that on cars with adjustable timing gears fitted as stock, it is legal to use them and thus adjust the cam timing. Unless the car is ruled to have a stock legal part performing an illegal function??

On cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu, it seems that they could vary the cam timing within the ecu and tech couldn't verify that by just inspecting the cam position. They would have to know the stock values for the ecu and then they would have to verify they were not changed before and after a race....sounds very difficult.

I don't see a problem with changing cam timing as long as you don’t change the cams. I would think that the cars with adjustable cam gears fitted as stock equipment and the cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu are already doing this legally. If the rule is supposed to say “cam timing must remain stock” then it should say that, but it doesn’t. From reading the rules it looks like only cars fitted with plastic/phenolic timing gears that decide to make them metal have to keep stock cam timing. Because 17.1.4.D.1.f says they may substitute metal gears provided cam timing remains as stock. Also, as someone else pointed out, in section 17.1.4.D.1.l, it says an offset key may be used to return cam timing to factory specifications. It doesn’t say you must.

I probably have an unpopular view of the rules, and maybe I am missing something but I think rules should be very clear about what is not allowed. If the rules don’t specifically say “every car must keep cam timing stock” then you can be sure that people will tune their cam timing and feel like it is completely legal.


------------------
Russell White
Indianapolis, IN
'85 Toyota Supra
ready for ITS in 8 months....maybe

[DavidM]

Think I missed some logic somewhere. As I understood it, the reasoning behind wanting adjustable cam gears was because it made it easier (and cheaper I think I read as well) to return timing to stock after things like milling the head. It has since been stated as part of the arguement for adjustable cam gears that allowing them doesn't make cheating easier since you can already do the same thing by re-keying. This doesn't seem to make sense. If it's just as easy to re-time by re-keying then why do you want the rule change in the first place?

Seeems to me there are 2 possible cases here:

1) Adjustable cam gears make changing the timing easier, which also makes cheating easier.
2) Adjustable cam gears do not make changing the timing easier, in which case why ask for a rules change?

Somebody check my logic since it's been a while since I've had a logic class. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

I personally don't like anything that makes cheating easier. Sure, there are people who will cheat no matter what, but I would guess a majority of cheaters are "opportunistic cheaters". Somebody gave the analogy of their uncle leaving his car doors unlocked since he figured if somebody wanted to steal it the locked doors wouldn't stop them. I keep my car doors locked so that the thief will take his uncle's car instead of mine.

David

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Funny Bill, I read your statement and end up thinking the exact samething about you here http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 21, 2005).]

Joe,

And you accuse me of taking things out of context and making an issue of them. When have you ever seen me justify a comment at because it was a 'tit for tat'?



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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by GT240sx:
I don't see a problem with changing cam timing as long as you don’t change the cams. I would think that the cars with adjustable cam gears fitted as stock equipment and the cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu are already doing this legally. If the rule is supposed to say “cam timing must remain stock” then it should say that, but it doesn’t. From reading the rules it looks like only cars fitted with plastic/phenolic timing gears that decide to make them metal have to keep stock cam timing. Because 17.1.4.D.1.f says they may substitute metal gears provided cam timing remains as stock. Also, as someone else pointed out, in section 17.1.4.D.1.l, it says an offset key may be used to return cam timing to factory specifications. It doesn’t say you must.




You are missing a huge 'truth' that is stated right at the start of the ITCS, which is, "except for these items listed, everyting must remain as stock", or something similar, but in legalese.

So, as it doesn't say that you CAN change from stock cam timing, you can't.

However, it does allow alternative gears as a nicety, but reminds you to remain at stock timing. (often the inclusion of a reminder to remain stock in a particular area leads people to conclude that they DON'T have to remain stock in a similar area....an unforunate supposition) It also allows stock adjustable gears but doesn't allow their adjustement beyond stock specs... Remember, if it doesn't say you CAN, you can't.

As for VANOS, yes, it IS allowed, but it was accounted for during classing on a case basis. All other cars were classed based on their cams remaining at the stock position.



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

[Renaultfool]

I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

I would be for a more liberal set of IT rules that would make it simpler, cheaper, and easier to police. After all we race for fun, not to be hasseled by the tech guys (I am one).

There is much distance between IT and Production and within this distance we could make things simpler for us all, remembering that there is no guarentee of competitivness of any car. Freeing up cam timing (hard to police) while requiring the stock cam (easy to measure) removes an area of suspected cheating. Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiots, after all who wants to worry about the paint color of their intake manifold anyway.
All the rules in the world will not stop people from spending a fortune to win a $5 trophy, so let's quit worring about stopping them from spending their money. Spend if you will, you don't have to.
How about everyone run the stock induction system or a Weber 32/36. Run the stock front brakes or any production 10" (or whatever is average for the class) junk yard available brake, etc. You are not talking big money here, just the laws of physics. Outbraking a guy with your factory four wheel disk setup while he/she suffers with some inadequate inferior system that came on their brand is just being a bully, you didn't "beat them". Allow the things that count to become more equal in each class. Keep the internal engine rules the way they are other than as suggested above. Less possible cheating, easy to measure, cheaper to maintain, more fun. If cutting 3" off your shifter or running an alternate 10" brake against the 10" brake that came on my car lets you beat me, go for it. At least we are equal and I know you out drove me.

Until the rules are changed we live with what we have, and the interpretations thereof.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

I would be for a more liberal set of IT rules that would make it simpler, cheaper, and easier to police. After all we race for fun, not to be hasseled by the tech guys (I am one).

There is much distance between IT and Production and within this distance we could make things simpler for us all, remembering that there is no guarentee of competitivness of any car. Freeing up cam timing (hard to police) while requiring the stock cam (easy to measure) removes an area of suspected cheating. Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiots, after all who wants to worry about the paint color of their intake manifold anyway.
All the rules in the world will not stop people from spending a fortune to win a $5 trophy, so let's quit worring about stopping them from spending their money. Spend if you will, you don't have to.
How about everyone run the stock induction system or a Weber 32/36. Run the stock front brakes or any production 10" (or whatever is average for the class) junk yard available brake, etc. You are not talking big money here, just the laws of physics. Outbraking a guy with your factory four wheel disk setup while he/she suffers with some inadequate inferior system that came on their brand is just being a bully, you didn't "beat them". Allow the things that count to become more equal in each class. Keep the internal engine rules the way they are other than as suggested above. Less possible cheating, easy to measure, cheaper to maintain, more fun. If cutting 3" off your shifter or running an alternate 10" brake against the 10" brake that came on my car lets you beat me, go for it. At least we are equal and I know you out drove me.

Until the rules are changed we live with what we have, and the interpretations thereof.

Well hell lets just pitch the rule book completely and let the whole class run the same size brakes as the guy with the biggest brakes in the class? You know some of us actually enjoy racing in a class with a proper set of rules that we all have to live with. I know of a case where a track record was set by a car many people spent tons o money and time trying to go after that record. Years latter that car ended up being bought by me. When I pulled the car apart it had a 2.0l crank in a 1.6l engine. How do you fix that. That's the problem with treating people that believe in the rules like A-holes and acting like they hurt your fun. Fact is a protest every now and and again is a good thing. Jake thanks for the correct reading of the book. I have asked several times where anything other than stock was allowed. NOw I guess we have the answer.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
... When I pulled the car apart it had a 2.0l crank in a 1.6l engine. How do you fix that. ...

Hmm. Was it a red ITC car?

K

------------------
PhilsTireService.com Team GTI - ITB Class Winner, 2004 13 Hours at VIR (http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/enduro04.php) - Tuned with Cobalt Friction (http://cobaltfriction.com/) brake pads, KONI (http://www.koni-na.com/racing.html) racing struts, and quality OE Volkswagen and racing parts from Bildon Motorsport (http://www.bildon.com/)

TOYO and HOOSIER Racing Tires available at Phil's Tire Service (http://www.philstireservice.com/)

[Joe Harlan]

No but I think I know which car you speak of... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[zracre]

Adjustable cam timing will just make us twin cam guys faster...

Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
When have you ever seen me justify a comment at because it was a 'tit for tat'?



Another winking smiley complety lost on Bill...



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

[Joe Harlan]

yeah but he did say TIT [insert best beavis laugh here]

[lateapex911]

But he also said "tat", so will there be a tat on that ti......?

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

[golfracer]

Just a note about sunbelt.....how they get away with it I have no Idea, but if you buy a engine from sunbelt for a spec miata, they have machined the keyways on the cams and gears that allow adjustment. Thats sort of thing is what happens with SPEC RACING. Now I know sunbelt engines have pasted tech in pro races, I just dont see how it is anywhere near stock. Seems like "fuzzy machining" to me, but what do I know I dont make over $5k a motor.

As far as IT, and I am sorry I have to disagree with you Scott, but an IT car is not allowed to adjust cam timing with a key, you are only allowed to return it to stock. Allowing adjustable cam gears directly conflicts this rule. I guess some of us have one more thing we need to police...

[Catch22]

Originally posted by golfracer:
but an IT car is not allowed to adjust cam timing with a key, you are only allowed to return it to stock. Allowing adjustable cam gears directly conflicts this rule. I guess some of us have one more thing we need to police...


Nonononono...No

Thats not what I'm trying to say.

Let me try to rephrase it...
If I can make an adjustment on my cam timing with an offset key to get it to stock, then why not just let me accomplish the SAME end with an adjustable gear?
In the end, if you are policing cam timing, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
And in the end, if you aren't policing cam timing. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Same end, different means.
I just like to keep things simple.

Scott, whos kind of sorry he brought it up at this point.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

..... Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiot....

First, let's ask the ITAC posters here....did you guys (or your prior equals)think about the VANOS thing at all when the VANOS equiped car was classed? Look......... they might not get it all classed perfectly the first time around, but they do pretty well.

Second, it's a stretch to see how anything you list will make racing safer and cheaper. Converting brakes can't be cheaper than leaving what you have.....and how are short shifters safer or cheaper?? Even if you just hack the shaft off, it's still coing to cost something, and labor IS money.

To me, some of the best races I have seen have been the David vs Goliath battles, where one car shone under braking, but was trounced by the others power. It is huge fun to see the drivers strategise and try to work their advantage. The problem with standardizing elements is that it is one (or many) steps closer to a spec series. Look at NASCAR....

As for looking like idiots....sorry, I don't buy that...sure, trot out the washer bottle to make the case, but really, who cares if you have to have the thing! It's harmless! It's just another red herring.

What you are proposing is post classification competition adjustments, sorry to say. Opening up rules as you have suggested will NOT benefit all equally, and as an obvious example, what do you propose to do with the rotaries and their cams? Tell them to pound (more) sand?



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If you can use an offset key to correct the timing back to stock, why shouldn't you be allowed to use an alternate means to correct the timing?

See, the problem is in asking "why shouldn't you?" The real issue is "why should you?"

Present a compelling case other than "gee, it's easier."

The rule book is written from the perspective of what modification are allowed, not what are not allowed. It's not up to the ITAC or CRB or BOD to decide why something shouldn't be allowed. It's up to them to decide why it should.

So far I see zero reason why it should.

BTW Bill, lest you think I'm picking on you, I'm not. You simply provided the most concise point to quote.


------------------
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 lateapex911:
Opening up rules as you have suggested will NOT benefit all equally, and as an obvious example, what do you propose to do with the rotaries and their cams? Tell them to pound (more) sand?

Oh hell no. You not only can you any cam gear you like. You can use any cam you like. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif


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

[Tom Blaney]

As usual the entire discussion is based around poorly planned and poorly written rules. The use of offset keys only favors cars that are capable of using offset keys (VW if I'm not mistaken) so therefore if the Nissan, or Honda follow the rule and mill the head they break the other rule because they can't use offset keys. The BS written into the rule stating that you "MAY" adjust the cam timing back to stock is assinine. It either it is stock or it is not, why can't the rules people get that straight. Screw the "MAY" and use the "MUST" than you "HAVE" to fix the rule so that either "EVERYBODY" can readjust the cam timing or "NOBODY" can adjust the cam timing. Not just the people who have removable cam keys. The dual cam issue is mute if the rule is that the cam timing "MUST" be stock, because even it they have adjustable cam gears they still have to run stock settings. Cheaters will cheat no matter how Darian thinks he can police the rules. But if the steward are given poorly written rules that don't define what the exact rule and spec is that they are to match to then they can't police the cheaters.
If you look at the rule book for NASCAR (yes the one that draws millions of fans) it is very specific about what is and isn;t the rule, I don't think they say you "MAY" use a restrictor plate or you "CAN IF YOU WANT" put a bigger fuel cell in the car.



[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As usual the entire discussion is based around poorly planned and poorly written rules. The use of offset keys only favors cars that are capable of using offset keys (VW if I'm not mistaken) so therefore if the Nissan, or Honda follow the rule and mill the head they break the other rule because they can't use offset keys.

Tom, you should really get your facts straight. Any car that uses a woodruff key is capable of using an offset key. So, I know for sure more than just VWs can. I know Nissan's can.


Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
The BS written into the rule stating that you "MAY" adjust the cam timing back to stock is assinine. It either it is stock or it is not, why can't the rules people get that straight. Screw the "MAY" and use the "MUST" than you "HAVE" to fix the rule so that either "EVERYBODY" can readjust the cam timing or "NOBODY" can adjust the cam timing. Not just the people who have removable cam keys. The dual cam issue is mute if the rule is that the cam timing "MUST" be stock, because even it they have adjustable cam gears they still have to run stock settings. Cheaters will cheat no matter how Darian thinks he can police the rules. But if the steward are given poorly written rules that don't define what the exact rule and spec is that they are to match to then they can't police the cheaters.

What is so hard about this rule? If you use an offset key, it must return cam timing to stock. That seems pretty simple to me.


Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
If you look at the rule book for NASCAR (yes the one that draws millions of fans) it is very specific about what is and isn;t the rule, I don't think they say you "MAY" use a restrictor plate or you "CAN IF YOU WANT" put a bigger fuel cell in the car.

And you're trying to say you've actually seen a NASCAR rule book? They are pretty hard to come by as I understand it. For sure you won't find them on-line.



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
yeah but he did say TIT [insert best beavis laugh here]


Hmmmm, Beavis and Butthead, I always wondered what happened to those guys.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


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

[Tom Blaney]

George:

Did you ever look at the honda crank or cam gear?

Are you sure that all motors that compete in IT use a "REMOVABLE" woodruff key.

If all motors can't make the same adjustment than the rule is not balanced.

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, exactly what engine are you talking about. I will go to a core yard today and look at one. I promise there is a legal way to adjust the timing back to stock on a honda. If there isn't then complaining about it ain't gonna fix it. Why don't you write a request for a specific part for that engine?
Why do we need to change the balance of IT to fix one engine. If the only fix is an adjustable timing gear then so be it. Just be prepared to have you cam timing checked at every race... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Tom, exactly what engine are you talking about. I will go to a core yard today and look at one. I promise there is a legal way to adjust the timing back to stock on a honda. If there isn't then complaining about it ain't gonna fix it. Why don't you write a request for a specific part for that engine?
Why do we need to change the balance of IT to fix one engine. If the only fix is an adjustable timing gear then so be it. Just be prepared to have you cam timing checked at every race... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)

The 1988-1991 Honda CRX SI & CIVIC, D16A6, one of the most popular cars in ITA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:


Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)


Yeah, but which one gets the tee-pee for their bunghole???? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
George:

Did you ever look at the honda crank or cam gear?

Are you sure that all motors that compete in IT use a "REMOVABLE" woodruff key.

Tom, where did I say that all motors that compete in IT use a removable woodruff key? You said Nissns and Honduhs can't and you strongly implied it was a rule written for VWs. I simply stated that more than VWs can and for sure Nissans can.


Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
If all motors can't make the same adjustment than the rule is not balanced.

This is not automotive socialism Tom. Cars by their very nature differ from one another and no amount of trying to make them so will work. Different cars have different strengths and weaknesses. Different cars can take advantage of different rules. That's the way it is.



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

[apr67]

Allow adjustable timing gears, and I will put on much lighter than stock gears, made out of un-cant-afordium.

The price goes up due to unintended consquences.

[Joe Harlan]

YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf (http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRXManual/62SH200/5-16.pdf)

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Renaultfool]

I don't have a real problem with the current rules as they are now, I can live with them. But for how long?
I do advocate a total rewrite and here is why.
The problem we have as a club is that auto technology has progressed since the days these rules were written. We now have dual overhead cam variable cam timing computerized fuel injected mechanical wonders that the club will never have the technical expertise or tooling to police. We still have older cars with push rod engines, single overhead cams, strut suspensions, double A arms, vented disks, unvented disks. I just feel that if you maybe make the hard parts (cams, pistons, valves, etc.) stay stock or to some other easily measured dimension you would just simplify the whole process. The soft parts, wiring harness, computers, jetting, timing, steering stalk switches etc. could be free and not make that much difference anyway.
In the British Touring Car Series they fought the engine rules and inspections for years and finally setteled on rules that specified that everyone run 2.0 litre engines and a 7,500 rpm rev limiter. They simplified the process and several brands of cars became competitive. No, that is not what I am suggesting we do, but maybe some thinking about variations on the theme would work well for us. Maybe draw your intake air through a specified sized hole prior to the throttle plate as they do in Formula 3. Maybe run a maximum valve lift if not stock cams, because lift is easy to check compared to timing. Stuff that is simple to check, because we aren't checking it the way it is now due to complexity.
Yes, to shorten your shifter might cost money, you could break your hacksaw blade, whatever that costs, but it will not make your car or you faster. New brake disks at Pep Boys cost about the same, vented, unvented, 9.5", 10.0". Sure someone would buy a $500 Brembo disk, but the cost does not change the laws of physics, 10" is still 10" in the end. Control the dimension, not the source is my suggestion. Screwing the rules down tight on things that really do not matter, such as whether you use a phillips head screw instead of a slot head screw as a bizare example, will kill our sport.
As automotive technology continues to evolve our rules problems will just get more complex. If we do not look for some simple ways to control things for the future, fields could continue to diminish.

For now, we have the rules we have, let's race within them.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]


Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif :moon:


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

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf (http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRXManual/62SH200/5-16.pdf)

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf (http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRXManual/62SH200/5-16.pdf)

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you were to actually look at the sprocket that slides on the crank, there is a half key that is pressed into the sprocket. In the drawing the removable key is used for the damper pulley.

As stated before the rules must be equal for all competitors, if one car can shave the head and another can't because of a design difference than where is that equitable.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif :moon:




OK, I'll correct you... I've NEVER used a "mooning smiley" to my recollection...

If this particular Honda is "one of the most popular cars in ITA"... why isn't anyone else complaining about this "problem", per se???

AND, if what Joe found is correct, and this car DOES have a woodruff key in the crank, then this car is at no more a disadvantage than ANY NUMBER of cars out there, inlcuding Nissan, VW, etc., even if it is only a "half-key"... and this entire discussion is a complete waste of time...

Let me ask you a technical question... can the half that is pressed into the crank gear/pulley be pressed out? COULD a fully machined, offset woodruff key be used in it's place???

As for a "Total Re-write" of the rules... How about we pay attention to what Production is undergoing right now and let's see how well their re-write works out...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif :moon:




I don't know if that's true or not, but I know I've used it quite a bit. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.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 Tom Blaney:
As stated before the rules must be equal for all competitors, if one car can shave the head and another can't because of a design difference than where is that equitable.

<Slim Pickens>That there's communism, pure and simple</Slim Pickens>

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif


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

[Joe Harlan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As stated before the rules must be equal for all competitors, if one car can shave the head and another can't because of a design difference than where is that equitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



PS Tom what about those cars that don't have a dial a gear available? How do we make it equitable for them. Provide a cam a cam gear and a crank gear and I will find a legal way to return the timing to stock.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
I don't know if that's true or not, but I know I've used it quite a bit. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif




Well there you go, it's damn near impossible to tell George and Darin apart!

B & B part deux? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif


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

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
PS Tom what about those cars that don't have a dial a gear available? How do we make it equitable for them. Provide a cam a cam gear and a crank gear and I will find a legal way to return the timing to stock.

Exactly my point AGAIN, the dumb ass rule states it has to be a woodruff offset key, since you can't seem to get this idea through your head; let me re-explain the concept. The rule should define the specifications (i.e. you can mill the head .040, or the valve size must be 1.203) and not care how you get to the specification. This way if a car is protested for being illegal it doesn't matter if he used a woodruff key, offset button, welded fitting etc, the only think that mattered was that he was not within the specification guidelines.

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, you don't have to get anything through my head dude, Just understand that I feel the current rule is just fine and need not be changed even for your car. I can make your car legal with no issue send me the parts I'll show you how and then you will have something else to sell on your website. I am not dense or stupid the reason these parts are wanted is because there is an advantage to running them.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
The rule should define the specifications (i.e. you can mill the head .040, or the valve size must be 1.203) and not care how you get to the specification.

Really??? Wow... so, if the rule states that my car must be 2.4L or 2389cc, or???, I should be able to bore/stroke it any way I want to meet that specification???

And I can take ANY valve I want and cut it to 1.203"???

KOOL!

This is great! So, we should open the rules up to allow you to get your cam timing back ANY way you see fit???!! YAH... I'll be those adjustable ALLOY cam-gears look like a GREAT solution for this "problem"...

No "unintended" consequences with that one... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

Funny how any rule that someone doesn't agree with is a "stupid" rule...

Rules that had people buying coilover struts, cutting the threads off, then adding them back on the meet the rule... THOSE are "stupid" rules...

Rules that simply limit the amount of modification you are allowed to do... I'd call that sensible...

You've essentially proven that this car does NOT have an issue with adjusting it's cam-timing back to stock, you just don't like the method. It's not overtly or overly difficult to do, isn't above and beyond what any other similiar car has to do, and it doesn't require a degree in astro-engineering to do... Any competent machinist could likely perform the task...

No... every rule book has limitations in what it will allow, and ours is no different... If you don't like it, again, you have Production to go to that will likely allow more modifications that may better suit your desires... Of course, again, you are going to bump up against another set of limitations that you may not agree with... In that case, there is always GT...



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

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Really??? Wow... so, if the rule states that my car must be 2.4L or 2389cc, or???, I should be able to bore/stroke it any way I want to meet that specification???

And I can take ANY valve I want and cut it to 1.203"???

KOOL!

This is great! So, we should open the rules up to allow you to get your cam timing back ANY way you see fit???!! YAH... I'll be those adjustable ALLOY cam-gears look like a GREAT solution for this "problem"...

No "unintended" consequences with that one... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

Funny how any rule that someone doesn't agree with is a "stupid" rule...

Rules that had people buying coilover struts, cutting the threads off, then adding them back on the meet the rule... THOSE are "stupid" rules...

Rules that simply limit the amount of modification you are allowed to do... I'd call that sensible...

You've essentially proven that this car does NOT have an issue with adjusting it's cam-timing back to stock, you just don't like the method. It's not overtly or overly difficult to do, isn't above and beyond what any other similiar car has to do, and it doesn't require a degree in astro-engineering to do... Any competent machinist could likely perform the task...

No... every rule book has limitations in what it will allow, and ours is no different... If you don't like it, again, you have Production to go to that will likely allow more modifications that may better suit your desires... Of course, again, you are going to bump up against another set of limitations that you may not agree with... In that case, there is always GT...



Just what I expected from you Darian, missing the point just to prove a point, That's why the rule book is so thing and the cheating continues. You have fun with your dictionary, I'm going racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not to hijak but...

Our team car just set another track record this weekend...is anyone going to protest the adjustable thread gears we have on our aftermarket washer bottle that was repositioned to accomodate the...

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

I think the rules are ok right now. Those that take advantage of rules that adjust the timing have sufficient means to return them to stock. All things can't be equal in IT, just ask the guys with carbs. I honestly think it's just rules creep.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
Just what I expected from you Darian, missing the point just to prove a point, That's why the rule book is so thing and the cheating continues. You have fun with your dictionary, I'm going racing.

Tom,

If you are going to form an ill-opinion of me, at least learn to spell my name correctly... D-A-R-I-N

And, I don't think there is anyone here, including me, who doesn't get your "point"... likewise, it's pretty clear how you react when you don't like the counter-point... The current rule is as equitable as the change you are suggesting, and likely more-so, given the market availibility of adjustable cam-gears... But, if you've done your research, you already know this...

If you feel this should be officially addressed, you should take the appropriate steps to get it considered... Don't let the opinion of one ITAC member discourage you... Run it by your peers and the officials of this club for official consideration and see where it goes...

Just remember that, if you don't like the outcome, it's not because just I didn't think it was a good idea...

------------------
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 Bill Miller:
Well there you go, it's damn near impossible to tell George and Darin apart!

Yeah, we have matching flat black helicopters too! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif


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

[Eric Parham]

Well, I for one like the rules the way they are. After all, if we allowed adjustable cam gears then I'd actually have to learn how to degree my cam to make sure I was legal. Now, I just use "the stock gear" without any offset key and am automatically "legal" (/invisible ink on/ ..."the stock gear" carefully selected to optimize timing from my stash of 20-30 stock gears with slight manufacturing variations, evil laugh... /invisible ink off/).

In addition, although it's no skin off my nose, I believe that most of us have been misreading the plastic gear substitution rule. IMHO, the rule does *not* say that the replacement metal gear must achieve stock timing (e.g., even with a shaved head), but only says "as stock" to mean the same timing as would be achieved with the stock plastic gear (presumably before it wore out or melted). In fact, again IMHO, a replacement metal gear that compensated for head shaving, for example, *without* an offset key would currently be disallowed as it would run afoul of the stock "dimensions"!

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited April 22, 2005).]

[irace1]

[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 24, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by irace1:
Unless your region has ITE - only two limitations, a VIN Number and DOT Tires...

Of course, this will never happen, but the IT rules should be completely replaced with a weight to rear wheel horsepower rule and cars could be classified, as ITU, IT1, IT2, etc. based on certified dyno results. This is the 21st century, we should embrace the technolgy.

Then, instead of arguing over cam timing and restrictors or finding ways to exploit the gray area, we could race what we got!

[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 23, 2005).]


What is a "certified dyno rating"?? What would the procedure be in..New Hampshire? Or Portland? Or Jackson MI? How will it be standarized so I can run my car in Ohio and Atlanta and New Hampshire? Does that mean that to show up to race, every competetor must have built the car to meet the specs, and then gone to, (I assume this would be the "certification" part) a dyno to take a few pulls? Doesn't strike me as ...ummm...well, let's just say that part isn't too convenient.

Are you suggesting that it's all weight to hp? (And I assume you will let the FWD guys in too...what i think you meant was WHP, as in horsepoer at the wheels)

How will you equailize handling? And torque curves? (I better sell my rotary now, becuase I will get whupped by anything with close to the same HP at the wheels, all other things equal!)

It will never happen because the thing that makes IT so great, the depth of choices a guy has in cars to race, will kill a system like this. It can work in an organization that has limited models and paramenters to govern, or in a small club where the expectations are more flexible, but it's a tough road to hoe with hundreds of models spread out across a continent.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by irace1:
Of course, this will never happen, but the IT rules should be completely replaced with a weight to rear wheel horsepower rule and cars could be classified, as ITU, IT1, IT2, etc. based on certified dyno results. This is the 21st century, we should embrace the technolgy.

I don't see where classifying on power to weight is embracing technology. In fact, it's very much the opposite. This rewards the low power car that is stripped to the gills because the lighter weight will help handling and braking and you don't have to worry about your hp because your hp to weight is the same.

It's ultra low tech.


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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by irace1:


[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 24, 2005).]

Way to go, Jake. You scared off another one. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

K

[Mark LaBarre]

It's a safety issue, legalize 'em :wink

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Way to go, Jake. You scared off another one. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

K

Ummm.sorry guys...And irace1, I hope I didn't come across as too harsh, I actually misread your name and thought I was responding to another poster.



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

[Joe Harlan]

I actually misread your name and thought I was responding to another poster.


Yeah sure ya did there Jake...... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Catch22]

I agree on the power to weight and dyno thing. Its looks great on paper, the ultimate in rules simplicity, then you start thinking of how you'd manage it.

NASA has a couple of classes that do it, but as mentioned those classes cover a very narrow range of chassis and there aren't NEARLY as many NASA regions as there are SCCA regions. No way we could consistently keep the same dyno showing up at EVERY event here in the southeast. Hell, we're so big we often have two races happening on the same weekend down here.

Anybody can write a rule. Writing one that can be managed is a whole 'nother ballgame.

Scott, who can just imagine the results of word getting out that "The dyno won't be here this weekend."
WOW!
Talk about track records falling...

[apr67]

Dyno?

With a flip of a hidden switch I can make the motor gain or loose power. Sounds like a cheaters paradise.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by apr67:
Dyno?

With a flip of a hidden switch I can make the motor gain or loose power. Sounds like a cheaters paradise.

Ahh,,,,but what if, they do it at the track, and it's a complete surprise. They actually take the car from you in the pit, and watch you so you can't flip the switch???

I'd use my key fob remote control in my drivers suit......LOL



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