PDA

View Full Version : How common is cheating?



Matt Rowe
12-09-2004, 08:56 PM
The recent topics on legality of this mod and that mod bring up an issue that's been on my mind. As someone new to IT and club racing (I've spent several years in Solo I as both a driver and official) just how common is cheating?

From a new person looking in the impression is that everyone cheats. Car builders say it, race shops say it, spectators say it and especially other drivers will say it. And I have definitely seen cars in the paddock that aren’t legal. All you have to do is walk around the pits and you can hear someone saying that car #XX must be cheating. There are usually reasons like the car suddenly got faster or they know the guy who did the work or any of a hundred reasons. The end result is a new guy is left with the impression that everyone is doing it, and getting away with it so why not join in?

Now, after following this forum for a few months I have definitely picked up on a group of people that give the impression they don't cheat and are very critical when they see it happening around the,. And thankfully that group seems to be the vocal majority on this forum. There are some people who seem to stretch the rules to a point of being all but indistinguishable from cheating but that's a definite grey area and they are still trying to work within the rules even if the justification seems illogical at best.

But with all the accusations flying we give the impression that the problem is rampant. Every time somebody makes an unsubstantiated claim and doesn’t back it up with a protest or getting the other guys in the class to approach the driver gives the impression to me that cheating is tolerated. It may be difficult (and expensive) to prove cheating but complaining about it without proof only seems to make matters worse.

And of course there are issues of “creative rules interpretation” like reinforcing a subframe before it cracks or “substituting” a lightened stock crank pulley. With no place to turn for a ruling on those issues who is to say how far you can go with pushing the rules. Often the only way to know you’ve gone to far is when the steward makes his decision, assuming someone protests you.

I certainly don’t have the answers for these problems, and maybe I’m the only new guy that feels this way. I want to run a keep running a legal car but am I in the minority? More importantly, what can we do to keep giving this impression to new people?


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

Geo
12-09-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
The recent topics on legality of this mod and that mod bring up an issue that's been on my mind. As someone new to IT and club racing (I've spent several years in Solo I as both a driver and official) just how common is cheating?

Apparently too common. It ranges from innocuous to nefarious.

We already know that Bob Stretch had a short shifter in his 240SX at the ARRC. While not legal, I personally would categorize it as innocuous. I've heard of many things that are quite nefarious. I've seen things that fall in the middle somewhere.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
From a new person looking in the impression is that everyone cheats.

Please don't believe that. I can see why you might, but it's not true.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
All you have to do is walk around the pits and you can hear someone saying that car #XX must be cheating.

Be wary of unfounded allegations. They may be right. Or they may be wrong. If they really think someone it cheating they should put their money where their mouth is and write the paper. Rumors do no one good.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
The end result is a new guy is left with the impression that everyone is doing it, and getting away with it so why not join in?

If a guy crosses the finish line first, but is cheating, is he still a winner? Ask yourself that question. I hope you come up with the right answer.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
There are some people who seem to stretch the rules to a point of being all but indistinguishable from cheating but that's a definite grey area and they are still trying to work within the rules even if the justification seems illogical at best.

Some rules are not as clear to some as they are to others. Some rules leave doors open. Sometimes those doors need a secret decoder ring to figure out and others just need someone to read differently than everyone else. Pushing an interpretation is a lot different from knowingly cheating.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
But with all the accusations flying we give the impression that the problem is rampant. Every time somebody makes an unsubstantiated claim and doesn’t back it up with a protest or getting the other guys in the class to approach the driver gives the impression to me that cheating is tolerated.

Or could it be that those who don't put their money where their mouth is are just full of hot air?


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
It may be difficult (and expensive) to prove cheating but complaining about it without proof only seems to make matters worse.

Amen. Club racing, at least regional club racing, seems to have a rather different culture regarding protesting suspected cheaters than what I understand is the culture in solo II. Not saying it's right.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
And of course there are issues of “creative rules interpretation” like reinforcing a subframe before it cracks or “substituting” a lightened stock crank pulley. With no place to turn for a ruling on those issues who is to say how far you can go with pushing the rules. Often the only way to know you’ve gone to far is when the steward makes his decision, assuming someone protests you.

There is that. There is also a way to get an official ruling. That costs money however.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I certainly don’t have the answers for these problems, and maybe I’m the only new guy that feels this way. I want to run a keep running a legal car but am I in the minority? More importantly, what can we do to keep giving this impression to new people?


Good question. I don't have the answers. I can come up with theories, but they have to work within the environment that exists.


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

Quickshoe
12-09-2004, 09:44 PM
Deleted see below.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 09, 2004).]

Quickshoe
12-09-2004, 09:56 PM
[quote]Geo wrote:

Some rules are not as clear to some as they are to others. Some rules leave doors open. Sometimes those doors need a secret decoder ring to figure out and others just need someone to read differently than everyone else. Pushing an interpretation is a lot different from knowingly cheating.


Very well put.

Quickshoe
12-09-2004, 09:59 PM
On edit--

initial post wasn't very constructive and sounded more like whinning.

All you can do is play by the rules and do whatever you can to force others to do the same. This isn't "if you can't beat them, join them"

HOW ANYBODY TAKES PRIDE IN WINNING IN A CAR THAT IS ILLEGAL IS BEYOND ME. CHEATERS SUCK !!!!

RacerBill
12-09-2004, 11:05 PM
Matt Rowe: I have been following this forum for a while, and hope that most racers refrain from 'cheating'. I have also seen rules stretched to the limit. I worry about how far I can go repairing floor board rust, and then I see cars with thick diamond plate being used. Well, my goal is to have as much fun as possible, and I will do my best to accomplish that without worrying about 'cheaters'.

By the way, please email me at [email protected]. I am preparing an identical twin to your car and would like to exchange information.

Matt Rowe
12-09-2004, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry you took it as whining, and I'm a little unsure why. What I was trying to get across is that whining about cheaters without following through with action to prove it one way or the other only furthers the image that cheating is tolerable.

So the point was to get people to realize that accusations of cheating are counterproductive without both proof and the willingness to follow through and correct it. I'm sorry you missed that.

I certainly wasn't advocating the "if you can't beat them join them" mentality. But as much as it's worthless to win in a cheating car, it's equally worthless to lose to a guy with a more liberal interpretation of the rules and never now it.

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

Catch22
12-10-2004, 12:01 AM
I've always felt that there are 4 kinds of cheating in club racing...

1. You do something that is technically illegal, but doesn't give you a competitive advantage at all. You do it for financial reasons. You gain no advantage, but the rulebook doesn't allow for it, so its illegal. Typically these things are let go by your peers and you aren't considered to be a "cheater."

2. You honestly didn't realize what you did was illegal. Not reading the rules isn't an excuse. Not understanding them (within reason) can be. You're still DQ'ed, but not considered to really be a "cheater." At least not the first time it happens.

3. You take advantage of something in the rules. A "gray area" or an rule that "leaves room for interpretation." Someone protests, the protest is upheld.
Some would consider you a "cheater," others wouldn't. This one depends on specifics and individuals involved.

4. You blatantly, knowingly, do something to the car that's obviously illegal and gives you an advantage. You get caught. You will be known as a "cheater." Period.
Just go ahead and sew a scarlet "C" on your Sparco.

Thats my take at least.
And at any given club race weekend, anywhere in the country, with any sanctioning body, you have some of all of the above going on.

------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro

wbp
12-10-2004, 12:22 AM
My impression, after spending lots of time lately in the tech shed (Tech Steward at SIC and ARRC for example)is that a very large majority of the cars running up front are "legal", ie, fully conforming to rules. Not all.
But more of the cars back in the pack do not fully conform. But it appears to me that many of the items not conforming are either errors in understanding the rules, or things done to make the car faster that really don't help.
The fellows up front are more carefull, thoughtfull and knowledgeable, generally.
Just my impression, I hope you understand.

Quickshoe
12-10-2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I'm sorry you took it as whining, and I'm a little unsure why. What I was trying to get across is that whining about cheaters without following through with action to prove it one way or the other only furthers the image that cheating is tolerable.

So the point was to get people to realize that accusations of cheating are counterproductive without both proof and the willingness to follow through and correct it. I'm sorry you missed that.

I certainly wasn't advocating the "if you can't beat them join them" mentality. But as much as it's worthless to win in a cheating car, it's equally worthless to lose to a guy with a more liberal interpretation of the rules and never now it.

Whoa Matt, sorry guy. I meant my initial post that I deleted was not productive and sounded more like whinning. That is why I deleted it.

Sorry again. Not what I meant at all.

Boy, what an ass I must have sounded like.

lateapex911
12-10-2004, 02:22 AM
Excellent post, Matt. Search for "A Protest Story" by me for one reason that protests are extremely difficult to pull off.

Note that, through the whole thread, not one person provided a challenge to either the facts, nor the presentation of the facts. Nor did I get "the other side" in a personal email, and my email is plainly listed, and has been for years, right at my sig. I was surprised by that.

It was a pretty tense time, and I thought we did our homework, but it was nearly for naught. It's an example of how the system can be crippled. Stories of officials "talking protesters out" of lodging a protest are also legion.

I solo'ed for a while, and was part of some protests at the Solo II Nationals, which were upheld. It was my impression that the Stewards were more accustomed to receiving, and conducting protests, than I see in the club racing world.

As was stated above, the "climate" seems different.

I think part of that is the fact that, historicaly, Solo has been predominately "stock" cars, and deviations from stock are more black and white. Here in IT, deviations from stock are allowed by the rule book, and the limits can be stretched, sometimes to ridiculous lengths.

The other issue that I "hear" is the 'justification' that the CRB classed the car incorrectly, and that taking liberties is "ok" to "even things up".
I have learned too often about cars that I have raced against being illegal. More than allegations, these have been confirmed. Surprisingly enough, I know of many cars that have been sold in illegal states. The new owner then goes through the car, removing the illegal parts that were installed, or puts back the missing parts.

As the seller of such a car, you really have to have a lot of (blind) faith in the buyer to not rat you out. And, often the buyers don't, as they don't want to be branded a "snitch", I guess.

While I don't think it's rampant, nor does "everybody do it", it is way more widespread than I think is acceptable.

In a self policing system, we have to look at ourselves, and write the paper, but too often we lack the commitment, or the system discourages us.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 10, 2004).]

apr67
12-10-2004, 11:13 AM
Not to sound too Bill Clinton like, but define cheating.

Nowhere in the IT rules does it say you can deck the living crap out of a block to raise the compression ratio to the IT allowed maximum.

But this is a common practice.

How do I know (as a tech inspector) that you had to deck the block that much to clean it up, or wether you did that to a brand new engine?

I don't consider it cheating, because to be a cheater you have to be caught cheating. That would not be possible in this instance.

Quickshoe
12-10-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
As the seller of such a car, you really have to have a lot of (blind) faith in the buyer to not rat you out. And, often the buyers don't, as they don't want to be branded a "snitch", I guess.

Or...they could be working with the previous motor builder to supply parts and labor to make things right at no expense to themselves and no knowledge to the prior owner. 'Snitching' someone out wouldn't be in their best interest. Maybe, no official paper was written, but the new owner thought "that win was too easy" and takes the motor to someone well respected in that community for a complete teardown and inspection to see what is up. Find a few things wrong, some of which would be very expensive to fix...so you give the prior motor builder the opportunity to make it right. No need to spread the word...it will get around all by itself.

"CHEATERS SUCK"

-Daryl DeArman

Quickshoe
12-10-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by apr67:
...to be a cheater you have to be caught cheating...

If I go out to race and beat you with illegal stuff but don't get caught...I didn't cheat you out of a win?

Why kind of logic is that?

Are you serious..or just trying to stir things up?

Matt Rowe
12-10-2004, 12:03 PM
Quickshoe,

Your comment did come off a little harsh, until I found out I misinterpretted it. But, no harm, no foul.

Lateapex911,

I've actually already read your protest story when it came out and was really impressed with how thoroughly prepared you were. And I was thoroughly annoyed with the execution once inspection began. I've actually spoken to some of stewards involved as well as some other stewards who knew of the protest and their take on it varies a little but is generally enlightening. But it defintely sends the wrong message when someone takes the time and effort to do things the right way and the outcome doesn't even deter anyone else from trying to pull something similar. Self policing is one thing and necessary but once it's in the stewards hands we should be able to trust that the rules will be followed.

Actually it seems like my comments on my past experience were misread. Although I've run a few Solo II's my experience has been mainly in Solo I events, hillclimbs and non-passing flat tracks. Definitely a unique environment and class participation and car prep is low enough that we haven't had a single formal protest in at least 5 years. So it is a completely different animal than club racing.

As far as "misclassed" or underdog cars taking liberties on rules I can certainly relate as I don't think my car has a chance in hell at winning in ITA. But, I knew going in that it didn't have a chance, I built the car anyway to get experience with a car I already knew and could maintain. The frustration comes when you want to do something simple and logical, like a short shifter, but that is not allowed yet a MOTEC is? I don't think anyone can look at those kind of situations without shaking their head in disbelief.

Rules creep is a problem, but a lack of logical or cost effective alternatives drives even more people to stretch or break the rules. Finding the balance between the two is the problem.

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

JohnRW
12-10-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by apr67:

Nowhere in the IT rules does it say you can deck the living crap out of a block to raise the compression ratio to the IT allowed maximum.


The standard isn't 'how much can I cut off the top of the block', it's the compression ratio you end up with. You can write an unenforceable rule that defines the max. cut to clean or true-up a block, but that's not what has been done. The rule says you can raise compression a half-point. If you cut the head and/or deck, and you're still at or under that half-point, you're legal. If you over-do it, you're not legal.

Pretty simple.

theenico
12-10-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Not to sound too Bill Clinton like, but define cheating.

Nowhere in the IT rules does it say you can deck the living crap out of a block to raise the compression ratio to the IT allowed maximum.

But this is a common practice.

How do I know (as a tech inspector) that you had to deck the block that much to clean it up, or wether you did that to a brand new engine?

I don't consider it cheating, because to be a cheater you have to be caught cheating. That would not be possible in this instance.

OK, I'll bite

Websters defines cheating as: the act of defrauding by deceiptful means.

My interpretation of this, as pertains to the SCCA, is that a cheater is someone who knowingly uses something illegal to gain a competitive advantage.

With that said,I enjoy seeing, hearing, and discussing creative rules interpretation, so long as the implementation of said "interpretation" isn't way out in the questionable "grey area" of legality. Part of what makes this club so fun, is that the people come from a wide array of backgrounds and, often times, can offer a different perspective on how a rule is read.

I definitely do not condone cheating, but I do believe that people make mistakes. I also think that, at the races, walking around the paddock with an open mind (and a couple beers http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ) and just talking to your fellow competitors can go a long way. If you think someone is cheating you should approach them (prferably with a smile and a spare beverage) and try to discuss the matter. If they are unreceptive or give an impression of being deceptive, then file a protest, but don't spread unfounded rumors. Rumors always do more harm than good, and are counter productive. If you can't say anything good (or get some people to chip in for a protest fee) don't say anything at all.



------------------
Nico Prelogar
ITB/GP Scirocco listed in IT classifieds

apr67
12-10-2004, 12:37 PM
No where in the ITCS does it say you can deck the block.

So, what makes this legal?

Greg Amy
12-10-2004, 01:02 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...So, what makes this legal?</font>

The shop manual specifications allow milling the head(s) and/or block within certain service limits. Therefore, to be legal, the head(s) and block deck height must be within these limits *and* result in a compression ratio within 1/2-point of stock. - GA

bldn10
12-10-2004, 01:02 PM
"The standard isn't 'how much can I cut off the top of the block', it's the compression ratio you end up with. You can write an unenforceable rule that defines the max. cut to clean or true-up a block, but that's not what has been done. The rule says you can raise compression a half-point. If you cut the head and/or deck, and you're still at or under that half-point, you're legal. If you over-do it, you're not legal.
Pretty simple."

I run a rotary and don't know much about the technical aspects of this but I am a lawyer and do know a little about interpreting rules. 17.1.4.D.1.l arguably allows up to .025" to be taken off the head to increase compression. However, even if the head is within that spec, if the result is that comp. is raised more than .5, it is illegal. Conversely, if you stay w/i that .5 but take more than .025" off the head, it is likewise illegal. D.1.p requires that all "engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall meet factory specifications for stock parts." Other than overboring and blueprinting I don't see any authorized significant block modifications. The limitation on comp. does not mean that you can do anything to reach that result even if it violates other rules; it means that you can make all the AUTHORIZED modifications you want as long as you don't increase comp. more than .5. Now that is indeed simple. At least IMHO.

tom91ita
12-10-2004, 01:06 PM
for me it comes down to intent and if there is an advantage. there are many things that are gray.

i noted in the underpulley 'forum' that i had lightened my underpulley because the rules say i can substitute. in my mind, i substituted a lighter pulley that was same diameter and same material of construction.

but in somebody else's view, it was a "modification." i thought i was doing a decent job of prepping my car and others may label me a cheater.

quick questions:

can i use nitrogen to inflate my tires instead of air? do the rules say i can?

can i inflate to pressures other the car's manual? rules don't say i can.

am i really limited to 7" rim width in ita? 7" is a tire/wheel industry convention and mostly relates to the seating width of the rim. the "actual" width of a 14x7 rim is greater than 7". am i cheater? guess so!

i know some of the above are absurd but that's why i own a fire suit. its best used when throwing fuel on a fire.

i like to think the majority are not cheating. i have seen things that i thought were reaching the limits but if i am beating them, i tend to not worry. if they are beating me, then i'll have to worry. wait a minute, most every one was beating me. excuse me, i need to ponder that a while.

[This message has been edited by tom91ita (edited December 10, 2004).]

JohnRW
12-10-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
The shop manual specifications allow milling the head(s) and/or block within certain service limits. Therefore, to be legal, the head(s) and block deck height must be within these limits *and* result in a compression ratio within 1/2-point of stock. - GA

Yeah...what he said.

Geezer
12-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
No where in the ITCS does it say you can deck the block.

So, what makes this legal?

ITCS says you can blueprint the engine. (17.1.4.A.1.k) Squaring up an uneven deck would seem to be part of blueprinting, and isn't included in the GCR definition of "blueprinting" as something you cannot do. If someone gets a little heavy-handed with the milling machine and bumps the compression more than 0.5 points over stock specs, now that's illegal.

cherokee
12-10-2004, 01:26 PM
How common is it...if this is applied I think that quite a few (expecially older cars) would fall into this catagory.


Originally posted by Catch22:


1. You do something that is technically illegal, but doesn't give you a competitive advantage at all. You do it for financial reasons. You gain no advantage, but the rulebook doesn't allow for it, so its illegal. Typically these things are let go by your peers and you aren't considered to be a "cheater."




I would like to know how many people have a car that fall into this catagory. I would add that you do it for reasons that are just logical. (wiring comes to mind)

apr67
12-10-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Geezer:
ITCS says you can blueprint the engine. (17.1.4.A.1.k) Squaring up an uneven deck would seem to be part of blueprinting

What if the deck was square before you started? What if you took off more than you needed to just square the deck (but were sill legal on compression ratio)?

In both cases you are technically not legal, because it is not in the rules to allow you to do that. But the reality is, even if you have a car with a brand new engine (i.e. a crate) you are going to probably want to mill the block to increase the compression ratio to the max legal level. And no one is ever going to be able to say "The block only needed a thou off, you took two, you are cheating.".

Geezer
12-10-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
What if the deck was square before you started? What if you took off more than you needed to just square the deck (but were sill legal on compression ratio)?

In both cases you are technically not legal, because it is not in the rules to allow you to do that. But the reality is, even if you have a car with a brand new engine (i.e. a crate) you are going to probably want to mill the block to increase the compression ratio to the max legal level. And no one is ever going to be able to say "The block only needed a thou off, you took two, you are cheating.".



There's no restriction on how much you could mill the block to true it, or even that it needs to be out of true beforehand, as long as it ends up within factory specs and doesn't increase the compression by more than 0.5 points. Blueprinting is by definition building the engine to the optimal factory specs.

the "Was it in true to begin with?" argument is unenforcable anyway, unless you require everyone to have their un-blueprinted block measured before any work is done. I don't think that's going to happen.

[This message has been edited by Geezer (edited December 10, 2004).]

Mike Guenther
12-10-2004, 03:30 PM
Is an aluminum flywheel legal?

Here's an excerp from an ad posted on this site for an engine:
I have several podiums along with a first place weekend sweep at Daytona in 2003. A racing Beat aluminum flywheel and racing clutch are included along with two bullet proof transmissions. the engine is still in the car but will remove after the new year or a deal is cut. Im located in Fort Lauderdale Florida

I'm not picking on the seller, I'm just curious if a lightweight flywheel is legal in IT.

Greg Amy
12-10-2004, 04:07 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Is an aluminum flywheel legal?</font>

Only if it came from the factory that way.

And now our slogan: "He's a cheatin'. Wonder what else?"

Geo
12-10-2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
No where in the ITCS does it say you can deck the block.

So, what makes this legal?

Well, most FSMs I'll bet have something in them about resurfacing the deck. If so, that makes it legal.

I also agree with the idea that if there is no way of finding something illegal, effectively it's legal. For instance, bending a live axle on a 1st gen RX-7. How can you determine legality? You can't. So effectively, it's legal.


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

Geo
12-10-2004, 06:39 PM
Now if y'all want some creative rules interpretation, I can give you one....

Intake is free before the air metering device so long as the source is under hood or the stock location.

Exhaust is free from the head back.

So, I add a turbo between the exhaust and the intake and it's free, right? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Now that's a creative rule interpretation!

[tongue firmly in cheek!]


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

Greg Amy
12-10-2004, 07:19 PM
Good try, man, but 17.1.4.A covers that.

Next?

apr67
12-10-2004, 10:37 PM
My miata FSM spells out how warped it has to be before you suface it.

So technically, if your deck was within spec, it would not be legal to deck it.

I'm not arguing that everyone who does this is a cheater. My argument is that the rule is poorly written and unenforceable.

Catch22
12-11-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by apr67:
My argument is that the rule is poorly written and unenforceable.




No, the rule is written to cover hundreds of different cars, including ones that don't have such block info as your Miata in their FSMs.

Its a rule that needs to be there, and is currently written the ONLY way it CAN be consistently enforced.

What do you guys suggest???
Dont just provide questions. Provide some answers.

Quickshoe
12-11-2004, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by tom91ita:
am i really limited to 7" rim width in ita? 7" is a tire/wheel industry convention and mostly relates to the seating width of the rim. the "actual" width of a 14x7 rim is greater than 7".

Yes you are limited to a 7" width rim. Per the GCR clossary "The distance between the opposing lateral sides of a road wheel in the region where the bead of a tire seats. Measuring method per tire and rim association standard."

Geo
12-11-2004, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Good try, man, but 17.1.4.A covers that.


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


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

Knestis
12-11-2004, 11:52 AM
I think Geo is talking about a muffler, the purpose of which is to extract energy (sound, typically) from the exhaust gas, and turn it into some other kind of energy.

K

Geo
12-12-2004, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I think Geo is talking about a muffler, the purpose of which is to extract energy (sound, typically) from the exhaust gas, and turn it into some other kind of energy.

K

Either that or I've got gas. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


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

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

Quickshoe
12-12-2004, 02:05 AM
Rather than arguing what is legal and what isn't, does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can reduce the amount of cheating that goes on? Ways that can be enforced in the SCCA IT world.

We have competitors who are willing to cheat, motor builders and prep shops that are willing to do so (I'm not talking about creative interpretations) Perhaps we need severe penalties for certain violations that would eventually weed out the flagrant cheaters.

Bill Miller
12-12-2004, 08:20 AM
Daryl,

My suggestion was that they pull the log books on those cars, and ban them. A database would have to be established in Topeka, that recorded the VIN#s of those cars that get booted (so you just couldn't put a new cage in and get a new logbook). It's not perfect, and it won't stop someone from just building another illegal car. But at least it will hit them pretty hard in the wallet.

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

Greg Amy
12-12-2004, 12:09 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can reduce the amount of cheating that goes on?</font>

We beat this dead horse last summer; feel free to resurrect the topic:

Topic: Ways to reduce illegal cars? New methods? (just a bit long)
http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2...TML/000670.html (http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2/HTML/000670.html)

lateapex911
12-12-2004, 03:22 PM
Lessons I learned this summer (about racing):

As it stands, with the current system, :

1- If you see or think something is wrong, try to determine the reality of your suspicion, and the cause. Is it malicious? Major? A mistake? A different interpretation? Perhaps discussing it, without spreading rumours and innuendo with other respected racers will help your opinion.

2- Approach the guy/girl that you have an issue with. Your approach will be dependant on what your opinion of the issue is, but obviously, it shouldn't be overly aggressive or accusatory.

3- Depending on the results of that conversation, you will be faced with a possible decision. Is this a significant issue that the other guy is refusing to resolve? Or will he take care of it?
(To me, I'm not going to waste my time with minor non performance enhancing items....there are bigger fish to fry)
If you find that the issue is significant and you feel strongly that is is not being resolved, then you need to run it through the system.

4- This is the part that sucks. Write the protest. Lots of people will try to talk you out of it, for various reasons:

a- If you loose you'll look like a jerk

b- You have better things to do with your time.(It can be very time consuming...hours and hours)

c- There will be bad blood, regardless of the outcome

d- It's hard to write an effective protest.

e- The protest procedure has been proven to be sketchy in it's ability to resolve the situation cleanly.

f- The officials have better things to do with their time.


When I was planning the protest discussed in "A Protest Story", I heard each of those resons, from various people I consulted with.

My comments on those are:

a- If I present a well reasoned protest, and handle myself professionally, then reasonable people will not think of me as a jerk. If others do, I can't be worried about their opinion.

b- The time quotient is significant. Propper planning can alleviate that.

c- There already IS bad blood! If the guys a cheater, lets get it out. If he's legal, then I figure walk over, shake his hand, and say, "Sorry to put you through this, I was wrong in my suspicions and it looks like you are doing an awesome drivng job, fair enough."

d- It IS hard to write an effective protest. Do your homework. Know what IS and what ISN'T supposed to be on the car, and spell it out clearly in black and white. Be sure to have alternative measures spelled out in the protest to handle things that are ambigious. In our protest we threw in a last minute item that seemed obvious. Well, we didn't read the rule carefully, and while we shook our heads at what the rule lets FWD cars get away with, it was legal. We should have read more carefully and tested it ourselves before including it.

e- This I was warned about, but I am still surprised with the decisions that were made in the protest referred to above.. I worry about decisions that were flat wrong, either due to inexplicable 'brain farts', or favoritism. I don't feel it will happen that way every time however. And writing a good protest can go a long way to eliminate issues. If things DO go wrong, and the protest crew makes mistakes, a well written protest will be the item that makes it super easy to appeal and win. So, while we all hope for a clean and quick resolution, the system doesn't always deliver it ...not right away at least.

f- We have tons of officials. That is why they signed up. By the same token, don't be a jerk and save a huge protest until the very last minute. Technically, you can, but the downsides outweigh the positives of that approach.

Finally, while the "system" clearly has issues, without a complete rebuilding of it, we need to work it. Without practice, it will only get rustier and more broken.

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

Quickshoe
12-12-2004, 06:11 PM
Bill,

I am also for severe penalties for blatant cheats. However "what if" I were to buy a car and it was found to be illegal after its' first race? You know something that I didn't have the means to checkout prior to buying the car.

Greg,

I don't recall the other topic reaching a resolution, as you said it is a deadhorse. However this topic went from "How common" to "varying degrees" to "why is this even allowed" it was headed towards the ECU, Remote reservior, washer bottle route. I think cheating is way too common and tolerated, and was trying to bring it somewhat back on topic.

Jake,

You are right, the system needs work. Perhaps exercising it more often will keep it a little more tuned.



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 12, 2004).]

lateapex911
12-12-2004, 07:48 PM
I forgot about penalties...

I agree that stiff penalties are important, but all to often they don't seem to fit the crime. Why is that?

Two protests I have first hand knowledge of:

1- A Spec Miata was protested for a laundry list of items requiring teardown. All was found to be in spec, (although the head was warped), except the owner had an exhaust manifold that had been slightly cracked. He welded it, then ground it down. Bad idea. "Altering" is what that was, although the alterning had no performance gain. I understand that the driver actually had to take the manifold into the sunlight to show the inspector the repair. When asked when he did the repair, he answered honestly, and was nailed in his forhead with "the book". Loss of all points for the season, loss of all race results, some financial bond loss, and 7 driver points and was put on probation. He was typically a top 5 driver.

2- The Hawthorne protest resulted in another teardown, but in this case it was found that he had installed high compression domed pistons (that were visible to a casual observer of the protest teardown 20+ feet away). The driver said he didn't personally install them. The Stewards never bothered to determine the installation date. The penaty? He was excluded from the race.

(I asked the Steward who reported the results to me about the lack of severity of the penalty, and he indicated that the driver was very unhappy, and that the Stewards felt that "stigma" would be penalty alone.

To me, this makes little sense.
#1 paid dearly for no peformance gain. #2 won races, ran at the front and trophied in others (depriving other cars a better finish) and set a track record, but lost only one race finish.

I am STILL at a loss as to how to resolve this.

It is hard for me not to think that the Stewards didn't like #1, but thought #2 was a great guy.

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

Bill Miller
12-13-2004, 12:46 AM
Daryl,

As I said in the other thread, the car gets one pass. It's noted in the logbook. So, if someone's buying a car, they should look at the log book, and, if there's an entry, they need to get proof from the seller that it was corrected.

I won't even go into the whole "buyer beware" side of things, if there were an entry in the logbook.

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

apr67
12-13-2004, 05:19 PM
Ok, soo you guys don't see a problem with blocks and decking.

Try this.

How far down into your ports do your valve guides have to be?

How do you prove that mine or yours are legal?

Joe Harlan
12-14-2004, 12:40 PM
Valve guide material is unrestricted....I am not sure that allows a different shape or location.

kthomas
12-14-2004, 01:03 PM
Dimensions have to be stock. That's a common cheater thing to do- whack off the valve guides where they stick out into the port. Some factory service manuals, like that for a 240Z, give the appropriate guide dimensions. Otherwise you compare it to a known stock part.

------------------
katman

Bill Miller
12-14-2004, 06:11 PM
Interesting points about the valve quides. Since the material is free, I'm not so sure the dimensions aren't as well. As long as it fits stock valves and fits the the stock guide hole in the head. Where in the ITCS does it say that they have to meet stock dimensions?

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

jlucas
12-14-2004, 09:20 PM
Ok, I'm in the dark on this one. How would valve guide depth be an advantage?

Bill Miller
12-14-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by jlucas:
Ok, I'm in the dark on this one. How would valve guide depth be an advantage?

It would be less mass in the port, so you could flow more air through it.

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

Joe Harlan
12-15-2004, 01:35 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As long as it fits stock valves and fits the the stock guide hole in the head. Where in the ITCS does it say that they have to meet stock dimensions?</font>

Bill, the fact that it doesn't say you can would indicate you can't. I don't have the rule number but I believe there is some wording to the effect any parts not listed are assumed to meet factory specs. I think that the guide material is free but there is no wording allowing the size or shape to change.

Bill Miller
12-15-2004, 07:51 AM
Joe,

That's why I think you can change the size and the shape. They call out the valve guides by saying the material is free, yet they don't put any other restrictions on it. There are other cases in the GCR, where alternate widgets are allowed and they expressly say that they must be the same size/shape/etc. as factory. Once they call something out, the rest is open. And what happens if you can't get a stock part to compare to? I haven't checked, but I don't know if I could buy stock Rabbit 1.6 guides anymore. How about stock guides for and L16?

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

kthomas
12-15-2004, 08:45 AM
It says material is free, not dimensions. To do so is illegal. Anything not specifically allowed is therefore not. Period. Definite performance advantage. I'd protest it, and win.

------------------
katman

apr67
12-15-2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by kthomas:
Some factory service manuals, like that for a 240Z, give the appropriate guide dimensions. Otherwise you compare it to a known stock part.



Known stock? The only part that I can think of would be a new one from the dealer. In some cases assembled heads are not available (for example, mazda only sells a bare casting).

Beyond that, these things all have tolerances. So the fact that mine is further in (or out) doesn't indicate cheating.

If its a 1/2 inch difference, then sure, thats obvious.

bhudson
12-15-2004, 10:28 AM
Getting back to the general topic of cheating and away from the specifics....

Accusations of widespread cheating are nothing new. In the mid-70's everyone believed that everyone else in Production was cheating.

This morning I read an interesting column about the general attitudes of cheating in America. Here's the link:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/livin...10403178.htm?1c (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10403178.htm?1c)

Enjoy

Bob Hudson
Atlanta Region

kthomas
12-15-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Known stock? The only part that I can think of would be a new one from the dealer. In some cases assembled heads are not available (for example, mazda only sells a bare casting).

Beyond that, these things all have tolerances. So the fact that mine is further in (or out) doesn't indicate cheating.

If its a 1/2 inch difference, then sure, thats obvious.

And yes, if you're on your way to a protest you might have to bring a factory new part in a sealed box of the item you are protesting. For the Z I had a brand new head casting in fact (for defensive purposes mostly). If not available you or tech might have to samle some of the part in question from a junkyard. It's happened. Tolerances are also usually specified in the FSM, or tech might use "normal and customary for the industry".

------------------
katman

dickita15
12-15-2004, 04:43 PM
I would be suprised if the protester would be allowed to provide the know legal sample. I think the procedure is for the stewards to order a new part from a dealer. bond includes the restocking fee.
dick

lateapex911
12-15-2004, 08:00 PM
Correct...the protester, NOR the defendant are allowed to supply "known stock" items as proof of in either direction, for obvious reasons.

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

RSTPerformance
12-20-2004, 01:37 PM
If any of you wnat to know why we have cheating go read the who to go to thread. It makes it a simple answer on why we have cheating.

1.) Everyone has different interpretations
2.) You can't ask anyone if anything is illegal
3.) You can't find out if anything is legal or illeagal unless you have someone else spend money to protest you. Then appeal it to Topeka. and this waists everyone time
4.) If you do protest someone then everyone thinks your an A$$^*!# and you loose all your friends.

hmmmmmm I can't understand why so many people cheat and get away with it? We need to have a person we can go to with questions on legality. It should be simple and anyone should be able to ask. Kinda like a rules mediator. This person should be available and every region should have a person they can contact. It needs to be simpler. I should not have to protest my brother then take that protest and apeal it to Topeka. It waists money that I don't have and it waists time that I don't have. This should be Fun not a pain in the...

Stephen

apr67
12-20-2004, 01:57 PM
Steven.

That will never work. The only way to have rules decided clearly would be a rules czar, or a board/comitee that acted as a rules czar.

A single entitiy has to make the decision, document it, and stand by it.

ddewhurst
12-20-2004, 05:32 PM
Folks, there is a rule "GCR 13.9 Rules Interpretation" which will get you an answer to any item you have a question with. $250 gets you an answer I would presume in writting.

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

apr67
12-20-2004, 06:11 PM
David.

As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal.

Bill Miller
12-20-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
David.

As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal.

Yet another example of how broken this system is! But, there are cases where you can get answers w/o spending money. Case in point, on the Prod site, there was a question as to the legality of read disc brakes on limited-prep cars that came stock w/ rear drum brakes. For those that don't know, the PCS says that cars that came w/ rear drum brakes may convert to rear discs, w/ some restrictions.

Many people argued on both sides of the issue. Finally, the CRB released something in FasTrack clarifying the rule, and stating that in fact, the l-p cars could convert to rear discs. Nobody had to spend a dime on that one. And while I haven't checked the '05 PCS yet, I beleive that it made it in.

I realize that this is an example of a general issue and not a specific one, but nonetheless, it was still a ruling.

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

Knestis
12-20-2004, 07:12 PM
It's a narrow distinction but I think Bill is referring to a "clarification" of a rule, that makes it into the code, rather than a case-specific "finding" based on the rules. Stephen was asking about the latter, specific to his air intake design.

The problem with adding clarifications is that we just make an already thick book thicker, as language gets piled on. There's also the now-popular tendency to start listing what CAN'T be done, rather than what can - my biggest complaint about the rules as published.

I think that the publication of a COA finding in FasTrack makes for case law but again, unless the facts of a specific penalty are identical, it may well not truly set a precedent.

K

ddewhurst
12-20-2004, 09:12 PM
apr67,

"The Chairman of the Stewards Program will then convene a first court. The decision will then be reviewed by the Court of Appeals."

I would like to think their response would be in writting & would be good to go. I would think a rule change could have impact but with no rule change how can the response change.

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

apr67
12-21-2004, 09:48 AM
If the clearification doesn't make it into next years GCR it is no longer vaild.

bldn10
12-21-2004, 01:13 PM
I mentioned the interpretation process in the "who to go to" thread but apparently people preferred to just argue as if there was no such thing.

"As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal."

It is worse than that. Although I have not found where it says this in the GCR and I haven't seen the operations manual, the COA does not treat its prior rulings as precedential in the least. In other words, they can rule differently on identical or similar issues, and we do not establish a body of "law" that can help determine future issues and give us guidance on how the COA might rule on a given issue. They do not even refer to prior rulings for guidance. That is why you all the time see side by side rulings in the very same Fastrack that are contradictory. COA rulings should be binding precedent and should be available to all parties.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

miketrier
01-02-2005, 04:52 PM
One question that comes to mind is the definition of cheating. If a car being non-compliant is cheating than I suspect that nearly every IT car is cheating. With issues like window washer bottles and heater hoses and the like illustrate the point. I believe that significant performance enhancing cheating is far less common in IT than mere non-compliance with the outdated "philosophy of the class" rules. I don't see how it could possibly be any fun at all to win if you knew that you had to cheat to win. That would make you one of the biggest losers and frauds of all time. Someone would have to have a pretty odd ego to get satisfaction from cheating to win. I don't think most racers are that odd.

lateapex911
01-02-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by miketrier:
Someone would have to have a pretty odd ego to get satisfaction from cheating to win. I don't think most racers are that odd.
Most aren't. But some are. More than should be. The number of serious violations (maliscious attempts) that surface when a car is sold and bought, as well as the number of protests that hit paydirt are just too great to think otherwise...


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

Jon Nelson
05-11-2005, 03:14 PM
Not to bring this rather unpleasant thread back from the dead, but there is a ITA CRX "With SCCA log book" for sale in the classifieds section.

It is advertised as having "10 pounds liberated from the flywheel" and a "modified throttle body".

Uhuh. Whatever. Make your own judgement, but if you're dumb enough to have a lightened flywheel, I guess you're dumb enough to advertise it as a selling feature!!!

Oh well.

Knestis
05-11-2005, 04:56 PM
Go look in the thread about blowed-up Mopar engines and formulate your own opinions about what some people seem to think is appropriate re: swapping engine internals around. This kind of thing is a little frustrating.

K

lateapex911
05-11-2005, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Go look in the thread about blowed-up Mopar engines and formulate your own opinions about what some people seem to think is appropriate re: swapping engine internals around. This kind of thing is a little frustrating.

K

And more common than we want to believe....



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

Matt Rowe
05-11-2005, 10:12 PM
Yes, but the topic Kirk is referring to is all disucssion within the update/backdate rule as the rods/crank/block combinations in questions were a running mid model year change where multiple permutations left the factory. It would appear the guy is new to SCCA and might just need a little clarification on the rules.

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

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited May 11, 2005).]

splats
05-11-2005, 10:14 PM
I'm the one with the Mopar link. How is using the same blocks (2.2/2.5) considered cheating? All that Mopar did was to drill oiling holes for the counter-balancers used in the 2.5 BUT NOT in the 2.2. All that I was asking was "Is it possible to plug them off & still have the oiling work?" I'm sorry if it came out wrong. As far as cheating, if I can't win within the rules then I don't need to win. I'm just trying to put together a durable & reliable motor. Other than the crank stroke & counter-balancers, the 2.2/2.5 motors share everything-else. The only thing that changes are when they were both changed due to year changes and the turbos. This info is from Mopar books. Am I wrong, maybe? I'm still trying to learn about them and that is why I was on here asking. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers, but I am NOT A CHEATER. I may however make mistakes.

Ron Earp
05-11-2005, 10:19 PM
If the 2.5L block was never used in the 2.2L car that appears on the same IT spec line then you can't use it. I am in a similar situation with the JH - the 907 Lotus block/engine I am forced to use is not as good nor as strong as the 910 block that appeared a couple years later.

I'm not a rules nerd, but I'm not using a 910 block to be on the safe side. Heck, for me it doesn't matter - the car hasn't hit the track yet!!!!!!

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited May 11, 2005).]

Ron Earp
05-11-2005, 10:56 PM
double

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited May 11, 2005).]

Knestis
05-11-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Yes, but the topic Kirk is referring to is all disucssion within the update/backdate rule as the rods/crank/block combinations in questions were a running mid model year change where multiple permutations left the factory. It would appear the guy is new to SCCA and might just need a little clarification on the rules.


As Ron correctly pointed out, you can't mix and match parts among engines, even if they are on the same spec line. If new guys don't understand rules like this, it's kind of up to those mentoring them - giving them advice about building engines - to help them understand. I didn't see anything of that nature in that strand.

K

Bill Miller
05-12-2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
As Ron correctly pointed out, you can't mix and match parts among engines, even if they are on the same spec line. If new guys don't understand rules like this, it's kind of up to those mentoring them - giving them advice about building engines - to help them understand. I didn't see anything of that nature in that strand.

K



As Kirk and others have mentioned, you have to update things as complete assemblies. It says that explicitly in the ITCS. If the 2.5 block you refer to never came in a 2.2 configuration, you can't build a 2.2 out of it, period (unless, it has the same MOPAR p/n as the 2.2 block).



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

Matt Rowe
05-12-2005, 09:15 AM
Sorry Kirk, it appears we were all focused on solving the problem and no responded one way or the other about the comment early in the topic on making a combination that technically never left the factory. As there were variations within the same spec line that used a single block common to both the 2.2 and 2.5 it gets a little confusing as to exactly what he is trying to do. It took me 10 minutes of searching through my archives to find that specifying an 88 block makes it illegal. I actually expected you would be far more concerned about the removal of the balance shaft assembly which is part of the same statement that we all missed. Just for clarification that definitely wouldn't be allowed and even using a block with the oil passage factory drilled and then plugged wouldn't be legal.


Hmm, who would have thought you guys had so much free time to worry about Dodge engine combinations? That must be the advantage of running other cars that don't require as much work. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif



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

Ron Earp
05-12-2005, 10:44 AM
Nope, I work on Brit cars - no free time to worry about Dodges!

It is just this point hit close to home since I went through this about 5 months ago. The 907 Lotus engine I have to use has well-known oiling problems. Some of the problems can be fixed by using a 910 block and with that comes improved webbing throughout for better strength. But, it is illegal to do the way I read it, thus I am forced to use a 907 block.

To me it looks like he is in the exact same situation and like me, probably the only person that would ever know he used a different block would be himself. I doubt with all the people at VIR last weekend I could have found a single person that could tell a 907/910 apart. But I would know, and that is enough.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS

Ron Earp
05-12-2005, 10:47 AM
Precisely. Some guides go waaaaaaaay into the port and have a huge OD. Jeff's TR8 is a perfect example, big around and very long, they stick way down in the runner and if they could be cut back he'd pick up a lot of CFM with no detriment to function.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS

Knestis
05-12-2005, 04:05 PM
I don't know from balanced shafts...

K

Matt Rowe
05-12-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know from balanced shafts...

K

Picture a 20 pound assembly in the bottom of the oil pan with two counter rotating steel shafts that rob about 10% of the engines power and creat windage problems. All in the name of NVH issues.

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

Renaultfool
05-12-2005, 05:38 PM
Hey, Teacher, leave those guides alone,
dah-dah-dah, dah-dah.
Wasn't that Pink Floyd?

lateapex911
05-12-2005, 07:03 PM
I think K meant he dind't know much about shafts that were balanced,,,,some kind of hidden meaning I guess...beats me!

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