Short Shifters in ITS

[dj10]

The way the rules read it seems that you are not allowed a short shifter. Am I correct? But it seems that every ITS car I see has one in it. Would you get disqualified at the IT run offs for a short shifter?
Thanks
DJ

[RSTPerformance]

you should get DQ'd... but I don't think I have ever seen anyone check that...

Raymond

[Geo]

Originally posted by dj10:
Would you get disqualified at the IT run offs for a short shifter?

Apparently not since Bob Stretch has is ITA car for sale in the classifieds and clearly lists that it has a short shifter.

Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?


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

[dj10]

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B] Apparently not since Bob Stretch has is ITA car for sale in the classifieds and clearly lists that it has a short shifter.

Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?

I believe it is not a big ticket item, it doesn't offer any performance advantage. It is only a driver conveinence. I would never protest anyone for it but then again I would don't like the idea of having something illegal on my car. How do we get this rule changed?
DJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by dj10:
How do we get this rule changed?

Send an e-mail to: [email protected]

Be clear about what you're asking for and why it would be a good change to make.



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

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...it doesn't offer any performance advantage. </font>

I find it tough to buy, whenever someone trots out this argument. I tend to believe that people won't do things that they don't THINK will make their cars faster. The fact that some part is for "driver comfort or convenience" doesn't change that. I'm pretty sure that I'm faster when I'm comfortable and have good mirrors, a dead pedal, grippy wheel, and all that stuff...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?</font>

Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?

We are looking forward to more changes in IT for next season than we have seen at one time - probably since the class was started. For the most part, they make sense in terms of benefit to the category set against (known) downsides.

The exact same argument can be made for a complete aftermarket shifter assembly. How about pedals? If I can change them, it would actually be easier to use aftermarket master cylinders, too. None of these things offer any "performance advantage" either, right?


The point is that if everyone has to use - or not use - the same thing, and there is no major cost to the program for doing so, why bother?

K

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?


Absolutely.

I don't consider myself a "RULES NERD" in that I am often open to some creative interpretation of grey areas and exploitation of loop holes for a performance advantage. They can close the loop next fast track.

Generally speaking, I would not protest someone for a non-performance enhancing issue. However, when someone blatantly ignores (not creatively interprets) a rule they deserve to get penalized, they aren't even attempting to play by the rules.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Generally speaking, I would not protest someone for a non-performance enhancing issue.</font>


Unfortunately, this is one of the main problems w/ our system today. More than one person has stated the same (or similar) thing on several occasions, relating to any number of items (washer bottles come to mind).

It's one of the pitfalls of a self-policing organizatoin, peer pressure. People are reluctant to call for enforcement of the rules if they A) don't feel that it's an important enough issue, or B) feel that they will be ostracized (sp?) by their peers, because others feel that it's not an important issue. The fact that B could occur has been reinforced by comments made by people on this very board.

Maybe it's time for our officials to actually step up and take a pro-active position on enforcing our rules. After all, I believe that I read something in the recent FasTrack that a National tech team can tear someone down (w/o a formal protest), and not have to stand a bond, even if the car is found in compliance. I certainly don't agree w/ the change in policy re: bond, but it appears that our officials can initiate a tear down on their own (besides at the Runoffs).

I agree w/ Kirk, let's enforce the rules that we have. I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

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

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

Gee Bill, that's about 180 degrees from the way I took George's comment. It appeared to me that, in response to another member's question, he was pointing to an example of a car that has probably been through as many post-race tear downs as any car in IT and has never been DQ'd for having a short shifter. JMHO

I do find it interesting that if you browse ads for IT cars, on this board and others, this is probably the most often advertised illegal part you come across. I realize among rules nerds (and those who aspire to be) the ubiquitous IIDSYCYC covers this, but I wonder if this is one case where we need to either a)spell it out; or b)make it legal.

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited December 06, 2004).]

[erlrich]

Sorry - double click...

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited December 06, 2004).]

[Knestis]

"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor. That is a bad tactic that has created more problems than it solves.

Write a rule excluding "short shift kits" and the door is open for me to make a case for complete, aftermarket shifter assemblies as legal, since they are not explicitly prohibited. My sequential gearbox? Not a short shifter so it's okay, right?

(That was BB hyperbole, used to illuminate the extreme for the sake of argument, just so nobody misses it.) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Now in the real world, we have to work these things out. I will start the 2005 season with an illegally modified hood, since I put Dzus fasteners in it for the enduro lights. To be scrupulously correct, I need to replace it and remove the auxillary light harnesses.

I have made the decision to take my chances with protests and if someone "writes paper" on me, I won't go kicking and screaming to the CoA or try to make some disingenuous argument that they fall under the heading of "driver comfort" or "gauges."

When I said that we should enforce the rules, I guess that really does mean "we" - the drivers - since that's how the system is designed to work. WE just have to figure out what we are OK with and what we aren't, and do it.

Changing the rules because people won't is a bad idea.

K

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

Bill, Earl was 100% correct. Having been at the ARRC this year and watched some of the tear-downs and all, I found it curious to see Bob's car for sale advertised with a short shifter.

Changing the rule or not is a completely separate issue. Bob running one is hardly reason to change the rule.

FWIW, I think it would be a rather innocuous rule change. I don't think they make anyone faster. Some people like them (me for one) and others don't. I don't see where if the rule were changed it would make the rest of the field have to have one. Anyway, I was just kind of wondering aloud how people felt about the rule.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor. That is a bad tactic that has created more problems than it solves.

Agreed.


Originally posted by Knestis:
I have made the decision to take my chances with protests and if someone "writes paper" on me, I won't go kicking and screaming to the CoA or try to make some disingenuous argument that they fall under the heading of "driver comfort" or "gauges."

Driver comfort wouldn't cut it anyway. I think that line is often way over played. The only place I remember reading any allowance for driver comfort is in modification to the foot pedals. If driver comfort was allowed for in general, we'd have all sorts of creative interpretations for illegal things IMHO.


Originally posted by Knestis:
When I said that we should enforce the rules, I guess that really does mean "we" - the drivers - since that's how the system is designed to work. WE just have to figure out what we are OK with and what we aren't, and do it.

Changing the rules because people won't is a bad idea.

Agreed.


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

[ddewhurst]

***Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?***

Yes........ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Two items I beleive to be true about the short shifter.

A. Because of the lever length ratio with the hand speed movement equal of a normal shifter as a compared to a short shifter less time is required while using the short shifter. Atvantage to the people the short shifter. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

B. Info from a National E Production driver before he installed a PBS. The syncro teeth from a Mazda RX-7 join the trans oil sooner. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif Atvantage to the people with more money.

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

[dj10]

Thank you all for some very interesting & intelligent points of view.

I am still going to lobby for the change to what I see is as a non enforced rule, and from what I read and talk to, (other IT racers) the majority would want the short shifters on the cars.
DJ

[jhooten]

Be prepared for the rules creep argument to start next. Yes a short sifter may seem like an unimportant rule that is not inforced. BUT, if some one running a similar car to mine is half a second a lap faster than me it must be because he has one and I don't so now I have to go buy one to stay competitive. So the cost of racing just went up for IT. And IT rules just crept a little closer to Production rules.

If you want to do all these mods to your car get the VTS sheets from Topeaka and request your car be classed in one of the production classes. When it is then you can mod the crap out of it with out raising the cost for the rest of us in IT.

After all isn't that what IT is supposed to be, a lower cost place to race? Entry level racing, so to speak.

And, BTW, my ITS car does not have a short shifter.

------------------
Jerry
ITS/E 85 Toyota Supra
Lone Star Region

[JohnRW]

Engine builders generally think that short-shifters are great for 'repeat business'.

[Tom Donnelly]

I don't have the rules in front of me but doesn't it say somewhere that you can bend the shift arm, thereby shortening it?

Or am I missing the point completely. I know this isn't a short shift kit but it seems enough for IT.

Did Bob's car have a bent 'short shifter' or an aftermarket kit?

Tom

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Knestis:
"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor.

Kirk - point taken, but I was thinking more along the lines of "Shifters may be bent...no other modifications to the stock shifter/linkage may be made...". That said, if I were king short shifters would be legal already.

And I do get the rules creep issue, but I don't think we can use that as a blanket argument against any changes that might benefit the class. Not saying that's necessarily the case in this instance, but we do have to realize this is a dynamic sport, and some growth/change is inevitable.

[dj10]

Well I summitted the request for legalization of the short shifter to the CRB. As for me, I don't give a rats *** if it is legal or not. I bought my car from some guys in the South and it ran ITS and had more cheating parts than I cared to replace, along with a short shifter. If SCCA deny the request, I be more than happy to replace it to stock. When I get on the track this year I will have a legal ITS car.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Good luck all and have a safe and happy holidays!
DJ

[Quickshoe]

I wrote:

Generally speaking, I would not protest someone for a non-performance enhancing issue.


Bill Miller wrote:
Unfortunately, this is one of the main problems w/ our system today. More than one person has stated the same (or similar) thing on several occasions, relating to any number of items (washer bottles come to mind).


Bill, I would love for it to not be self-policing. But, I don't think that will ever happen in SCCA-Regional racing so we deal with what we have.

As to my reasons for not protesting someone for a non-performance enhancing issue (note: I never stated my opinion on whether a short shifter was or was not). I wouldn't be proud of inherriting a win based on a protest for an item that had very little to do with the outcome of the race. .

However, when someone doesn't even give the appearance of attempting to comply with the rules, not only his he/she thumbing their nose at the system but the rest of the competitors. Combine that total disregard with the bonds that are sometimes required, the inability of the system to work as intended...if I suspect that something is amiss that is very difficult (expensive) to prove and something like a short shifter or missing washer bottle is staring me in the face, that can be very tempting.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
Bill, Earl was 100% correct. Having been at the ARRC this year and watched some of the tear-downs and all, I found it curious to see Bob's car for sale advertised with a short shifter.

Changing the rule or not is a completely separate issue. Bob running one is hardly reason to change the rule.

FWIW, I think it would be a rather innocuous rule change. I don't think they make anyone faster. Some people like them (me for one) and others don't. I don't see where if the rule were changed it would make the rest of the field have to have one. Anyway, I was just kind of wondering aloud how people felt about the rule.





Sorry for the misinterpretation George. That's kind of why I asked about your reasoning, just didn't seem to make sense.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I don't have the rules in front of me but doesn't it say somewhere that you can bend the shift arm, thereby shortening it?</font>

Tom,

It says that the shift lever may be bent above the tunnel or floor. In other words, you can't bend it between where it connects to the linkage and the pivot point. Not sure how bending it shortens it.

Daryl,

I understand exactly what you're saying. However, one has to wonder exactly how far someone will 'push the envelope'. Everyone has their own yardstick of what is or is not a performance advantage. By the same token, there are people who will rationalize and justify something because A) someone else is cheating, B) car X isn't spec'd properly, C) their car isn't spec'd properly, D) everyone else is doing it, E) a slew of others.

I guess you're right, it won't change. And, based on the story by Mr. Gulick , et. al., I don't know if we should place all that much faith in the officals being able to do any better job than the drivers.

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

[jhooten]

Originally posted by dj10:
As for me, I don't give a rats *** if it is legal or not.

DJ

This is where we differ.

We had annual tech on Saturday. While preping the car for the trip to tech I noticed something the previous owner (a drag racer) had done to the rear suspension. I made a point of asking the tech inspector (even though annual tech is a safety tech and not a rules compliance check) his opinion of the modification. In his opinion the mod was not allowed by the rules. I knew this before I ask but it never hurts to ask. So instead of running a car I knew was illegal, even though the chances of "getting caught" are very slim I made the choice to Remove the ITS from the car and will replace it with ITE.

In celebration I also ripped the damn washer bottle out just because I can now. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Not sure how bending it shortens it.


As long as you are not bending it "straighter", bending it effectively shortens it by moving the shift knob closer to the pivot point. Of course couldn't you just change the shift knob that allows you to actuate it from a point closer to the pivot point and be done with it?

edited to add signature.

--Daryl DeArman


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

[lateapex911]

Bend it like this: N
the knob is on the top right, the length is clearly shorter, although lower. Kinda dumb, sure, but it IS possible.

My issue is big picture...all cars have been classified without shortshifters. Allowing a SS will affect some cars, but not others, which, theoretically, destroys the balance of the class.

And it DOES add another "thing" you might have to have...

Practically speaking, I'm not sure it will have a huge effect if it were allowed, but I don't see the need.

Question...if guys didn't think it would help, why would they go to the trouble and expense?

IF the car has a SS it should be removed.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
... Question...if guys didn't think it would help, why would they go to the trouble and expense? ...



I'm glad I'm not the only person that sees this logic.

K

EDIT - notice how the original poster refers to the "IT runoffs?" That misconception is getting too popular for my tastes, as we enter the ear of PCAs.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 07, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Question...if guys didn't think it would help, why would they go to the trouble and expense?

In my case I just like the feel better. Why do people install aftermarket pedals?


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

[apr67]

A short shifter can be made legally for cars that have very long shifters to begin with.

I would guess that this applies to cars that were not made for performance in the first place, although I do remember Alfa Sypders have a very long shifter that comes out of the dash console.


IMHO too many changes happen to make the cars 'look like race cars'. Personally, I could care less if my race car looks like anyone elses perception of a race car. It is a race car based on my racing it, not on apperance.

[Knestis]

To clarify, we are talking about "short shift kits" that change the geometry of the shifter linkage, under the floor - not just the length of the lever.

K

[Tom Donnelly]

Thanks Bill, Jake, George and Kirk, that clarified it for me. My shifter is bent above the pivot. It just came that way when I bought the car. If a short shifter lowers the pivot point, you get more leverage, correct? But this shortens the distance of travel for the shift for rods right? So, how does this work without increasing the length of the rods? Or do the kits do that too?

Just wanting to learn something. Trying to see what the payoff is.

Tom

[ddewhurst]

Tom, go to the following link for words & pictures.

www.mazdatrix.com/g4.htm (http://www.mazdatrix.com/g4.htm)

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

[Tom Donnelly]

Thanks David.

[snk328is]

Reading the GCR, it appears that you are not allowed to even change the shiftknob.

It doesn't mention it so therefore, you cannot change it.

Or am I missing something? (Always a possibility.)

[Ron Earp]

I noticed that about the knob.

I don't have mine and no source for OEM. Can I just use a skull knob, eightball knob, or whatever?

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Ron Earp]

I noticed that about the knob.

I don't have mine and no source for OEM. Can I just use a skull knob, eightball knob, or whatever?

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Greg Amy]

ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.b: "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used. Any shift knob may be used."

[snk328is]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.b: "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used. Any shift knob may be used."

Ah ok, thanks. My bad. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[dj10]

Originally posted by jhooten:
This is where we differ.

We had annual tech on Saturday. While preping the car for the trip to tech I noticed something the previous owner (a drag racer) had done to the rear suspension. I made a point of asking the tech inspector (even though annual tech is a safety tech and not a rules compliance check) his opinion of the modification. In his opinion the mod was not allowed by the rules. I knew this before I ask but it never hurts to ask. So instead of running a car I knew was illegal, even though the chances of "getting caught" are very slim I made the choice to Remove the ITS from the car and will replace it with ITE.

In celebration I also ripped the damn washer bottle out just because I can now. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Well done sir, nothing like honor and intergity. <Salute> That is how we are alike!
DJ

[lateapex911]

Final thought on short shift kits...they are not all equal. Some actually have levers that are the smae length as stock, or even longer. But the fulcrum to shift rod distance is always changed, and someties lots of other things as well. You can get about a bushel of different model SS kits for a 911. Some are nearly $1000.

So, to those in favor of a rule change allowing a short shift kit, please write the rule allowing it for us.....

Keep in mind the definition of what constitutes a "SS kit" is key.

As an interesting illustration, remember the case of the prod car that disabled his reverse gear to use the linkage to create a 5 speed. The rule required a "working reverse", and he had it...but he had to jack the car up and use a wrench to engage it! The CRB was not amused........

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

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.b: "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used. Any shift knob may be used."

Damn, got to get a GCR but need to wait for the new one. Thanks Greg.

So - excellent! A shiny chrome skull it is, got one in the garage!!!

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Final thought on short shift kits...they are not all equal. Some actually have levers that are the smae length as stock, or even longer. But the fulcrum to shift rod distance is always changed, and someties lots of other things as well. You can get about a bushel of different model SS kits for a 911. Some are nearly $1000.

So, to those in favor of a rule change allowing a short shift kit, please write the rule allowing it for us.....

Keep in mind the definition of what constitutes a "SS kit" is key.

As usual, a most excellent observation Jake. While I love short shifters and generally think of them as innocuous in terms of performance, I think defining them would be a nightmare.

Thanks for the insightful observation.


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

[Scooter]

I personally think that short-shift kits are fine. I hate rules creep as much or more than anyone else, but short-shifters are usually pretty cheap and the gain is really more in feel than speed.

The reason I would allow them is just because a lot of stock shifters can be so vague. For instance, in my street Audi, the stock shifter was very soft, and the milled aluminum aftermarket piece was much more precise. Same on my old Rabbit. Which means less missed shifts to me. Which means less gear grinding and over-revving. Which might just mean longer tranny or engine life. I don't have one on my ITS car, but I would buy one in a second if it was legal.

jpd

[dj10]

Which means less missed shifts to me. Which means less gear grinding and over-revving. Which might just mean longer tranny or engine life. I don't have one on my ITS car, but I would buy one in a second if it was legal.

jpd[/B][/QUOTE]
This is why I lobblied the crb to allow the short shifters in IT. Keep an eye on fast track. Next I'll try to lobby for the removal of any electronics the will fit into a factory ecu.
dj

[turboICE]

And the trend continues...

Makes me wonder if I am the only person still the only person struggling through the sloppy OEM shifter assembly...

http://home.earthlink.net/~frbrett/

At 13 straight wins and no protests I guess no one cares.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited June 06, 2005).]

[Ron Earp]

I hear that. Makes me think I am in the wrong type of racing. I'm trying to build a legal car - but all I see are cars for sale with lots of illegal parts.

Best one I've seen are the two BMWs for sale, lots of illegal stuff. Then the Honda with the "liberated" flywheel, lots of short shifters, etc.

Makes on wonder, why bother?

Maybe I should just go race production. People like to tell me that or hint and putting the JH there anyhow.

R

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS
Email: "rlearp at gt40s.com"

[x-ring]

Nevermind.

I started to say something, but then realized I was thinking of a different car.


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ya gotta do what we all do Ron, police your own patch. Many cars are illegal for a variety of reasons - all of which have been touched on by many on this board. I've said it before and I'll say it again, *I* believe the vast majority of cheaters to be in the mid-pack without the knowledge that they have a lack of equipment or skill - or both.

FWIW, that Integra has been for sale for over a year. Maybe it's the BUYERS that are getting some religion...

AB

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

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by rlearp:
I hear that. Makes me think I am in the wrong type of racing. I'm trying to build a legal car - but all I see are cars for sale with lots of illegal parts.

Best one I've seen are the two BMWs for sale, lots of illegal stuff. Then the Honda with the "liberated" flywheel, lots of short shifters, etc.

Makes on wonder, why bother?

Maybe I should just go race production. People like to tell me that or hint and putting the JH there anyhow.

R



Ron,

We'd love to have you in production! In production, you don't have to worry about a lot of the petty stuff (washer bottles, illegal camshafts, short shifters, etc.). All that stuff is OK in production. And you can race both regionals and nationals.

I raced ITC for years, but I'm having a lot more fun in GP for a variety of reasons. ITC was a great place to start and learn how to race, but there's nothing like the feel of real racing slicks, and a real racing transmission. Some folks pooh-pooh the competition in the production classes, but believe me at the national level I have to get after it just as hard I ever did in ITC to stay at the front.

That JH of yours is one of "the" cars to race in E-Production BTW...

MC

------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Action Digital/Airborn Coatings/Krispy Kreme VW Scirocco

[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited June 06, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">In production, you don't have to worry about a lot of the petty stuff (washer bottles, illegal camshafts, short shifters, etc.). All that stuff is OK in production.</font>

Mark,

I'm sure you didn't mean to say that illegal cams (or anything else illegal) are ok in Prod. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif



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

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Mark,

I'm sure you didn't mean to say that illegal cams (or anything else illegal) are ok in Prod. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif



I guess what I meant was that in prod you are not limited to stock camshafts, but you're right, you are limited to certain camshaft lifts in some production cars (limited prep). It makes the policing of camshafts much simpler, no need for a cam doctor to compare cam profiles to stock cams. Simply measure the lift and compare to the spec.

MC

------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Action Digital/Airborn Coatings/Krispy Kreme VW Scirocco

[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited June 06, 2005).]