PDA

View Full Version : is it cheating??



Team NRG
04-21-2004, 11:47 AM
There is alot of speculation that some of the fellow ITS competitors are now running the new Renesis RX-8 rotors in their 13B RX-7 engines. This would cause much greater compresion . Does anyone know more on this. Lets just say that some RX-7's are now 4-5 seconds per lap quicker than they were last year.

planet6racing
04-21-2004, 12:30 PM
Please don't come here and start accusing people of cheating.

If you think they are, protest them. It's not that hard to do and should be an easy catch.

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

04-21-2004, 12:54 PM
Bill, and just how is he going to tell what rotors are in the motor without paying 1000 dollars to disassemble and reassemble that rotory, the mans coming here looking for advice on how to tell "IF" someone is cheating. I didnt catch your name team nrg but this question can be answered by, Dave lemon [email protected]

planet6racing
04-21-2004, 01:18 PM
Well, you and I read that different.

I can't offer advice on how to tell if it is different by looking at the exterior. I don't know that you can. But, if they are and it is protested, the $1000 bond would be coming back.

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

Team NRG
04-21-2004, 01:31 PM
I am not pointing fingers at anyone. It just seems that since the production of the RX-8, which also carries the title of 13B, and the rotors fit the housings of a second gen RX-7, some ITS cars are significantly faster all of a sudden from one event to another. 5 seconds is serious extra horsepower. I also race in Grand-Am cup competitively and am a qualified driver. Because the RX-8 engine is a 13B and a second gen is a 13B, I am questioning the legality of this. Some of the speed may come from their ECU but certainly not 5 seconds. thanks

Silkworm
04-21-2004, 01:53 PM
Well, clearly using the rotors is illegal, as the parts are not from a legal engine valid for an ITS RX-7.

If it's even possible to do, I don't know, and I don't know how you check.

I think you have to factor in the driver as well. Is he a middle of the pack guy who suddenly got 5 seconds? Or is he a consistent class leader who is now domininating? How prepped is the RX-7 in question? Could he have switched tires? Swapped in 5.12s and a torsen? Is he an utter rookie who is getting a clue now and turning faster times?

Have you asked the driver who he got 4-5 seconds a lap?

PaulC

dyoungre
04-21-2004, 02:22 PM
Off the top of my head, if only the rotors are changed, the improvements could be from compression, changed timing due to rotor chamfer, and reduced inertia.

compression ratio can be checked (or at least compared) with a compression gauge.

Rotor chamfer can be checked through the exhaust port (with a mirror and flashlight). inertia? OK, you got me, but you could potentially look for a major increase in balance marks on the 'heavy' side of the flywheel. In any case, you should be able to protest and recommend inspection without teardown.


------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

eprodrx7
04-21-2004, 02:24 PM
Yes it is possible and it is being done in EP but I do not know of anyone doing it in ITS. It is very expensive to do and requires either machining to the rotors or the use of ceramic apex seals and even that is somewhat untested. Pretty easy to check for them though, pull off the intake and stick your finger in the port and feel if there is a chamfer cut on the edge of the rotor. This was done to change timing. None of the ITS rotors have this chamfer stock. As for suspecting someone of cheating I would look for some porting instead. A lot easier and much more effective. I gained almost 3x the HP with porting then I anticipate getting with the new rotors. Just remember cheating is just altered interpretation until you get caught!

dickita15
04-21-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Team NRG:
Because the RX-8 engine is a 13B and a second gen is a 13B, I am questioning the legality of this.

no it does not matter that they call the engine the same name. they could call them fruit salad. on parts that are not open you may only use parts that came in that car or from a car on the same spec line of the gcr and even then you must swap parts as an asembely. even if the rx8 was listed on the same spec line of the gcr you could not put rx8 rotors in a rx7 case legaly.
dick

dickita15
04-21-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by eprodrx7:
Just remember cheating is just altered interpretation until you get caught!
[/B]

come on john, that should have had a smiley face
dick

lateapex911
04-21-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by eprodrx7:
Just remember cheating is just altered interpretation until you get caught!



I think the gains in the new engine come from the whole package, and the rotors are part of that package. That package doesn't translate over to an ITS motor.

The major difference on the rotors is the chamfers, if I understand the differences correctly. I don't have dyno testing to back it up, but I was told the hp gain from chamfered rotors in an ITS engine is between 5 and 8 hp.

Think for a second about 4-5 seconds per lap. What does that represent if all other things are equal? A HUGE gain in Hp. And 5-8 hp is not NEARLY a huge gain of the magnitude necessary to run 4 seconds a lap quicker, even on long tracks.

Regarding the cheating item above. I hope John is suggesting that if you are sure that there is foul play then you should post a bond.

In amatuer racing, cheating is cheating whether it is discovered or not, and it is just plain scummy. Any wins or trophies gained are an embarassment to the winner. We run on a self policing policy, which is, unfortunatley, one step removed from an honor system.

In pro racing, cheating is expected, part of the program, and the sanctioning body is charged with the enforcement.

So, IMHO, the rotors are clearly illegal, but can't possibly account for the lap times you refer to.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 21, 2004).]

eprodrx7
04-21-2004, 04:18 PM
ok, well how about "I'm not cheating, I just read the rules diferently then you" Untill a third party gets involved (protest) it is still just two interpretations. There are two races going on, the one on the track and the one in the shop. It's all part of the game.

eprodrx7
04-21-2004, 04:18 PM
oops!

[This message has been edited by eprodrx7 (edited April 21, 2004).]

lateapex911
04-21-2004, 04:33 PM
Putting a Renesis rotor in an ITS engine is NOT an interpretation unless you only speak and read Russian, nor is chamfering a stock rotor.

Black and white.

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

zracer22
04-21-2004, 05:06 PM
here's an idea. all you rx7 guys go ahead and upgrade your rotors, and then in a year or two, the SCCA will write a new rule: "Rotary engines cars can replace the rotor provided that all modifications are done with in the original OEM rotor housing"

Sorry guys, I couldn't resist!

04-21-2004, 09:56 PM
edited for content

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 22, 2004).]

Team NRG
04-21-2004, 10:07 PM
OK. I have looked at the rule book some and from what I understand, you cannot use aftermarket parts in an engine. However, the RX-8 rotor IS a 13B production part. It is not aftermarket in anyway. It is produced by Mazda for their rotary engines. Any thoughts??

jrx13
04-21-2004, 11:04 PM
Ok I am not 100% sure but I do not think the rotors are interchangeable. The Renesis/Rx-8 rotors have an extra "flank cut" on them for use with the new side exhaust ports. According to Mazda this delays exhaust closing timing by 15 deg. If they are interchangeable, I guess you could look at through the exhaust port and see the cut.

lateapex911
04-21-2004, 11:15 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Originally posted by NRG: However, the RX-8 rotor IS a 13B production part. It is not aftermarket in anyway. It is produced by Mazda for their rotary engines. Any thoughts?? </font>

Yes,



Originally posted by dickita15:
no it does not matter that they call the engine the same name.... on parts that are not open you may only use parts that came in that car or from a car on the same spec line of the gcr and even then you must swap parts as an assembly. even if the rx8 was listed on the same spec line of the gcr you could not put rx8 rotors in a rx7 case legaly.
dick


Dicks 100% right on this one. If we ran Chevy 350s in IT, do you think we could grab any Chevy piston with 12:1 compression and slap it in our 9:1 motor, just cuz it's in a 350??

No way. This one's pretty clear. 13B is the engine family, but the engines are more like cousins than brothers...


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 21, 2004).]

iambhooper
04-22-2004, 07:28 AM
maybe i'm wrong, but the simple way to find out would be to stalk them to the fuel pump. if they are burning a premium octane fuel, then that might giveyou reason to be suspicious.

low compression uses lower octane, right? if not, then maybe all my wankle driving friends are doing something wrong?

------------------
hoop
greensboro, nc
Blue Fiat x1/9
ITC #77
Region 55

JeffYoung
04-22-2004, 08:14 AM
Just because it is a Mazda part for a 13B doesn't make it legal. If that rotor never was installed on a factory 2nGen RX7, it's not legal.

Speed Raycer
04-22-2004, 09:43 AM
[hypothetical]What if Mazda superceided (sp?) the part #'s for the old 13b rotors with the Renesis rotors and the orig 13b rotors are no longer available?????[/hypothetical}

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/7sig.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com) http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg <A HREF="http://www.izzyscustomcages.com" TARGET=_blank>www.izzyscustomcages.com ('http://www.izzyscustomcages.com') </A>

[This message has been edited by Speed Raycer (edited May 10, 2004).]

Chris Sawatsky
04-22-2004, 10:10 AM
then the renesis rotor would be legal

JeffYoung
04-22-2004, 10:20 AM
Chris, would it? Go back to Jake's example. Not sure that it would.

Chris Sawatsky
04-22-2004, 10:38 AM
I don't know about SCCA rules for certain, but WCMA IT rules state that if a part is no longer available from the manufacturer, you are allowed to use the superceding part.

ie: if honda decided to stop making crx pistons and supercede the part number with d16a1 integra pistons, we'd all be allowed to run 10:1 compression or whatever those pistons come up with

lateapex911
04-22-2004, 12:37 PM
Now were getting theoretical. For a case example, look at the recent Datsun 510 cam supercede issue that Darin has been working on.

IIRC it wasn't an easy deal to just use another part.

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

Allen Brown
04-22-2004, 02:54 PM
Although I feel that the question is quite clear...illegal.

But if Mazda was just to supercede the whole 13b, and show the renisis engine as the new replacement block...That would change a couple things...

bill f
04-22-2004, 03:12 PM
There is a clearer example of superseded parts in the VW Rabbit cam issue. SCCA accepted the replacement part, made by VW, as the "new" replacement cam for the car...currently run in ITC. It raised the bar for the Rabbit, as it was reported.

I hope this information is accurate. I remember it from the long, long discussion on the site.

Good racing.

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill f (edited April 22, 2004).]

Banzai240
04-22-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Now were getting theoretical. For a case example, look at the recent Datsun 510 cam supercede issue that Darin has been working on.

The 510 cam supercede is dead, due to the way the Nissan lists the cam. (they don't officially "supersede" the piece...

I think we worked out that there is a VERY strict interpretation of the rules that make it legal to use (has to do with the terms "supersede" and "replacement" in the rule...), but I'll leave that up to those 510 racers who choose to go that route...

As for the VW cam... We've gone over this before... If VW did in fact "supercede" this cam for the VW, then it MUST be listed on the VW's spec line to be a legal part... The SOM ruling is only good until the end of the year it was made, afterwhich it's up to the CRB to make an official change.

Looking at the VW spec lines... I have yet to see this camshaft listed... If I raced in ITC in anything OTHER than a VW... well...

For the future, we have drafted a rule that I believe was posted in the last fastrack that will make it legal to use "exact equivalent" replacement parts, meaning that you will be able to legally use other-than-OEM, but exact replacement brake rotors, cams, etc... This should help eliminate "lack of availablility" of stock pieces issues...

But for now, we have what we have...

As for a supersede of the Renesis Rotor for the stock 13B piece... You'd better have some DARN good documentation to prove that if you are going to go this route... Because it's NOT legal to use unless it's listed on the spec line, and you have to get the CRB to accept it before that will happen...


------------------
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, 2004).]

Knestis
04-22-2004, 07:18 PM
It's wandering a little further afield but the "exact replacement part" rule is one of the best to happen under the current administration. That and the coilover change.

K

Fleetcare
04-22-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by iambhooper:
maybe i'm wrong, but the simple way to find out would be to stalk them to the fuel pump. if they are burning a premium octane fuel, then that might giveyou reason to be suspicious.

low compression uses lower octane, right? if not, then maybe all my wankle driving friends are doing something wrong?



Its not that simple..
Running more timing would require higher octane..

lateapex911
04-23-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
.....Because it's NOT legal to use unless it's listed on the spec line, and you have to get the CRB to accept it before that will happen...



And thankfully it will be a cold day in Hadey before they do THAT!



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

04-23-2004, 10:46 AM
all you rotary haters out there should love this one, for almost 2 months Mazda has the 81-85 12a rotor housings listed as NLA, RX3 housings here we come, im going to post this over on the "new ITA class" thread cause it will change the pecking order in ITA.

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
all you rotary haters out there should love this one, for almost 2 months Mazda has the 81-85 12a rotor housings listed as NLA,

I eluded to it previously, and I'll say it here again... NLA is NOT justification for use, based on our current rules. It must be an officially superceded part, documented in the factory parts lists by Mazda. It then must be submitted to the CRB with adequate evidence that it is a superceded part...

Just for the record... the 510 cam is NLA as well... and the only factory available piece for this application was ruled as not meeting the requirements for a superceded part, and is therefore, not legal through that channel...



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

Greg Amy
04-23-2004, 12:08 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...must be an officially superceded part, documented in the factory parts lists by Mazda...</font>

A Catch-22 situation, no doubt. The IT rules state they give everyone a place to play, then the rules state that unless manufacturer support is offered (for 20+-yr-old cars that they no longer support or really wish to be associated with, let alone sell) then you're "ess out of luck"...

However, there's an opportunity here. I've successfully used protests as a means of getting rules changes "de facto." An example that comes to mind was in 1990 when I was racing Showroom Stock. Back then we had to run factory wheels with no changes in offsets. However the 1987 and 1988 SSA Shelby CSX was classified on the same spec line, and the 1988 CSX had 1/2" wider wheels. Therefore, we were allowed to run the '88 wheels on our '87 cars.

The problem came in that the wheels had a different offset, thus had different wheel tracks. We tried to get the track spec changed but we were rejected with "rules creep". Instead, we chose to run the wheels and "hint" to the compliance crews that 'the other guy' was running illegal track. We all got taken down and excluded due to wheel track not meeting the specs.

But we were prepared. We appealed and sent to Denver scads of information that showed we were running an allowed wheel that must result in a change in track. We got our track allowance.

The same thing can happen here. I recommend to the Datsun 510 owners and the RX-7 12A owners to work out a deal with a buddy to have yourselves protested. One of two things will happen: you will pass the protest and your cams/rotor housings will become "de facto" legal, or you will be excluded, you will appeal, and your case will go in front of the National Appeals Board. That board will have no choice but to decide one of the following:

A) your replacement cam is legal because there is no other option, or
B) you can no longer run in Improved Touring because the "legal" camshaft cannot be replaced.

I *sincerely* doubt that any reasonable person or board will take the B stance; if they do then all my cynical fears about SCCA will have been realized. I strongly suspect (and sincerely hope) that in the end your cams/rotor housings will be declared legal, either de facto or de jure.

GA

04-23-2004, 12:18 PM
thanks greg, good point, Darin, are you telling me all those 510's running in ITC are running old flat cams? dont buy that one for a minute, had one in SFR give me a run for my money last year. Im going to call maz comp and see what can be done to supercede the part number asap.

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
thanks greg, good point, Darin, are you telling me all those 510's running in ITC are running old flat cams? dont buy that one for a minute, had one in SFR give me a run for my money last year. Im going to call maz comp and see what can be done to supercede the part number asap.

I have no idea what the 510s are actually running, but I do know that a factory replacement for the stock L16 cam is NLA from Nissan... Since our current rules don't actually allow other-than-OEM replacement pieces, you can think what you want about what they are running... There were a LOT of L16s made, and I doubt that they all ended up with flat cams...

OH, and Mazda Comp isn't going to cut it... It has to be OFFICIALLY superceded by Mazda in general. Parts offered through the competition department only aren't considered OEM, unless they are likewise equally offered in normal, run-of-the-mill Mazda parts guides FOR THE APPLICATION.

Been there, done that already for the 510...

One more thing... I'd love to know just HOW you guys plan on using the Renesis rotor housings on an earlier 13B (since they would be too wide for a 12A and couldn't be used, I'm assuming a 13B is what we are talking about here...), when the Renesis engine has the exhaust ports in the side-plates... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.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 23, 2004).]

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by grega:

A) your replacement cam is legal because there is no other option, or
B) you can no longer run in Improved Touring because the "legal" camshaft cannot be replaced.


You forgot option "C", which is up for approval by the BoD currently...

C) Make other-than-OEM exact equivalent replacement parts legal, thereby legalizing any number of aftermarket suppliers of OEM replacement pieces...

Doesn't help the rotor-housing issue, but for just about everything else...



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

04-23-2004, 02:18 PM
The fact that I cant rebuild my motor with new OR aftermarkets parts at this time forces the issue of alternates being allowed IMO. Mazda has alternates that will work in my 12A now, they are 12A Turbo housings that have a slightly larger exhaust port, they are NOT rx3 or rx8, but 81-85 rx7 japanese housings, they have always been available over the counter here in the usa from your mazda dealer and have a factory mazda part number. Dave lemon petitioned for a similar change but was denied because the originals were still available but at doulble the price, thats not the case here. Darin, are you saying as a ITAC member you would not support an alternate part from mazda to keep 70% of the IT field on the track? no disrepect, just curious.

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
The fact that I cant rebuild my motor with new OR aftermarkets parts at this time forces the issue of alternates being allowed IMO.

...but 81-85 rx7 japanese housings, they have always been available over the counter here in the usa from your mazda dealer and have a factory mazda part number.

... Darin, are you saying as a ITAC member you would not support an alternate part from mazda to keep 70% of the IT field on the track? no disrepect, just curious.

First, show me in the rules where any of what you stated above is LEGAL???...

I can save you some time... There is NOTHING in the rules that allows you to use anything other than FACTORY original rotor housings and sideplates that were standard on the model years listed on your spec line AS AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES on regularly produced base models of the car.

There is NOTHING in the rules that would allow ANY Japanese-only spec part as an accepted replacement for these factory pieces. This is why the 510 can't use the SSS head, etc... It was never sold on a car destined for the USA...

You may be able to get away with using rotor housings/rotor/sideplate combinations from different model years of '79-'85 RX-7, but even this may be suspect by the "as an assembly" update/backdate rules.

The rotor housings and sideplates are equivalent to a block and head on a piston engine, and there is DEFINATELY NOTHING in the rules that would allow you to use anything here but the factory pieces standard on the US model of these cars. Even replacement rotors must be specific to the US models and the years listed... as the piston rule obviously doesn't apply to rotary engines...

If the Manufacturer has OFFICIALLY superceded (not NLA, not also-available, not over the counter...) a different part number for the original pieces, and real documentation exists of this, then it would STILL Have to be submitted to the CRB for inclusion on the vehicles spec-line before it would be legal to use.

As an ITAC member, this is how I read the rules concerning this matter.

As for how I'd treat situations like this... I'd have to see what the case was. If we are talking about a legitimate supercede that performs the same function and offers similiar levels of performance, then I'd obviously be in support, because our rules allow that...

However, if manufacturers suddenly start superceding entire designs and say, for instance, just supercede the Renesis package for the original 12A package, then I'm going to fight to get the rules loophole filled up to keep this kind of non-sense from happening in IT.

If Mazda has truely superceded some higher performance parts in place of the orginal pieces, then I think this is BS and needs to be controlled in some way.

I doubt that you can come up with a real, rules based arguement, for why any currently classified rotary IT car can legally use any of the Renesis engine parts that are not already common between the two... If guys are using Renesis Rotors, they are illegal... If they are using Renesis sideplates (don't see how that is possible...) they are illegal... If they are using anything beyond what came on these cars between the years of 1979-1985 for the 1st gen or '86-?? for the 2nd... they are illegal...

I'm more than willing to hear your arguments otherwise...

Also... there is NOTHING in the current rules that allows you to use "Factory OR Aftermarket" pieces for most of the components... From Engine pieces to brake rotors... if it's NOT spelled out as acceptable in the ITCS, then you are currently required to use factory OEM replacement pieces...

Not my rules, that's just the way they are currently written... Remember, this class started from SS rules...

------------------
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 23, 2004).]

04-23-2004, 04:46 PM
Cant blame me for trying Darin, get the car back to the front and it might be worth half what I have in it, right now its worth $2500 as a drivers school rental and keep the car package. oh well, back to bondo and fiberglass on the EP, bet ill have plenty to say after 10 hrs of that, snarl.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 23, 2004).]

ddewhurst
04-23-2004, 07:25 PM
Darin, please instruct me on a letter so that I may write Mazda so that Mazda will write the correct letter to the CRB with respect to there being ZERO OEM RX-7 1st gen front rotors.

Thank you http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
SCCA #250772
[email protected]

PS: Can't wait till the 1st gen front brake rotors protests start flying. Should be interesting. I have brembo's.

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
...with respect to there being ZERO OEM RX-7 1st gen front rotors.

...

PS: Can't wait till the 1st gen front brake rotors protests start flying. Should be interesting. I have brembo's.

David,
Refer to last months fastrack concerning a rule change to allow non-OEM "exact equivalent" replacement parts... It should pass the BoD in August, which would make what you just suggested doing a mute point...



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

Geo
04-24-2004, 12:11 AM
Wow. You boys have been busy.

I've been ignoring this thread for a while because it seemed pretty open and shut to me.

Darin's a brave soul and I'll jump in to his rescue of sorts. Actually, Darin certainly doesn't need rescuing, but I'm sure he could use a respite and some support. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Darin is 100% correct in terms of the rules being discussed here. No surprise. But some emphasis needs to be placed upon the fact that NLA is not a legal excuse to use alternate parts. That is the long and the short of it. In the case of brake rotors I think pretty much everyone is probably willing to look the other way until the rules are updated (but that's an assumption for sure) simply because it makes sense.

But, allowing alternate parts that are not the exact equivalent to the proper OEM parts is never going to fly. I understand Greg's point about keeping cars on the track. But, there is zero allowance for such a thing today and it would set a bad (VERY BAD) precedence IMHO that will almost certainly have unintended consequences (sp?).

Basically, when parts are NLA, they are simply NLA. Anything else is a big can of worms. I'm sure that since the TR8 V8 is NLA from the manufacturer, Jeff would like to replace his engine with a small block Buick (the original source of that engine). It could keep him racing his TR8. What a great idea.

Getting down to cases (pun intended), you cannot tell me that it's impossible to find a 13B engine anywhere in the country (or 12A for that matter). There were too many of these made and plenty in the bone yards. Sorry.

I agree with Darin 100% on the issues at hand.


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

lateapex911
04-24-2004, 02:50 AM
A couple comments.

The issue of 12A rotor housings becoming unavailable is more serious that you might think. While the car was produced in large numbers, the last 12A imported to the states was 20 years ago. When was the last time you saw a 1st gen RX-7 on the streets? They aren't too common anymore.

The surviving examples are largely pretty tired. Boneyard examples are there for either crash damage (good) or motor problems (bad). Of course, even the boneyards are pretty thin pickings these days.

The part in question, the rotor housing, is special coated, and shaped in a weird "8" shape. Not the knid of thing the local machine shop can "claen up". Usually they wear mildly, but they get ruined when an apex seal goes. Which is the number one cause of a "blown" rotary.

While the lack of replacement parts won't be an immediate problem, it will be the end of the line to a lot of cars down the road. (*due to the cars unusual popularity in racing, vis a vis Jeff's TR-8, for example. And just to explore the situation further, IF Jeff used an idetitical block from another source, and if it had no performance advantage, it would be a victimless crime, and be undetectable to a vast majority of racers. 12A drivers have no option as the closest parts are different. I won't run those parts as they provide some, if marginal, performance gains, and are illegal)

If no source is found, it could be a big issue for a lot of people. (And yes, I see the "tough luck, you're driving an old rustbucket, get with the program and get a current car" comment coming, but we're not talking about insignificant participation numbers, or 'orphan' cars here.)

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 24, 2004).]

04-24-2004, 11:14 AM
I hear the GCR quotes and the "intent" quotes and appreciate your taking the time to try and explain the clubs shortcomings to me Darin, but what is being missed here is that my car and more than half the 7's in cal club are not old race cars, they were built in the last few years for ITA and pro7, brand new racecars built for CURRENT SCCA CLASSES, being told to go race vintage. but what will bring change to this is economics, club economics, basicly when we need need housings, we park our race cars, not 1, not 50, but hundreds of them, each paying $200 to $450 into club coffers for each race missed, there are close to 45 7's running in cal club alone in PRO7 and ITA, cal club only gets 160-200 entries per race total and were supposed to park the 7's when we need a part? can you say regional supplemental regulation change, thats what will happen in order for regions not to go bankrupt. or maybe we should all take our cars to NASA and ask for an alternate housings, think they we be willing to discuss the issue without mentioning we go race vintage !!!!! the more I think about whats been said here reguarding the NLA not being a good reason to consider a alternate part, the more I think ill just run the car in NASA this year with the alternates, theres about $5000 worth of reasons SCCA can chew on to rethink stupid, rules that chase away members, and no I dont have OEM brake rotors, those have been NLA for years.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 24, 2004).]

Geo
04-24-2004, 03:18 PM
While I understand the concern over NLA parts, what is the solution? How do we solve the problem without going down the road of Production?



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

Banzai240
04-24-2004, 07:28 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how people will fight like mad to keep the rules the way they are... Until one of those rules directly effects THEM...

What's the solution guys? You allow an alternate part here for this guy... suddenly the next guy has precedence to go off of and pretty soon you are on your way to an entirely new class of racing...

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

04-24-2004, 08:58 PM
"For this guy"? I'll take that as a "I dont know". Were not talking about six caterhams, its every 7 in the country now sitting like mine with no motor Darin, when 25% of our cars dont have parts to run what are we going to do about it, play golf? This is a simple problem with a simple solution, PCA's are here and we all know it, 7's are 10 HP down and 150# heavy to run with the hondas, you allow the mazda part #6513322example rotor housing for 8-10 hp and drop their weight by 50# and see what happens. if we dont NASA will, these people deserve a place to race in a decent classification. meanwhile i've told my engine builder to wrap up my motor parts in plastic until new housings can be obtained, turbo or whatever. There the car sits in my driveway until this is resolved. heres what that looks like if case you want to picture your own car there.

http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...&cat=500&page=1 (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=471&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1)

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)

EP this summer

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 24, 2004).]

lateapex911
04-25-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
It never ceases to amaze me how people will fight like mad to keep the rules the way they are... Until one of those rules directly effects THEM...




I hear you Darin, and I'm not sure if I should take it personally, as I asked for no favors, but since Geo asked....

Some off the top of my head thoughts:

1-Determine the actual situation. Are they gone forever? Really???

2-Determine if Mazda will supercede the part, and if so, with what.

3-Assign a performance advantage or disadvantage to the supercede part, if there is one.

or.....if there is no supercede part, contact Mazda to ascertain the most likely and appropriate replacement part, and assign performance parameters to that part.

4-Line item that part with an appropriate penalty weight.

I can see both sides here, and I know that there are issues to be resolved. Best case scenario is that there is no real issue, it's just a temporary shortage.

Second stage requires the cooperation of Mazda. Luckily that won't be hard to gain. But determining the performance potential, or lack of of the new part may need the services of an independant shop. Right off the top of my head, I know of people on the CRB that have the facilities and ability to aid and oversee such a project. Worst case scenario is that there is a slight perfomance advantage. If so, then a weight line item is needed.

The last hurdle other than determining the appropriate weight is the issue of easy determination of which cars run which components. If the RX-7 (12A) turbo housings are determined to be the best option, it is a simple manner to unbolt the 4 header bolts and measure the port size. Slightly bigger ports means that that car needs to match the higher spec weight.

I certainly don't like the situation nor the need for a solution, and if we were talking about an orphan car that nobody has seen turn a wheel on a track, it would be a different story. Note that without the BODs approval of PCAs, this is just wasted typing!

I would be interested to hear other solutions and thoughts.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 25, 2004).]

04-25-2004, 12:46 AM
Jake, I called maz comp, they said and I quote

"when then there is a sufficient stock of RX-8 housings completed, production MAY resume on RX7 housings"
no garrantee or exact date given, Maz comps best guess was 8 weeks (2 months) but no garrantee.
RX3 housings are NLA as well, all we have that are comparable are the japanese 12A turbo housings that have a slightly bigger exhaust port. As I pointed out before they may produce 8-10 hp more. Dial back your rev limiter guys, pop it and your done.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 25, 2004).]

Bill Miller
04-26-2004, 07:44 AM
Interesting issue for sure. Daryl, You say these japenese housings are good for 8-10 hp in an IT-prep motor. What's that, like a 7% - 8% gain? Are they gonna throw another 75# - 100# at these cars if they allow those housings? I don't care if Mazda supercedes the p/n or not, if they provide that much of a performance advantage, they should come w/ some lead as well. I know that's probably not a popular position, but how many folks would give their eye teeth (not to mention, spend a boat-load of $) to get that kind of a gain, out an already developed motor?

BTW, all the folks that support moving the RX7 to ITB, what would you say about that, if you get these new housings?

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

JeffYoung
04-26-2004, 09:20 AM
Guys, I don't have the GCR handy, but doesn't it say factory OEM replacement parts or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT? Or something to that effect? So that if someone is making a 12A housing other than Mazda, that is identical to the Mazda 12A housing, you can use it?

For older cars, this is a must have. I've got two blocks, the original that came in the car (being built into a spare) and a Rover SD1 block that is in the car now. Exact same block that came in the TR8 in 1980, just probably from a same vintage Range Rover or Rover 3500. If I had to find one of only the 2200 or so blocks that originally went in the car, I'm out of luck.

So with the 12A, is it the case that an exact 12A replacement housing, identical to that originally installed, CAN'T be found anywhere? If so, I agree, this is a problem. The 1st Gen RX7 is too important to SCCA Road Racing now.

lateapex911
04-26-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Guys, I don't have the GCR handy, but doesn't it say factory OEM replacement parts or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT? Or something to that effect? So that if someone is making a 12A housing other than Mazda, that is identical to the Mazda 12A housing, you can use it?

For older cars, this is a must have. I've got two blocks, the original that came in the car (being built into a spare) and a Rover SD1 block that is in the car now. Exact same block that came in the TR8 in 1980, just probably from a same vintage Range Rover or Rover 3500. If I had to find one of only the 2200 or so blocks that originally went in the car, I'm out of luck.

So with the 12A, is it the case that an exact 12A replacement housing, identical to that originally installed, CAN'T be found anywhere? If so, I agree, this is a problem. The 1st Gen RX7 is too important to SCCA Road Racing now.

Jeff, I don't believe exact replacement are currently allowed except in the cases of gaskets and such. Darin has a new rule in the works to allow exact replacement for a larger group of parts, such as brake rotors.

THe rotor housing is one of those wild parts, that, when you see one, you know will never be made by anyone but Mazda!

A temporary outage is a problem, but more of an inconvienience. We can deal with that. A complete and forever outage is another issue, but it looks like thats not the case.

And Bill, read my post for my opinion on lead.



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

04-26-2004, 10:20 AM
Jeff, nobody makes rotor housings except mazda, ironclad patent issue im sure and Bill, why throw lead at a car already being considered for a weight/ performance adjustment. I could understand dropping the weight for cars with "stock" VS "turbo" housings by 75#. basically my season is will be half over IF im one of the lucky ones that get 2 of the first shipment, they didnt say how many would be here maybe in 8 weeks, just that SOME would be arriving maybe.

JeffYoung
04-26-2004, 10:44 AM
Jake, you got me digging into my rule book.

Found this:
ITCS D.1.p: All engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall meet factory specifications for stock parts.

So, I do think if you have an identical part to a stock part, it is ok. Your thoughts?

Banzai240
04-26-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Darin has a new rule in the works to allow exact replacement for a larger group of parts, such as brake rotors.

The ITAC has a new rule in the works... etc., etc., etc....

I'm just one of several voices, all of whom work to make this stuff happen...

As for ITCS D.1.p... Keep in mind that the specifications they are mentioning are for the VEHICLE in question... That means port size, position, etc., must be stock for that vehicle.



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

Geo
04-26-2004, 12:05 PM
What is the availability of the 13B? What is the performance of the 13B powered 1st gen relative to the 12A powered 1st gen? Someone suggested perhaps listing both on the same line in ITA with more weight. If the 13B is still available and the 12A becomes permanently NLA, perhaps this would solve the problem?

I'm not pushing this mind you, just trying to explore a possible solution that would stick to US market parts that were originally used in the platform.


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

JeffYoung
04-26-2004, 12:26 PM
George, the rotary guys will chime in, but it is a completely different motor. The 12a has a nominal displacement of 1.1 liters, I think the 13B is 1.3. The stock 12a had 100 hp, the stock 13B GSL-SE (1st Gen 13b) had 135 hp, I think. Maybe more.

Geo
04-26-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, the rotary guys will chime in, but it is a completely different motor. The 12a has a nominal displacement of 1.1 liters, I think the 13B is 1.3. The stock 12a had 100 hp, the stock 13B GSL-SE (1st Gen 13b) had 135 hp, I think. Maybe more.

Yes, I understand they are different. What I'm exploring is the possibility of listing both on the same line so that those with a spent 12A could replace with a 13B. I know there are a lot of other issues, but this is just a preliminary gathering of information/issues regarding what could prove to be the cleanest solution since it would not allow parts never used in the US on that platform, and it could provide a solution to making the RX-7 reasonably competitive in ITA again. Just pondering. Thanks for the informatin though!


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

JeffYoung
04-26-2004, 01:34 PM
No problem George, I figured someone with your mechanical knowledge knew that anyway.

1st Gen RX7s competitive again.....I'm tell you guys, come down to SEDiv. There is a group of 1st Gens down here that run with the S cars. I kid you not. In a 15 car ITS field this weekend at Savannah, one IT7 car qualified 3rd or 4th.

Driver + development and I think the RX can still run up front. At least that's what I see, as I watch them recede off into the distance in my windshield.....

Banzai240
04-26-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Yes, I understand they are different. What I'm exploring is the possibility of listing both on the same line so that those with a spent 12A could replace with a 13B

For starters... The only years that came with both a 12A and 13B was '84-'85, so anything earlier and you'd be "creating a model", something which is currently against our rules.

Second, the GSL-SE ('84-'85 13B) has considerably larger brakes than the 12A model of the same years. By putting them on the same spec line, interchange would be legal, allowing the 12A cars to upgrade to 13B brakes...

Third, the '84-'85 13B is listed in ITS at 2530lbs... which I think is WAY to high to start with, and I'm certain would require a LOT of ballast, so I doubt that moving them to ITA WITH weight added would be feasible. The car would be just TOO heavy.

If anything, what the 13B 1st gen needs is a weight reduction for ITS or a straight drop to ITA. If someone has some real power numbers from one of these, I'd be interested in investigating just how this car really would fit...

Either way, I just don't see how, without special exceptions or something completely contrary to current IT philosophy/class intent, the first two items above could be circumvented, and I'm not sure we would even want to go down that road to start with...

The first thing to do, in my opinion, is to find out just how serious the problem is to start with, or even if there IS a problem to start with...



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

JeffYoung
04-26-2004, 02:45 PM
84-85 GSL has......drum roll


FOURTEEN INCH WHEELS.

Banzai240
04-26-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
84-85 GSL has......drum roll


FOURTEEN INCH WHEELS.

While this is true, it may not be pertinent after this season... It's a minor difference at this point...

There are more important, IT-Inclusive issues to deal with, as I started outlining above...

First, I still would want to investigate the validity and magnatude of the problem before worrying too much about possible solutions...

The option would still exist for IT just to let these cars fade off into obscurity, as the RX-3 and any number of other models have over the years... It's not like those who race them don't threaten on a regular basis to run to another class if they can't be competitive here anyhow... They DO have about 4 other class options to choose from...

Not trying to be cold or single out the RX, but every car has it's day... Perhaps this is the time of the Miata... I'm pretty sure the Mazda would prefer that! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

04-26-2004, 04:49 PM
makes me wonder if this wasnt a planned shortage. Darin call Tim Buck at mazda comp yourself, want cost you a cent. 9:00 am to 4:00 pm mon thru fri 1-800-435-2508.

THawkbh
04-26-2004, 10:22 PM
Oh awsome, now it'll be even harder for me to get started in ITS this year.
I didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this sounds ignorant.


------------------
Drew
18 years old
Wyndenup Racing
ITS Mazda RX-7 #99 - Me
Historic '76 Porsche 914-6 #49

04-26-2004, 10:56 PM
Is this where we are?, VMRA, Vintage Mazda Racing Association, with my 2 year old racecar. I think not.

lateapex911
04-26-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by THawkbh:
Oh awsome, now it'll be even harder for me to get started in ITS this year.
I didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this sounds ignorant.





Don't worry man, you're car is fine...it's the smaller engine (12A) guys who have an issue, and it sounds like a temporary one at that.


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

04-27-2004, 10:06 AM
the fix may be temporary as well.

http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/viewto...opic.php?t=2847 (http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=2847)

lateapex911
04-27-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Jake, you got me digging into my rule book.

Found this:
ITCS D.1.p: All engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall meet factory specifications for stock parts.

So, I do think if you have an identical part to a stock part, it is ok. Your thoughts?

Well, that IS intersting...and while it is theoretical in the case of rotor housings, I went looking...

To begin, lets start with some equilizing terminology. In a rotary, I submit that the side plates function as the head in a piston engine does, for it is here that the intake port (= to valves) exists. I also submit that the housing is equivilent to the cylinder/block. (And yes, I know that the exhaust port on a 12A and 13B lives in the housing...work with me here).

So with that I read the good book. The line you refer to contains the phrase "all engine components not otherwise mentioned...". So i went hunting for "Block" or "Housing" or "Head" or "Cylinder", as these items are pertinent.
Rule ITCS D.1.j states: "Engines may be bored to a maximun of .040 inch over standard bore size."

Boring (verb) an engine requires a cylinder bore (noun), and those are found either in blocks or as indivdual items, such as in a Porsche. And I submit that the housing would fall into that category, although boring a housing is impossible.

So, to my eye, I think it's a stretch to replace a housing with a non Mazda housing, even if one were to be found.

On the other hand, the language required me to make suppositions, and there we run into the intent issue. Am I reading the book and allowing the obvious intent to sway my opinion? It does not "mention" "housings" anywhere else. Hmmmm.....

Thoughts?

(And yes, this IS like discussing the number of angels or whatever on the head of a pin, cuz nobody but Mazda will ever make these things!)



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