PDA

View Full Version : IT7 ARRC



Dave Damouth
11-11-2002, 10:09 AM
Somebody? Attila, frank- Whats the story?

RacinRich
11-11-2002, 10:38 AM
Attila DQ'd? Henderson 5th? Illegal carbs? Please someone let us Northerners know what happened!

[This message has been edited by RacinRich (edited November 11, 2002).]

sam3481
11-12-2002, 02:41 AM
Well what happened at the ARRC this year. The normal Rd Atl bull sh*t as usuial. Sam Henderson would of won the race if it wasent for the #33 ITA crx which turned him around in turn 5. Atilla went alittle crazy on the track and decided to kiss pretty much every one in his class and other classes not to mention that his car was too loud and the lolly pop pretty much droped into his exhaust ports and his carb was pretty bad off and he admits his faults and no one really was that bad to him. The Sad Sad story of the day was Brian Dobbs and Me Sam Collier III which both of us drove great races and finished 1st and 3rd but due to an slightly misguided (thats about as nice as i can put it) tech inspector we were thrown out because he thought our Secondaries on our carbs were opening manualy. In reality the throttle stops on both of our carbs and probley 80% of the IT7 carbs out there have bent over the many many full throttle applications and caused the throttle plates to open further than 90 degrees on the primarys and slightly bump the secondaries. Yes yes this is why we were DQ'ed. My carb has passed inspection 3 times this year with no problems but hey its the ARRC and I believe the Tech inspectors were having a little competetion with one another to see who could throw out as many people as they could and they did. Boy what a long weekend. On a nother note Stan Bray Won the event after all was said and done and I am happy for him. He totaled his car on thursday in turn 5 during testing and just barely got it back together to make the rest of the event. I enjoyed racing with all the IT7 drivers this year but I dont think i want to put up with this BS in tech any longer. Soo theres my story (the long verson) But i did come in Second in the Enduro with my Dad (Sam Collier Jr)

Sam Collier III
#93 Yellow IT7

Mike Cox
11-12-2002, 10:03 AM
Sam,

Sorry to hear you ran into such a BS problem up there. Seems to me to be a little "nerdish" that if your secondaries do not open mechanically then you are in compliance. While I understand the problem you had with your carb and the stop being bent, I agree that 90% of all IT7 carbs have the same problem, but these tech inspectors remind me of "Disney" construction inspectors, they are just looking to put a feather in their hat. My question to you is: did you appeal the DQ? Who was the inspector and where was he from? I need to really check my carb close now with a SARRC race in less than 3 weeks and makes sure it doesn't open the secondaries. Maybe one day we can catch up athe track and race against each other, but after what you've said about the ARRC, I doubt it would be at Road Atlanta.

Mike
#37 IT7
CFR

sam3481
11-12-2002, 10:18 AM
Hey Mike
Yea I appealed the DQ and sat in the Tower for 3 1/2 hours after the race. Infact me and Stan (Lizacotics) sorry i cant spell were both appealing the same thing. I have a Yaw Carb and Brian Dobbs has Stans carb. Both carbs were the same and the linkage was all factory and not modified. The tech inspector was Lee Grasyer and I am not sure where he was from. But the typical Stewards just cant believe that A tech inspector could ever be wrong. Any hell thats just how they work up there. They always look threw the book to one up people. Yea if i went to the ARRC next year they might DQ me because of an Illegal hood prop stick or maybe something stilly like that. Who knows but its really stupid and I just hate to be thought of as a Cheater. You want to know the really funny thing is that the carb was opening past the 90 degree point and actually was closing again( loss of power). At 90 degrees the secondaries were never touched but past it and they barelly cracked open. Total BS as usual and i guess i cant do anything about it. Well thanks for listing to my long winded message.

Sam Collier III
#93 Yellow IT7

balz
11-12-2002, 11:06 PM
Dave,

We qualified 6th and by lap three had a run at third but we were punted up the grass at Turn 10. Came out ok (in third) but quickly fell to 5th. During our off track excursion, we cut the left rear tire down and the car handled like crap. 3 laps later the tire seperated down the backstraight, ending up blocking the braking zone into turn 10. I understand Don Vincini ran it over at one point (sorry Don!).

I was in the pits for 1:30 and came out a lap or two down. We didn't even have a dog in the hunt at that point. I missed all of the rest of the action. We did manage to run up to an honest 7th place finish, and when it was all said and done Saturday nite, we were in 4th when we left.

I think its a shitty way to get it (either way you look at it).

I feel for a lot of the guys. Sam H. ran a hell of a race. IT-7 was tight, but attrition (with help) took its toll on a lot of positions.

Tempers were wild by nites end, which kinda illustrates how they were after the race. Its a shame too...because IT-7 closed the place down the nite before!

Its probably a good thing that the next race doesn't come around for another 4-5 months. Time heals all wounds...so they say.

Balz...



------------------
Balz
#67 IT-7
www.balz.myip.org
"I live my life one Apex (seal) at a time"

sam3481
11-13-2002, 12:31 AM
Hey Frank
Had a great time racing with ya this weekend. I look forward to hanging with you guys next year. Too bad Atilla got a little crazy but every one has there crazy moments (i know i have). Any how I plan on washing the car and maybe smoothing out a fender or two for next year. Talk to you soon
Sam Collier III
#93 Yellow IT7

RacinRich
11-13-2002, 10:03 AM
Sounds like you guys had a heck of a time before, during, and after the race. Sorry I missed it, but new little baby Reed cut my racing season short. Maybe see ya next year down South or maybe if you guys tow up to wonderful Mid Ohio. We should find out this weekend if CenDiv will have an IT7 class next year. If any of you guys knows that you definatively would be traveling to CenDiv to compete in IT7. Please let me know immediately! The CenDiv IT7 Organizing Committee needs your additional support for this weekend's meeting.

RacerNo39
11-19-2002, 09:34 PM
After the race i got called up to the tower and was told i was being DQ'd for high DB. (no shit sherlock) After wasting my money and time with the Chief Stewart i went back to tech to see what's up. They told me that the gasket between the carb and the intake was illegal. Whoever told you about the lolly pop test, and falling in, is way wrong. Get your info strait before you go knocking on some1's door. The lolly pop test was 100% passed. My carb was passed 100%. (besides the gasket problem) This was the same setup from the 2001 ARRC and passed then 100%. I finished 2nd last year.
In all reality i won the ARRC fair and square, besides that other BS. the exhaust incident was a racing incident and was total BS i never was black flagged. The gasket on the carb has always been legal until now. those are the only 2 things i was DQ'd for. And this is NO BS! I am very disappointed in my friends and race buddies, being two-faced. I have helped out all year with those who needed help and they turn their backs on me when i win. I am sorry for those who i pissed off for doing whatever on the track. I dont think i was that wild, i think i was just legally that fast.
Thank you
Attila
#39 IT-7

lateapex911
11-19-2002, 11:24 PM
Ok, guys, a couple questions...

1- What is a lollipop? How is it used? Can I make one and test myself?? (My engine came from another racer, who swears it is 100% legal, and at 106 rwhp, I don't think I have anything to worry about, but it's better to KNOW, then to be confident!)

2- What were the sound limits? How much and how far away?

3- How was the gasket judged to be illegal?

Thanks,



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

RacerNo39
11-19-2002, 11:44 PM
1 - The lolly pop looks like a small rectangular block or piece or whatever. Basically looks like a lolly pop. there is a piece of stick or rod stuck in the middle or the block. (the handle) They use that to check the ports. if the lolly popo falls in then obviously the ports are not stock size.

2 - The DB limit here was 103. When the exhaust came apart it was then at 106. The radar was on the side of the track (about) 20 feet from the fence on the driver side.

3 - The gasket is a secret. No j/k
It was illegal because it was modified. But the GCR says that the gaskets are free.

RacerNo39
11-20-2002, 12:52 AM
I just noticed that about half the story i wrote is cut off. Well im not rewriting so sorry guys.

balz
11-21-2002, 01:16 AM
I'm with ya...

For Sale....

1 Green RX-7 with all spares. Trailer, accessroies, gear and all.

It just isn't fun anymore.



------------------
Balz
#67 IT-7
www.balz.myip.org
"I live my life one Apex (seal) at a time"

Mike Cox
11-21-2002, 07:34 PM
Balz, read the thread I started in the General discussions forum. I'm ready to give in too. Not as much fun as it used to be.

Mike

RacerNo39
11-21-2002, 11:25 PM
Sam C.,

What's happening bro?? No reply. You wrote of me so i was just wondering if you were taking your time looking for some facts to back that BS story of yours you wrote.

RacerNo39
11-21-2002, 11:26 PM
Sam C. III.,

What's happening bro?? No reply. You wrote of me so i was just wondering if you were taking your time looking for some facts to back that BS story of yours you wrote.

Attila
#39 IT-7

GEO46
11-21-2002, 11:36 PM
Okay all, I run a Yaw carb. I finally got around to checking it tonight. Oop's.
Manualy opening the throttle, I can see the secondaries opening. This is while it's still on the car!!! And not applying much pressure on the linkage.

Looks like I need to talk to Yaw:-( BTW, other than fuel psi and jetting changes I haven't touched the carb. And yes, I adjusted all throttle stops per Yaw's instuctions.

lateapex911
11-22-2002, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by GEO46:
Okay all, I run a Yaw carb. I finally got around to checking it tonight. Oop's.
Manualy opening the throttle, I can see the secondaries opening. This is while it's still on the car!!! And not applying much pressure on the linkage.

Looks like I need to talk to Yaw:-( BTW, other than fuel psi and jetting changes I haven't touched the carb. And yes, I adjusted all throttle stops per Yaw's instuctions.

Hey...if you actually talk to him, ask him if he's still doing carbs...and how I should contact him....

Thanks



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

sam3481
11-25-2002, 02:39 AM
Hey every on Including Attila
Sorry I have been away from my computer for a while. Attila sorry for jumping the gun on the reasons you were dq'ed. I over heard some one else saying that your car failed that test and so i just assumed ( bad judgment on my part). Also I was just relaying what I heard from ever one else about how you got alittle friendly during the race with some of the other cars. I did how ever blast the tech inspectors for there job but its just frusterating when you work soo hard to just race to get kicked out for some thing silly like a bending throttle linkage thats been that way for years. Attila you are a great driver and I personally dident have a problem with the way you were driving (hell you were way ahead of me the whole time hehe) and have seen you race many times before. I dident meen to sound too faced on the board and hope that you can forgive me for this. Tech is very agravating for me and my dad at the ARRC. Its just not worth raceing when they just throw all your hard work out the door for something that had no performance adv what so ever. I think Attila would of been thrown out because of your driving and only because I watched 4 drivers sign potitions against you because of your driving and after you got dq'ed they withdrew them because there was no need i guess. I just dont plan on going to the ARRC again. I have a bad reputation there and it dosent seem to be getting any better. Attila L, Frank B, Stan B, Sam H, Don V, and every one in IT7 I had a great time racing with yall and hope to see you all very soon.
Sam Collier III
#93 Yellow IT7

CHAP
12-02-2002, 02:36 PM
ALL THIS POSTURING AND CONPLAINING AMONGST OURSELVES, ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT SELF-GRATIFYING, REALLY DOES GET ANYTHING DONE! POSSIBLY SENDING SOME SORT OF SUPPORT TO OF
THE FOLLOWING POSITION TO DENVER MIGHT EXPOSE THE SITUATION.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE APPEAL OF THE DISQUALIFICATION FILED BY SDJ MOTORSPORTS ON BEHALF OF THE #6 CAR.

The following is a refinement including the original statement of appeal. Please accept this updated version as additional information.

The issue of the operation of the secondary linkage on a stock Mazda RX7 4-barrel carburetor was the basis for the disqualification and subsequent protest after the ARRC sprint race on Saturday, November 9, 2002. The contention is that the decision of the Stewards to interpret "mechanical operation of the secondary throttle plates" as "any detectable motion" is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the published rules.

Although the following may seem petty and not in the “spirit of the rules” by those rendering judgment, please note that the lack of “the spirit” in the interpretation of this rule is a principle basis for this appeal. The paragraph noted as the violation (17.1.4.D.1.q.2.B) does not mention the specifics of any modification. It only refers to the application of 18 other paragraphs (.D.1.a-k and .D.1. m-s). This doesn’t meet the requirement of specificity required of the competitor’s protest or this appeal.

Assuming the paragraph in question is actually 17.1.4.D.1.a.2, it states in the first sentence: “External throttle linkage…. may be modified or changed.” The last sentence states that: ”Method of operating the secondary throttle may not be modified.” The secondary throttle is still operated, controlled and modulated by vacuum. The secondary throttle functions and performs in every way as a vacuum operated secondary throttle carburetor.

I would also like to refer to the Intent statement (17.1.4.B) as evidence of the Club’s directives for establishment of the rules and therefore guidance for interpretation by the competitor and inspectors. This paragraph states: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.” After experiencing the secondary throttle blades sticking in the their bores on a start from some untouched Mazda carburetors and not other, it would not be a surprise to find that Mazda may have intended for the last degrees of primary throttle shaft motion to just unseat the secondaries on one of it many variants. The last sentence states: “Other than those specifically allowed by the these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage.” This statement was complied with fully, even if the primary linkage did slightly crack the throttle at the extreme of its travel as it unlocked the secondary shaft for rotation. The intention of any mechanically operated secondary design is to open the secondary simultaneously throughout the primary opening event. No competitive advantage was gain by cracking the secondary throttle in the last few degrees of the primary throttle travel, only a safer condition was produced.

The mechanical linkage that joins the primary and secondary throttle plates is a standard design feature of the stock carburetor. It was noted and demonstrated to the Stewards that at the open limit of primary travel, and in primary over travel, this linkage may slightly unseat the secondary throttle plates, facilitating the opening and operation of secondary throttles by the vacuum circuit. Upon post-race inspection, the Scrutineers observed this slight motion, and reported a condition of "mechanically-opening secondaries". Keep in mind, they operated the primary linkage by hand, not the throttle cable, with the carburetor off the car and inverted. The primary shaft travel stop linkage is susceptible to bending if over stressed, necessitating the installation of positive pedal stop. It is not unlikely an over travel of the primary throttle plate, beyond perpendicular to flow, might have been created by the manual force applied by the inspector. Such over travel, detrimental to performance, may have been the travel necessary to crack the secondary blades.

A number of factors should be noted here. First of all, these carburetors, being of stock condition and years out of production, are all subject to the significant combined effects of original manufacturing tolerances, wear and tear, and repeated maintenance cycles. Mute testimony to this variation was the demonstrated differences in the extent of this primary/secondary interaction among the various stock carburetors that were provided by competitors in impound.

Secondly, the "mechanical operation" reported by Scrutineering amounts to a miniscule crack of the butterfly from its seat, no more than a primary throttle plate would be moved for an idle adjustment. There is absolutely no functional mechanical opening of the secondary throttle, and no compromise of the factory-designed vacuum operation of the secondary throttle. By no stretch of the imagination is there any sort of performance issue in question here, merely an insignificant technicality. This is hardly the intention of the rule.

The spirit and, I contend, the letter of the law has been complied with by the competitor in this case. Conversely, the Scrutineers are far from the bounds of the spirit and intent of the Club. They took a deserved first win away from a new member based on a very narrow minded, capricious interpretation. What was the intent of this action? It did not level the playing field amongst the competitors. On the contrary, it sent the message that the competitor cannot depend on any sense of reality prevailing in the judgment of the officials.

Rules enforcement must be even-handed, consistent, and reasonable. Disqualification over something so esoteric and insignificant is entirely inappropriate. At worst, a notation in the vehicle logbook and a warning from a Steward may have been warranted.

This rule obviously exists for purposes of prohibiting carburetor modifications in what is essentially a stock class. Ironically, the only way this team could have avoided disqualification at the ARRC would have been to modify this link on the carburetor. Catch 22.

Sadder than the disqualifications from a hard-fought race was the sight of competitors packing up and going home, so disgusted they chose to skip Sunday's races in which they were entered.

CHAP
12-02-2002, 02:48 PM
With 2 laps to go Sam had the race in the bag before the 2nd place IT-A car turned him at turn 5. This IT-A car was subsequently protested for stupid driving. The protest was upheld. Sam still finished 5th, 4th or 3rd. Although we didn't get the win as deserved, I feel better having fought reckless stupidity!


Originally posted by RacinRich:
Attila DQ'd? Henderson 5th? Illegal carbs? Please someone let us Northerners know what happened!

[This message has been edited by RacinRich (edited November 11, 2002).]

miketrier
12-04-2002, 12:07 AM
This was my first time to Road Atlanta and the ARRC. First off, I want to thank both Sam's, Stan, Brian, Frank and the rest of the IT7 group for a great time. The Friday nite party was great. The Saturday nite goings on took a lot away from what was otherwise a great time. I've never checked my carb so don't know if I'd have the same problem. My biggest problem was getting up to speed-I-was so slow I couldn't get out of my own way. Finished 9th but was credited 6th. Would like to go back but it's a 17 hr drive back to Iowa so probably won't make it in '03. I do plan to run some CENDIV events in IT7-maybe a trip to MidOhio. Would be great to see some of you again and meet some more of the CENDIV people.
Mike Trier, #99 Silver

------------------

balz
12-04-2002, 12:27 AM
Mike,

It was great having you there. The ARRC is one of those "blow out" occasions (pun full intended) that usually brings a great bunch of people together. Glad we could extend our hospitality and hope to see you back in the future!

Frank



------------------
Balz
#67 IT-7
www.balz.myip.org
"I live my life one Apex (seal) at a time"

sam3481
12-06-2002, 03:07 AM
CHAP man your the MAN
Gosh I wish I had your way with words when i was in the tech shed. I could only come up at the time with a few "What the HELL"and "Its supposed to do that" but that dident really help much at all. The ARRC was a washout as far as i am conserned. The rules can be what ever the inspectors want them to be. Hell if some one had enough money to tear down ever single car a the ARRC and i meen every car they would find some little thing that would be against the rules. The rules are enforced at random and never the same way twice. There are no inspectors that have any real training of such. Its kinda defeating when a 100k a year GT1 race team could get thrown out of an event because of something that a volunteer tech worker says in there opinion is wrong or against the rules. Its just the way SCCA does things and untill we all become rich and own our own tracks with our own scantion bodies than I guess thats how we will have to race.
Thats my rant for the week.
Sam Collier III
Yellow IT7 #93