Nov Fastrack - Intake Rule Change

[Bildon]

Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere here?

I just read GCR change / IT / Item 12 Effective immediately.

17.1.4.D.1.c

Intakes may be modified ahead of the throttle body and not just ahead of the MAF sensor. This is pretty big.

Am I correct in that we can now build a custom intake all the way to the TB and mount the MAF in this intake anywhere we like ???? :blink:

[turboICE]

That was my read of it. Not sure what it would do for me, but I am sure there are several this will help out.

Wonder what that is going to do to all the assumed realtive performance that have been used lately for reorganizing classing...

Maybe some model that was assumed unable to get a certain amount of IT prepared power will now be able to get more?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 22 2005, 05:34 PM
That was my read of it.
63236
Ditto.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 22 2005, 06:14 PM
Ditto.

63238

Excellent. I just got another ~5hp :happy204:

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 22 2005, 07:14 PM
Excellent. I just got another ~5hp :happy204:

63247


I seriously doubt that.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 22 2005, 09:34 PM
I seriously doubt that.

63250


Your skepticism is understandable. I could show our dyno numbers for when we switched from the IT legal intake to the World Challenge type intake during a test. But I won't :P Truly, it made ~5 hp more at higher RPMs.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 22 2005, 08:54 PM
Your skepticism is understandable. I could show our dyno numbers for when we switched from the IT legal intake to the World Challenge type intake during a test. But I won't :P Truly, it made ~5 hp more at higher RPMs.

63251


Does that source air from the stock location and can it be installed w/o relocation of other equipment that would render it illegal?

[Chris Wire]

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 22 2005, 09:58 PM
Does that source air from the stock location and can it be installed w/o relocation of other equipment that would render it illegal?

63253



No rules nerd I, but my take is that the MAF meter may now be relocated within the engine compartment, since they qualify as being "air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc." under the "etc." clause. The only qualifier to the rule that I see relative to the MAF is the metering device "must be operational and shall not be modified."

So in short:

air intake - free ahead of the TB
MAF - operational, unmodified, location free within engine compartment
air source - remains engine compartment or stock location


Rules Nerds???

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 22 2005, 09:21 PM
... and mount the MAF in this intake anywhere we like ???? :blink:

63235


Ummmm... within the limits of the stock wiring harness is what you mean, right?... ;) AND, "operational" means just that... the MAF needs to still be a functioning... er, "operational" part of the intake system, so I don't think I'd be trying to just leave it hanging under the hood... :rolleyes:

The rest of what you said is the intent... Now, more than just the Hondas can take advantage of an improved airtube leading to the TB...

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 23 2005, 06:44 PM
Ummmm... within the limits of the stock wiring harness is what you mean, right?... ;)
63297

right but my resistors to the sensor (MAF) might be very low impedence wires that go all the way to the front of the car :D

[Knestis]

I'm looking forward to the advice from our technical partners at Bildon, about how this will be applied to the new Golf engine. :D

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 23 2005, 11:35 PM
right but my resistors to the sensor (MAF) might be very low impedence wires that go all the way to the front of the car :D

63301



And you guys wonder why so many rule change requests get turned down...

I refuse to get involved with another rules-nerd pissing matches here... but I'll state this... if you go to Radio Shack, or Frye's, etc., and ask for a restistor, you will find that what you get will involve way more than something that simply is a length of wire... "A Resistor" is not mearly something with resistance...

Also, one allowance cannot be used to perform an otherwise illegal function, like lengthening the wiring harness beyond that necessary to install said resistor... You guys ALL KNOW what these rules say...

Now... That being said... Have at it... It will be up to your competitors and the tech shed to keep you in line... All we can do is try to write good rules, and balance things as best we can...

Personally, I don't care if you can get another 5-hp out of it, because we've already classified it with that type of optimization in mind! :P

Enjoy!

[Bildon]

Umm I was kidding .. chill man <_< I have no need to put a resistor inline with the MAF or move it. Now a diode...that&#39;s another story.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 23 2005, 06:35 PM
right but my resistors to the sensor (MAF) might be very low impedence wires that go all the way to the front of the car :D

63301


There is currently no rule that would allow for that.

[Chris Wire]

This doesn&#39;t even amount to throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.

In this case, the walls are teflon ;)

I suppose one might attempt to relocate the MAF somewhere else ("all the way to the front of the car...") but the air intake source must be within the engine compartment or the stock source.

Much ado about nothing it seems....

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 23 2005, 10:01 PM
There is currently no rule that would allow for that.

63317

Actually, George, there is.

The new rule states, "The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness."

There are no definitions of "a resistor" in the GCR (or other rules) nor are there any further restrictions on "a resistor" such as length, size, weight, blah, blah, blah. Following logic that even you have used in the past, therefore there are no restrictions on what one can do with "a resistor" or how one makes "a resistor".

In the dictionary, "resistor" is defined as, "a device used to control current in an electric circuit by providing resistance." Any electrical guru knows that all wire has resistance, and that resistance increases with length of the wire. Ergo, any wire is a resistor, not just the little items you buy at Radio Shack in a baggie. On the other hand, where does one define the extents of a length of a resistor? What if you were to buy one of the shrink-wrapped resistor from The Shack and added 3 feet of wire to each end? Who&#39;s the define where the resistor ends and the OEM harness begins?

Finally, the MAF is definitely a sensor.

So, taken to its extreme possibilities, what Bill (jokingly) proposes is, plain and simple, legal. If Bill got protested and I was ruling on it, I would pass it. Yep, it&#39;s against the spirit of the rules, but it&#39;s dead-nuts-on the letter of the rules. You can pull out the "tortured interpretation" sonata all you want but it&#39;s the same mindset that got us suspension bearings being called "bushings"... - GA

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 24 2005, 08:44 AM
Any electrical guru knows that all wire has resistance,
63335

Don&#39;t even have to be a guru to know that! That is an elementary aspect that most anyone who has ever installed an amp understands.

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 24 2005, 07:44 AM
Actually, George, there is.

The new rule states, "The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness."
63335


Is that rule currently in place or is it an 06 rule? I&#39;ve lost track of which changes are going into effect when.

[Banzai240]

Guys... air and water have resistance as well... Neither of them would be considered a "resistor" in the context of what we are talking about...

But have at it... I&#39;m willing to leave this to a very general and un-strained interpretation of these rules by a good tech inspector and by those competitors who are able to compete without twisting an otherwise simple rule to gain some additional advantage...

[Greg Amy]

George: &#39;06.


Originally posted by Banzai240
...air and water have resistance as well... Neither of them would be considered a "resistor" in the context of what we are talking about...The problem, Darin, is that we are very inconsistent with the rules. Let&#39;s go back to my "bushings" example and couple it to your above comment: I&#39;ve been told - by one (maybe two?) of the existing ITAC members - that "air" is also an acceptable bushing material to satisfy that rule (as is any other kind of material). Since air is an acceptable bushing material, so it must be an acceptable resistor; ergo, disconnection of the wires - or placing anything in there in its place - must be acceptable as well.

Trust me, there is *no one* more supportive of common-sense interpretations of rules and the "strained and tortured" clause. I recognize that it&#39;s totally outside the spirit of the rules; but Tech does not rule on spirit, it rules on the letter. Given the spirit of the rules I would gladly toss someone on their arse for running a 6-foot length of wire as as resistor. However, given the reality of where bearings can become suspension bushings, and half-width radiators with open holes for intakes can become legal (as in SM), and 5-pound blocks of steel can become mounting plates for kill switches (ibid), then 6-foot lengths of wire can very easily become resistors (and is exactly why we wrote rules to cover those last two items.)

Until we change the mindset of the rules and make a bushing a bushing, then wire is a resistor, and Lord knows how many other creative ideas are yet to be spoken amongst adult company... - GA

[turboICE]

Not sure why the use of spherical bearings in the context of unrestricted bushing materials is a problem. In the context of automotive applications a suspension bushing of any material is by the very nature of its application a bearing irrespective if it is plastic, rubber, poly or metal. An objection to the addition of balls or rollers to the bearing as not being in the spirit can be made I suppose (I would disagree that there is a spirit issue though since the wording is clear on unrestricted material) - but most any suspension bushing out there is in fact already a bearing. If you want to eliminate bearings from suspension applications then by definition there would be no more bushing.



Originally posted by Bushing Definitions
a simple suspension bearing that accommodates limited rotary motion, typically made of two coaxial steel tubes bonded to a sleeve of rubber between them. The compliance of the bushing in different directions has a great effect on ride harshness and handling.
www.autocenter.com/about/

A metal sleeve or lining that acts as a bearing between rotating or moving surfaces.
www.ticms.com/wizard/glossary.htm

a cylindrical metal lining used to reduce friction (my own comment - that this is also known as a plain bearing)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Plain bearings are also referred to as bushings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushing
So if we are going to change the mindset so that a bushing is a bushing - what exactly is a bushing if it isn&#39;t a bearing?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 24 2005, 06:38 PM
George: &#39;06.

Until we change the mindset of the rules and make a bushing a bushing, then wire is a resistor,
63382


This is where we&#39;ll disagree... A wire is a wire, and a resistor is a resistor... That&#39;s the unstrained interpretation... Anything beyond that starts getting into semantics, and when you start doing that, you are straining the intent and what is written...

Again, if you go to Radio Shack, and ask for a resistor, you&#39;ll get a small device encased in ceramic or ???... If you ask for a wire, you&#39;ll get a long stringy strand of copper... If you say that you&#39;d like a 4.7Ohm 100watt resistor, You&#39;ll never get someone to say "would you like that in 20&#39; of 16awg or 16&#39; of 14awg??"

And, I understand about the bushings vs bearings thing, and I agree with you... However, there is NOTHING in the GCR/ITCS that defines a bearing as being a bushing, unless I&#39;ve missed something (I do recall seeing something about this in one of the fastracks, so I may have missed it...). I personally think that for IT cars, installing heims in the suspension goes beyond the intent of the class, especially with what you have to go through to make them fit/work within the rules... but, were we to change this definitively, a LOT of cars would be made illegal, and that would not be "right"... So, we live with it...

There is no need, however, to live with NEW rules getting to this point...

Just my opinion, for what it&#39;s worth...

Like I said, I don&#39;t want to get into arguing semantics over this one rule, because it&#39;s not up to us here.... it&#39;s up to the driver&#39;s and the tech inspectors at the track to enforce the rules as they are written, and intended...

[Greg Amy]

I really, really, REALLY don&#39;t want to hijack this thread into a discussion about suspension bushings (we&#39;ve been there, done that), but I used it as an example simply because:

1) I don&#39;t believe that wires as resistors - or spherical bearings as suspension bushings - are within the philosophy of the class or within common-sense interpretation of the rules, however it&#39;s easy to let it get that way to the letter of the rules; and
2) If air (or bearings, or rubber, or Play-Do) is a bushing material within the context of the IT rules, then air (or wire, or Silly String) is also a resistor. Bushing material is "free"; "resistors" are allowed and undefined, ergo free.

We&#39;re either consistent to common sense interpretation or we&#39;re not; we&#39;re either grassroots technology ("...useful and necessary to construct a safe race car...") or we&#39;re not. But let&#39;s not pick and choose to which rules we apply this mindset, and let&#39;s not try to micromanage the rules into a Pandora&#39;s Box. - GA

On edit: Darin sez: "...were we to change this definitively, a LOT of cars would be made illegal, and that would not be "right"..."

Darin - and this is a not a personal attack, but an attack on the ideas expressed - that&#39;s a coward&#39;s way out. Either the rules mean something or they don&#39;t. I don&#39;t give two shakes if someone made a modification - expensive or cheap - that later is ruled contrary to the spirit of the rules. Are you trying to say that as long as the spirit is violated in an expensive way that it&#39;s "OK"? Of course you don&#39;t mean that, but that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying!

Then, what about the other 85% of the competitors that have not yet done this modification? You (collective you) are now telling them that they have to spend this money, in apparent violation of the spirit of the rules, so that they can be competitive? Is that "right"?

The spirit of the rules means something or it doesn&#39;t. Problem is, when you violate the spirit in one way and allow people to get away with it, you open up that Pandora&#39;s box to violations in other ways. You have said, in effect, &#39;clever&#39; interpretations of the rules is acceptable. By allowing the spirit to be violated in the suspension realm you have encouraged people to violate it in other ways, such as this silly "resistor" idea. It will either continue to escalate or you will be forced to write minor rules to cover each and every one of these discrepancies (e.g., SM radiators, and kill switch mounting plates). - GA

[turboICE]

I guess we will just disagree on the bushings then since my common sense interpretation is that a bushing is a bearing. And there is not a lot that has to be gone through for some to use it - but that is not a standard that should be used to evaluate an interpretation. Just as spherical bearings are adapted to some cars easily and other not so easily, this intake rule will easily provide a benefit to some while it will mean little to others.

On the "...useful and necessary to construct a safe race car...", I don&#39;t see a lot of evidence as that being a guiding principle of the rules anyway or I would not be restricted from using a distributor gear material (OEM identical in all other respects) that wouldn&#39;t strip and lose spark distribution in the middle of races.

I agree rules need to mean what they say and say what they mean. I do wish there was a lot less interpretation to be utilized or made necessary through others&#39; use of them. I also wish that common sense was common because even that varies and reasonable differences can be found among parties each believing they are applying common sense. I sure would like to keep my distributor turning in time with my crankshaft for instance.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 24 2005, 07:14 PM
On edit: Darin sez: "...were we to change this definitively, a LOT of cars would be made illegal, and that would not be "right"..."

Darin - and this is a not a personal attack, but an attack on the ideas expressed - that&#39;s a coward&#39;s way out.

63388


No personal offense taken, because as many times as I&#39;ve gone to bat, both publically and in private, over more serious IT issues, I think you of all people know how little truth there is in any notion of me being "cowadly" on IT issues...

As for the rule for "bushings"... AS IT&#39;S WRITTEN, I personally don&#39;t see the allowance for Spherical Bearings... We&#39;ve gone over all the reasons before, so those of you who want to re-hash, just do a search... I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll get an earfull...

So, at that point, it&#39;s not up to the ITAC, or the CRB, to enforce the written rules... It&#39;s up to your fellow competitors and the technical inspectors... After that, the SOM might make a ruling one way or the other (hasn&#39;t that happened on this previously???)...

Now, the CRB COULD add a definition of "bushing", or explicitly say that "sperical bearings are not allowed as substitute bushings..." or something like that... That would fix the problem... AND, make a lot of cars suddenly illegal...

What would more likely happen, so as not to do this, is that the wording would be clarrifide so as to take away any question by explicitly ALLOWING spherical bearings, just like was done with forged pistons... Then, the whole contraversy would go away... AND, you&#39;d end up right where we are today, only WITHOUT the ability to drag bearings vs. bushings into a conversation about wires vs. resistors as an example... ;)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 24 2005, 05:39 PM
...AND, you&#39;d end up right where we are today, only WITHOUT the ability to drag bearings vs. bushings into a conversation about wires vs. resistors as an example... ;)

63404


:023:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 24 2005, 10:32 PM
:023:

63411


I thought you&#39;d like that one!!

Gotta run to the con-call... :023: B)

[Bildon]

>> Again, if you go to Radio Shack, and ask for a resistor, you&#39;ll get a small device encased in ceramic

Just for the sake of this crazy discussion I somehow started... I&#39;d like to point out that &#39;Resistor Wire&#39; is an actual part you can buy at your dealer. If you buy your autoparts at Radio Shack well then I can&#39;t help you :rolleyes: ;)

>> I&#39;m looking forward to the advice from our technical partners at Bildon, about how this will be applied to the new Golf engine.

About the resistor wire, again I was kidding :018:

About the mods that can be made to the ABA intake. I imagine it would benefit from the same bits we tried on the VR6 intake. I&#39;ll be in touch.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 24 2005, 11:38 PM
>> Again, if you go to Radio Shack, and ask for a resistor, you&#39;ll get a small device encased in ceramic

Just for the sake of this crazy discussion I somehow started... I&#39;d like to point out that &#39;Resistor Wire&#39; is an actual part you can buy at your dealer. If you buy your autoparts at Radio Shack well then I can&#39;t help you :rolleyes: ;)

63417


Again... "Resistor Wire" is NOT the same as "a resistor"...

And you are right... Radio Shack would be a terrible place to buy auto parts...

Resistors, on the other hand... well I doubt you local dealer sells those... :P

[JIgou]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 25 2005, 07:20 AM
Again... "Resistor Wire" is NOT the same as "a resistor"...

And you are right... Radio Shack would be a terrible place to buy auto parts...

Resistors, on the other hand... well I doubt you local dealer sells those... :P

63442


But to some guy who wants JUST the right resistance, with minimal current loss, he might decide to build his own resistor using said resistor wire.

And it might be 6 feet long. And be 143.745 ohms.

Heck, one could run 25 of the off-the-shelf-Radio-Shack resistors together in series and achieve the length and resistance needed....

Jarrod

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JIgou@Oct 25 2005, 02:51 PM
Heck, one could run 25 of the off-the-shelf-Radio-Shack resistors together in series and achieve the length and resistance needed....

Jarrod

63462


Ummm... I don&#39;t see anything in the rule that allows for MULTIPLE resistors... it&#39;s "resistor".... singular... :P

And then, there is still that "cannot perform an otherwise illegal function" clause...

;)

[Bill Miller]

but, were we to change this definitively, a LOT of cars would be made illegal, and that would not be "right"... So, we live with it...


Darin,

I&#39;m pretty much w/ Greg on this one. Your statement above, is essentially the definition of rules creep. Things are deemed to not fit the spirit of the rules, and they are taken out, at times, to the great expense of some (engine coatings jumps to mind, as do 3x adjustable, RR shocks). Sometimes that&#39;s just the way it goes. Who knows, maybe some day, the open ECU genie will get put back in the bottle.

The "is a wire a resistor" arguement is an interesting one. I&#39;m inclined to agree that it is. To anybody that&#39;s into high-end audiophile stuff, you&#39;ll see folks &#39;tune&#39; the length of their speaker wire, based on the resistence value. And what does an off-the-shelf resistor from Radio Shack do? It essentially puts the resistence achieved by a given length of wire, into a smaller, more manageable package. Both get you to the same end, one just doing it in a much more primative fashion.

I do agree that you can invoke the &#39;prohibited function&#39; clause, but that&#39;s a real double-edged sword.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 25 2005, 03:13 PM
The "is a wire a resistor" arguement is an interesting one. I&#39;m inclined to agree that it is. ... And what does an off-the-shelf resistor from Radio Shack do? It essentially puts the resistence achieved by a given length of wire, into a smaller, more manageable package. Both get you to the same end, one just doing it in a much more primative fashion.

63466


However, you JUST proved my point... You ask "is a wire a resistor"... well, NO, it&#39;s, as you clearly show here, a WIRE... it has resistance, but it&#39;s a WIRE... The mere fact that you differentiated the two in your question is clear evidence of this...

Then, you back that up by asking "what does an off-the-shelf resistor from Radio Shack do?"... well, that doesn&#39;t really matter for this converstion, because, you again seperated the THING from it&#39;s function...

Simple stated (untortured, unstrained, etc.):

A wire provides conductivity... a side effect of this happens to be resistance....

A resistor provides resistance, even though it happens to also provide conductivity...

Anything further is tortured and beyond a simple interpretation of the rules...

As for the "putting the genie back in the bottle" concerning the spherical bearings vs. bushings... I brought this up at the con-call last night, and was told that by a spherical bearing is considered a "bushing" and so they are legal... No further definition in the ITCS/GCR was necessary...

I could get crazy and go back into the discussion that the ITCS doesn&#39;t say "bushings are free", but rather, "bushing MATERIAL is unrestricted", which to me invokes the idea that the dimensions, etc., otherwise need to be as stock, etc... but we&#39;ve already gone over that...

Not necessarilly my opinion on the matter, but it&#39;s not really a battle that has a lot of bennefit to fighting right now... We have bigger ideas to get implemented that will have more benefit to the class...

[Knestis]

Apropos of nothing (I LOVE saying that), whether a lot of people are doing something should not be a consideration vis a vis legality or clarifications about what is or isn&#39;t legal.

I dare say that if we used that as a standard, we&#39;d have to allow ITB VWs to select optional 1-5 gear ratios. This is going to be where I turn from rules NERD into protest ASS someday in the future... :)

K

[turboICE]

True enough by that standard short shifters would be legal any day now, seeing how as 90% of the cars being sold list them as installed ...

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I&#39;m not going to get into an arguement with you about this. I think we&#39;ve come a long way towards settling our differences, and I don&#39;t want to take a step backwards. But, just because you ask if an X is a Y, doesn&#39;t disprove your arguement. Is a bearing a bushing?

In your comment about the bearing/bushing issue, you state that you were told that a spherical bearing is a bushing, end of story. What happens if someone later decides that a wire is a resistor?

[JIgou]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 25 2005, 11:09 AM
However, you JUST proved my point... You ask "is a wire a resistor"... well, NO, it&#39;s, as you clearly show here, a WIRE... it has resistance, but it&#39;s a WIRE... The mere fact that you differentiated the two in your question is clear evidence of this...

Then, you back that up by asking "what does an off-the-shelf resistor from Radio Shack do?"... well, that doesn&#39;t really matter for this converstion, because, you again seperated the THING from it&#39;s function...

Simple stated (untortured, unstrained, etc.):

A wire provides conductivity... a side effect of this happens to be resistance....

A resistor provides resistance, even though it happens to also provide conductivity...

Anything further is tortured and beyond a simple interpretation of the rules...

63471


Rather than "what" does a resistor do, we need to discuss "how".

How does a resistor work? What&#39;s going on inside that convenient package?

They sure do come in a lot of shapes and sizes....
http://www.surplussales.com/Resistors/Res-WireWnd.html

Jarrod

[madrabbit15]

I think the problem here with the resistor issue is with the wording. Didnt the previous wording as it was in the GCR previous to when in was taken out, say something about the RESISTANCE VALUES instead of A RESISTOR. Maybe I am incorrect about this, If I could find one of my olds GCRs I would look it up. Anyone have one?

I am curious to see if the wording changed in the couple of years that it was left out to the time that is was put back in.

I think there comes a point where we can get too literal, I am not going to protest someone over whether someone considers a wire a resistor or not. Thats spliting hairs and a little rediculous. If someone has a micro processor inline of a wire, that is slightly different. Bascially what we are talking about is allowing FI cars to tune their cars to run a little richer or leaner. Carberated cars already do this with the turn of a screw driver.

I think we have more serious problems to tackle, like why are IT fields shrinking or why are there cars that completely dominate their classes.


Derek Ketchie

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by madrabbit15+Nov 4 2005, 04:17 PM-->
Didnt the previous wording as it was in the GCR previous to when in was taken out, say something about the RESISTANCE VALUES instead of A RESISTOR. [/b]

You are correct about this. You micro-processor example is excellent, and was one of those things discussed when trying to figure out how to word this... In the end, it&#39;s still pretty tough to fight the rules-lawyers... but we tried... ;)


<!--QuoteBegin-madrabbit15@Nov 4 2005, 04:17 PM
I think we have more serious problems to tackle, like why are IT fields shrinking or why are there cars that completely dominate their classes.
Derek Ketchie

64622


Interesting comment... where are they "shrinking"?? Which classes???

I think the first comment may be answered by the reason for the second... Stay tuned... we are working on fixing the second...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Nov 4 2005, 12:17 PM


I think there comes a point where we can get too literal, I am not going to protest someone over whether someone considers a wire a resistor or not. Thats spliting hairs and a little rediculous.

Derek Ketchie

64622


You are right...unless someone uses that extra wire (&#39;resistor&#39;) to allow the repositioning of the MAF / AFM / Intake to benefit them with more power...

Sometimes it&#39;s not just about the rule, it&#39;s about what ELSE can happen when a harmless rule is monkied with...

AB

[madrabbit15]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 4 2005, 05:19 PM
You are right...unless someone uses that extra wire (&#39;resistor&#39;) to allow the repositioning of the MAF / AFM / Intake to benefit them with more power...

Sometimes it&#39;s not just about the rule, it&#39;s about what ELSE can happen when a harmless rule is monkied with...

AB

64628



I would agree with you, but seeing how there was just a new rule added that the intake could be changed/ modified ahead of the throttlebody as long as the stock A/F meter was used and operational. If you do not want to allow the relocation of the A/F meter then this rule should not have been added. This resistor rule is about a resistor not about the relocation of the A/F meter. The relocaiton of the A/F meter is allowed by the rule that was just added in the last fasttrack The rule that was added regarding the intake track is the rule that affects what you are speaking of. I think this rule was added so that cars that use throttle position sensors (like hondas)did not have have an advantgage just because of they way their intake as designed. In my opinion, this rule was way overdue, as previous cars that used an A/F meter were at a disadvantage because they could not run a huge pipe all they way to the throttlebody like cars that used a Throttle position sensor could, because they had no A/F meter.

We need to focus on rules that allow a mod or not, not some #ss backwards way to prove something not legal.


Derek Ketchie

[mowog]

The new rule says:
"On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified."

The MAF is a sensor. My interpretation is something like the K&N Typhoon is legal because it retains the MAF, but does not retain the MAF housing. Is the intent to keep only the sensor itself, or the housing and sensor? Or is the intent that intake air should pass thru the housing and sensor? This is not what it says, but what is the intent? What do others think?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 5 2005, 08:06 PM
The new rule says:
"On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified."

The MAF is a sensor. My interpretation is something like the K&N Typhoon is legal because it retains the MAF, but does not retain the MAF housing. Is the intent to keep only the sensor itself, or the housing and sensor? Or is the intent that intake air should pass thru the housing and sensor? This is not what it says, but what is the intent? What do others think?

64701


Is the removal of the casing not modifying? I think it most certainly is and therefor illgeal. If is says you can&#39;t, you damn well can&#39;t. (That&#39;s a reverse Geo!)

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 5 2005, 09:10 PM
Is the removal of the casing not modifying? I think it most certainly is and therefor illgeal. If is says you can&#39;t, you damn well can&#39;t. (That&#39;s a reverse Geo!)

AB

64706



LOL! Attaboy Andy! :D

[Bildon]

Mowog exposes an interesting distinction...

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 5 2005, 10:10 PM
Is the removal of the casing not modifying?

...it depends whether the &#39;metering/measuring device&#39; is integral with the casing or whether the casing is simply a fixture for mounting the &#39;device&#39;.

Can&#39;t we move temp guage &#39;measuring devices&#39; anywhere along a water hose?

However, I can&#39;t really think of any MAF sensors whose casing doesn&#39;t constitute part of what is a single part #. You can&#39;t go to the dealer and buy just a Thermistor and Platinum wire to mount somewhere in your air intake B)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 6 2005, 12:06 AM
The new rule says:
"On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified."


Is the intent to keep only the sensor itself, or the housing and sensor? Or is the intent that intake air should pass thru the housing and sensor? This is not what it says, but what is the intent? What do others think?

64701


It says it must be "OPERATIONAL", and that&#39;s exactly what I&#39;d take it to mean...

In order for it to be operational, it must be an integral part of the air intake system, and have all the air (the entire "MASS" of air... It IS a "mass airflow sensor", after all...) passing through it...

That&#39;s how it operates on the stock vehicle, and that&#39;s how it must operate today...

Anything else is NOT operational, and would be illegal...

Gramatically speaking, of course... :blink: ;)

[ed325its]

And that&#39;s how it would operate in K&N Typhoon type installation. So we all agree the installation proposed would be legal. :023:

[Joe Harlan]

Not to give you guys Acid, On a lot of late model stuff....350z comes to mind. The sensor unbolts from the housing. I think the place your right is you ca&#39;t get them seperate in this case but what about other cars?

[turboICE]

I have to say that I perceive the intent of the rule that for all cars whether speed density or mass air flow driven to now be restricted by the throttle body rather than some by the throttle body and others by MAF intakaes. I believe that if the sensor is not integrated into a housing but is "bolted" to a housing then attaching the sensor to another housing does not modify the metering/measuring device and it remains operational. It is within the spirit of the rules it moves everyone to being limited by the stock throttle body (or throttle body restrictor if applicable).

To me calling a housing the metering/measuring device when the sensor is not integral is like calling a wire an IT intended resistor. The sensor is the metering/measuring device and it may not be modified and must be operational (which I take to mean that it still be used for fuel control, not just plugged in but no longer measuring air intake).

[madrabbit15]

Thank You Ed





Derek Ketchie

[Joe Harlan]

My thought is this. The rule needs to limit cars to the factory bore size of the MAF or air box. I would make the case that the only thing limiting the ITA 240sx from becoming an ITS car is the crappy MAF housing it has stock. Like the ECU rules these things were considered when the cars were originally classed and if you open it up I think the balance again gets lost.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 6 2005, 09:54 PM
The rule needs to limit cars to the factory bore size of the MAF or air box.
64743


But that isn&#39;t the language of the rule and if that was the intent of the rule the language can&#39;t even be construed to lead to that conclusion IMO. While I see the rule as pretty much saying intake air flow limitation for all FI cars is intended to be determined by throttle body bore not by any other OEM design differences.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 02:06 AM
But that isn&#39;t the language of the rule and if that was the intent of the rule the language can&#39;t even be construed to lead to that conclusion IMO. While I see the rule as pretty much saying intake air flow limitation for all FI cars is intended to be determined by throttle body bore not by any other OEM design differences.

64745


Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc. located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted. On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified. (Nov. 05 Fastrack).


The "air metering/measuring device" is the ENTIRE MAF, or "air flow meter", or "air mass meter", not just the sensor inside... It is the whole package, as delivered on the base model of the car... ANY alteration to this device, including removing the "sensor" portion of the "device", would constitute a "modification"... Further, it can NOT be operational if parts of it are missing or removed, and the "mass" of air entering the engine is NOT passing through it as delivered from the factory on the base model...

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 02:34 PM
Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc. located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted. On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified. (Nov. 05 Fastrack).
The "air metering/measuring device" is the ENTIRE MAF, or "air flow meter", or "air mass meter", not just the sensor inside... It is the whole package, as delivered on the base model of the car... ANY alteration to this device, including removing the "sensor" portion of the "device", would constitute a "modification"... Further, it can NOT be operational if parts of it are missing or removed, and the "mass" of air entering the engine is NOT passing through it as delivered from the factory on the base model...

64795

Emphasizing doesn&#39;t change the meaning of the words.

The MAF is only the sensor and yes air must pass it to be operational.

The language explicitly lists housings may be removed or substituted, there is no point in saying that it didn&#39;t mean for them to be. The device by which air is measured is the sensor itself - the housing used plays no role in the operation or the measuring of the air flow.

All air still flows through the throttle body just like a speed density system and other than being required to still use the MAF itself everything in front of the throttle body is free just like a speed density system.

Not only does the language not require the mass of air to pass through the engine as delivered from the factory - the rules throughout modify the mass of air passing through the engine as delivered from the factory. With the change in the rule the only constant required is that air pass through the throttle body as delivered from the factory. All FI cars now fairly face the same restriction the OEM throttle body or line specific restrictor bore.

[Bildon]

Darin,
I&#39;m not flaming you as I respect your opinion :023: and I really do agree with you. However you seem to think everyone reads the rules as you do. You consistently refer to the intent and not the actual written rule. The intent needs to be more clearly stated in the rules so that it BECOMES the rule and people are not left so much room to interpret.

I talk to MANY customers getting into IT and especially those who come from other forms of racing where the rules are different. (if it doesn&#39;t say it ... do it) Many are innocently or ignorantly (depending on your position) breaking the IT rules. It&#39;s for this reason that we need more clearly written rules that make the INTENT more obvious or indisputable.

What we need is for people to write the rules better. Can&#39;t the rules go through some sort of peer revue by posting the exact proposed wording in FastTrack prior to us seeing in ink for the first time after it&#39;s a done deal? This would give the IT community time to polish the wording to allow for better rules making. Sure you&#39;d get alot of junk requests...but I bet that you would also get a number of excellent requests that would fix the rules right the first time.

TurboIce,
I think that this phrase negates your argument that the MAF can be removed or substituted. "On cars so equipped..." A MAF can&#39;t be operational and not be connected to the intake tubing.

Putting on asbestos suit ... :ph34r:

[turboICE]

Never said it wouldn&#39;t be connected to intake tubing. The question is whether or not the MAF has to remain in the OEM housing or can the MAF be moved to a substituted housing. The language says it can be.

If that was not the intent - then first it is more than poorly written since the language as written captures nothing to tell me that a MAF sensor can not moved to a substituted housing and second it was a pointless change to the rule.

[Bildon]

Not really pointless, as it would still allow the tubing from the TB to the MAF to be altered. For example in the case of my cars where the rubber hose from the TB turns very tight and has a numer of emissions tube holes, I will now be able to make a nice smooth alum tube of any varying diameter with none of the holes and can put a nice heat barrier on the outside.

[turboICE]

So that would mean that you would be eliminating something that was in front of the throttle body that was more restrictive to air flow than the throttle body, correct?

That would seem to be the point of the change based on the language, including the tubing or housing the MAF is connected to.

[Bildon]

>> That would seem to be the point based on the language

I totally disagree with that assumption.

[Banzai240]

Bill,

I will take what you say under consideration concerning the rule wording... But, just like calling a "wire" a "resistor", it&#39;s the competitors who are LOOKING for something to exploit who are turning common, ordinary language and turing it into something it&#39;s not... It doesn&#39;t matter what we write, they&#39;ll think it means something other than it actually does anyhow...

Build the freaking car straight up and outdrive me, for cripes sake... If you can&#39;t do that, I guess the next best thing is to try to find gray in the rules... :rolleyes:

Anyhow....

Ed, I know EXACTLY what the rule says, and what the intent was... I was part of the group that wrote the wording... If it&#39;s not simple and to the point enough for you, I can assure you that we will get that adjusted so there is NO question what it means... This isn&#39;t a matter of the language not being "clear", it&#39;s a matter of how twisted people can make clear language... resistor != wire, MAF != "that little sensor that unbolts from the housing"...

In case you didn&#39;t notice, I own and race a 240SX, and am very familiar with them and what make them go... If you think for a minute that I&#39;d help write a rule that allows the 89-90 240SX to replace it&#39;s MAF with a larger unit, then you are seriously misinformed, because the MAF on this car is the ONLY reason this car is NOT in ITS...

In common terms, the MAF, or "air metering device", etc., must, by it&#39;s very nature and operational design, be the housing and all the electonics associated with it... If you order an MAF from the dealer, you will get the housing, etc., because that IS what the MAF or air metering device is... To say that "no", this is not the case, and that you can just take the little electonic sensor out and put it into a different housing, etc., is simple calling one part of the MAF something it is not.... an MAF...

When discussing this rule, we decided to leave the location of the MAF somewhat open, because it&#39;s location is restricted by the length of the stock wiring harness.. You are not allowed to alter the factory wiring harness. You are allowed to add a resistor. One rule cannot be used to perform an otherwise illegal function. Etc. ,etc....

I&#39;ll tell you what I&#39;m going to propose to the ITAC to work on next season.... We are going to put together a list of definitions to be added to the GCR that will make this kind of BS a little tougher to do... Since it seems to be such a challenge to accept common language, we&#39;ll define some of this stuff for you...

No one would like to get the language of these rules more concise and accurate than me, but it appears that we need MORE language to help define some of the more common terms to help aid in that goal...

By the way... Just to try to support my point... If I go to the parts store, and look up a MAF for a 1990 Nissan 240SX... Here is what comes up:

http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail....ype=473&ptset=A (http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?mfrcode=BAR&mfrpartnumber=1570196&parttype=473&ptset=A)


http://www.partsamerica.com/product_images/aap/bar/157/1570196.jpg


I&#39;d be happy to meet you in the protest shed, should yours look any different or be "modified" in any way... Enjoy... ;)

[turboICE]

You may get as angry as you want at me and attempt to insult me by implying that I am somehow someone who wouldn&#39;t race within the rules or would seek an unfair advantage, but it is not my fault that your group did not write the rule to mean what you wanted it to. (Is this the same group that won&#39;t let me use a bronze distributor gear identical to OEM except it won&#39;t break in the middle of race?)

Step back and look at it from the view of the 90% of us who are outsiders to the process and discussions. I do not think I am at all one to seek the edge of rules at all - look at it without your inside knowledge and I think if you were to be reasonable instead of outraged I think you could see the potential for someone to reach the conclusion I have whether you like the result or not.

BTW - the MAF is the little black part on top attached by screws and the remainder is the MAF housing - the MAF will not be modified.

Since I bought this car, I have unmodified more things that I have been told would never have been found, protested or posed any risk of problems. You don&#39;t know me so take your drive me straight up bravado and smoke it. Then when you have calmed down - think about why you bothered to take the time to participate in assisting with rule making and don&#39;t attack and bite of the users head because the group failed to communicate the intent in their language.

[Joe Harlan]

(Is this the same group that won&#39;t let me use a bronze distributor gear identical to OEM except it won&#39;t break in the middle of race?)

These wouldn&#39;t fail if you were running an unmodified oil pump. As soon as you shim the spring or try to run a High pressure pump you will start loosing drive gears.

I am still looking for the wording in the rule that says you can modify the housing that contains the MAF?

[turboICE]

Oil pump is bone stock.

[madrabbit15]

Ed,

I do appreciate how you clearly stated earlier the reason for this rule change.

However, I have to side with Darin on this. To me, it is pretty clear what this new rule is and its as clear as it needs to be. If competitiors want to force the issue thats exactly what they are doing. The A/F Meter is what you get when you buy one, the whole thing. I do disagree with the folks in topeka on things, especially as of late :( , but to manipulate the interpretation from the Air flow meter to the actual wire inside the meter is rediculous. Its pretty clear that no modifications may be done to the air flow meter itself. You can move it, you can rotate it, run big ass pipes to and away from it, as long as it remains stock and works as part of the FI as it is stock. I really do not understand what all the confusion is. It just makes the playing field a little more even for those of us that run cars that use Air Flow meters.

Derek Ketchie

[turboICE]

That was solely my impression of the purpose of the rule change, but apparently based on information not available to me the purpose was something else and failed to reach the language. I have tried to read the language again and again in such a way to conclude that it prevents modification of the housing when it explicitly states that intake housings may be removed or substituted. All measurement is done by the sensor. The signal sent by the sensor is not impacted by the housing it is in, it will operate exactly as designed either way.

I am not sure how it made the playing field a little more even - aren&#39;t the existing classes, weights and line specifics based on the potential within the rules when the car was classed? If so, then someone is picking up an advantage freeing up their intake&#39;s air flow while others are not. If there was a true desire to bring commonality to potential than the most common aspect of a FI system is the throttle body and that is where the potential should be defined.

Were VW&#39;s unfairly classed prior to the rule change? Or were they already fairly classed? If they were already fairly classed then I guess the rule change as it was meant to be (and should have been worded) was meant to bring up their potential. If the rule doesn&#39;t alter anyone&#39;s potential then isn&#39;t it just rules creep?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 03:59 PM
Oil pump is bone stock.

64814
funny never had a stock one fail in 6 seasons until we used a High pressure pump on a enduro engine.

[turboICE]

Someone else has mentioned that the pump may have been sticking or providing some other out of spec resistance that caused the failures. I don&#39;t know, I am pretty new to these engines and have had two gears go on me already. I asked the prior owner and he said the pumps were not modified and I didn&#39;t see any difference from the replacement I bought for next year&#39;s car.

On to this topic:


On cars so equipped, the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) including any related housing to which it is attached must be operational and shall not be modified.

Include the italic phrase and I agree that it would coincide with the intent that has been communicated here. I know of cars where the sensor is available as a seperate part. And trust me those remanfactured Nissan units are just replacing the sensor after cleaning the housing and I wouldn&#39;t be at all surprised if the sensors being used are not the same part used in manufacturing in 1989 and I am sure I can track down that sensor.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 10:02 PM
You may get as angry as you want at me and attempt to insult me by implying that I am somehow someone who wouldn&#39;t race within the rules or would seek an unfair advantage, but it is not my fault that your group did not write the rule to mean what you wanted it to. (Is this the same group that won&#39;t let me use a bronze distributor gear identical to OEM except it won&#39;t break in the middle of race?)

No insults were intended, and I&#39;m not angry... I do tire of the twisting you guys want to do to otherwise clear language...

If you had known me prior to me being on the ITAC, you&#39;ll find that I&#39;ve always read the rules the same way as I do now, so I CAN see what 90% of the others out there see... You are making a HUGE assumption by suggesting that there are that many people out there taking the same meanings from this that YOU do...


BTW - the MAF is the little black part on top attached by screws and the remainder is the MAF housing - the MAF will not be modified.

This is a completely unqualified statement... BACK it up! I provided you with a link and a pic of EXACTLY what is considered a MAF by the automotive industry, as well as the layman on the street... I didn&#39;t search for an "MAF Housing", or "little black part on top", I searched on MAF and this is what comes up...

Upgrading the MAF is one of the first performance mods just about every tuner out there performs (well, maybe a close second after the 5" tailpipe...) and it always includes replacing what is shown at that link... If you go to ANY parts outlet, the dealer, where-ever, and order a MAF, you are NOT going to get the "little back part on top"... THAT would be a special order item, as it is only one part of the MAF...

I don&#39;t smoke, so I&#39;ll disregard that comment... As for this topic, you can just take your chances... I&#39;ve presented you with my case. The wording is clear and concise and says what it means... As I said before, if you guys need clearer definitions of what these components are, we can arrange to have that language added... If it would help, then I&#39;m all for it... We aren&#39;t writing this stuff to try to confuse anyone. Our intentions are to make things as clear and easy to read as possible... However, it&#39;s clear that some require more language than others, so we will work harder to remove the possibility of ambiguity in the future... (I feel that&#39;s what we&#39;ve been doing to this point, but ...)

Finally, Bill is correct... The purpose of this rule change was to allow people to use air tubes in place of their stock air-tubes between the stock MAF and the throttle plates... Many cars, the 240SX included, have tubes that have production restrictions in them to accomodate installation, clearance, etc..... Many Hondas, etc., or any car that doesn&#39;t utilize an MAF, had the advantage of being able to replace everything ahead of the throttle plates...

The point was to smooth the airflow going from the MAF to the throttle plates... This in itself should be enough of a performance benefit for most... We tried to write language to restrict the location of the MAF to the factory location, but there was no way to verify in tech exactly where that was on many cars, so we decided it wasn&#39;t important to strictly restrict it, the wiring limits would take care of that to the degree necessary. The rest of the language was choosen so as to assure that the stock, unmodified MAF was retained, and was included in the system. The simple logic is that, in-order for it to be "unmodified", and "operational", as well as retained... It must have the air entering the motor passing through it...

So, from where I sit, I can rip your entire argument appart by showing you that the MAF is NOT just the "little black part on top", but rather the whole unit, as delivered on the car, and as sold in every parts store in the world...

All you have to do to prove me wrong is to show me that the MAF is really just the little black part...

Either way, we can get some more language in place to further define the intent, if that&#39;s necessary...

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

How can you rail against someone for trying to get as much out of the rules as possible? That&#39;s really the nature of racing.

I don&#39;t really know anything about these cars, or even this technology (VW CIS is pretty much mechanical injection), but what do they call the sensor, if you just want to buy that? Or, can you buy it seperate from the housing?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 11:41 PM
Include the italic phrase and I agree that it would coincide with the intent that has been communicated here.
64819


First of all... all ITCS language asside, I can ASSURE you of what the intent is... I think you can believe me when I tell you what the intent is... ;)

Second, if that phrase is all it takes, then I will make sure it gets included... However, how much are you willing to be me that someone is going to come up with a problem with THAT one too!

What we will be doing is telling everyone what is considered to be a MAF by SCCA standards...

If getting that line or a simliar phrase added makes this rule more clear, then this was a productive thread and I&#39;ll work to see that it gets done...


As for the oil pump... if anyone will have broken one, it&#39;s Joe, and he hasn&#39;t had any trouble in any of the 240SX&#39;s he&#39;s been associated with to my knowledge...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 7 2005, 11:55 PM
Darin,

How can you rail against someone for trying to get as much out of the rules as possible? That&#39;s really the nature of racing.

I don&#39;t really know anything about these cars, or even this technology (VW CIS is pretty much mechanical injection), but what do they call the sensor, if you just want to buy that? Or, can you buy it seperate from the housing?

64823


Bill... I understand where you guys are coming from, but at some point, people have to stop redefining things... When someone defines a rule using common terms, those terms shouldn&#39;t have to be defined EVERY time...

resistor vs. wire is the first that comes to mind... RESISTOR is a thing, AND a function... the rule clearly is written in terms of the THING...

A MAF is a thing as well... It may be composed of many pieces, but it doesn&#39;t function, or operate, as an MAF unless all the pieces are there... If you take the sensor out and put it in a different housing, you&#39;ve created a new type of MAF, but you&#39;ve altered the original one to do it...

I&#39;ll do some looking, but I&#39;ve NEVER heard of an MAF, or air mass meter, or air metering device, defined as the little sensor in the housing... it&#39;s always been the whole deal...

I&#39;m not alone in this... the entire ITAC was in on writing the rule, and most of them are smarter than I am...

What&#39;s next? When we add "and housing" or whatever to the rule, is THAT suddenly going to mean just the sensor cover, or is it finally going to mean the whole package?

If I&#39;m wrong, so be it... I&#39;d like to know the same thing... What IS just the "little black part" called? If you can order an "MAF" and that is all you get, then perhaps I&#39;m wrong... However, I&#39;ve already shown what happens when you attempt to order an MAF for this particular car...

[Joe Harlan]

Someone else has mentioned that the pump may have been sticking or providing some other out of spec resistance that caused the failures. I don&#39;t know, I am pretty new to these engines and have had two gears go on me already. I asked the prior owner and he said the pumps were not modified and I didn&#39;t see any difference from the replacement I bought for next year&#39;s car.


Pull the bypass spring cap of the pump and see if there is a washer in there. Also look at the front of the thrust bearing on the crank because when those gears fail they will normally take the thrust bearing with them. aAIf the thrust is bad then a replacemant spindle will just fail again.

I have searched my nissan parts CD and I don&#39;t find that sensor as a seperate unit. I had to purchase a new for our T2 350 last season cause the housing was cracked and you could only get it complete. I agree that if possible defining the MAF and housing a unit would be good but I believe the wording is device which does cover the housing at that point. At least in west coast lingo.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 12:10 AM
I agree that if possible defining the MAF and housing a unit would be good but I believe the wording is device which does cover the housing at that point. At least in west coast lingo.

64827



OK, I&#39;ve done a quick search and I would have to conclude that this is a car-specific deal... In other words, the definition of what an MAF is may be tied to what car it came on...

Here is a sample of what you find if you search for Mass Airflow Sensor:
http://www.realtruck.com/products/gmsmassair.php

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/0402mm_focus/

http://corvettefever.com/tipstricks/153_04...nuction_repair/ (http://corvettefever.com/tipstricks/153_0401_inuction_repair/)

http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/sub/projects/psl/n...plates/wind.htm (http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/sub/projects/psl/notemplates/wind.htm)

http://www.1motormart.com/mass_air_flow_sensor_part.html

http://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/cleanmaf.htm

http://www.kemparts.com/TechTalk/tt06.asp


However, I also came up with this one...:

http://www.visteon.com/products/automotive...ow_sensor.shtml (http://www.visteon.com/products/automotive/airflow_sensor.shtml)


This last one, if you&#39;ll notice, has it&#39;s own small little opening to pass the air over the wire elements... It&#39;s function is seperate of the housing it&#39;s installed in...

So, I will see about getting the wording revised if the ITAC decides that&#39;s necessary, but it seems that, in industry terms anyhow, it&#39;s pretty clear what comprises a "stock, unmodified MAF"...

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 07:49 PM
I do tire of the twisting you guys want to do to otherwise clear language...I have no desire to twist any language - I have been told to use that expensive paper weight (bronze gear) anyway. I found no place in the rules where I could and requested that it be allowed and was denied - so now I have an expensive paper weight. I will live with that (and complain since I see no reason not to permit it) but I am not putting it in the car, because I wouldn&#39;t twist the rules to say that I could and instead made the mistake of thinking the CRB would be reasonable about my request.


This is a completely unqualified statement... BACK it up! I provided you with a link and a pic of EXACTLY what is considered a MAF by the automotive industry, as well as the layman on the street... I didn&#39;t search for an "MAF Housing", or "little black part on top", I searched on MAF and this is what comes up...

Upgrading the MAF is one of the first performance mods just about every tuner out there performs (well, maybe a close second after the 5" tailpipe...) and it always includes replacing what is shown at that link... If you go to ANY parts outlet, the dealer, where-ever, and order a MAF, you are NOT going to get the "little back part on top"... THAT would be a special order item, as it is only one part of the MAF...

As is this statement also unqualified (as well as that the KA24E would have ITS potential if not for the MAF housing on the SOHC) - the statement above is made as an absolute, while it isn&#39;t the case. Yes there are many examples where a nonOEM sensor is used with a fabricated housing. There are also examples in the tuning world where only the housing is replaced and the OEM sensor is in fact maintained - so it is not an absolute universal understanding of what makes up a MAF. Trust me - I have tuned cars where the MAF is understood to be the sensor and the modification requested by the customer is to replace the housing which has a mount for the OEM sensor and no request to replace the sensor and the resulting output can be easily twice OEM - there is not the universal understanding you claim. And there are examples where the sensor is available stand alone.

If the part by part availability is the standard that you want to apply you are going to have someone come up to you with the manufacturer&#39;s part number of their MAF sensor and say "there". But I assume based on your responses that it was not your intent even when the sensor was available seperately.


I don&#39;t smoke, so I&#39;ll disregard that comment... Had nothing to do with smoking, it was a phrase that I thought had universal meaning. ;)


As for this topic, you can just take your chances... I&#39;ve presented you with my case. The wording is clear and concise and says what it means... As I said before, if you guys need clearer definitions of what these components are, we can arrange to have that language added... If it would help, then I&#39;m all for it... We aren&#39;t writing this stuff to try to confuse anyone. Our intentions are to make things as clear and easy to read as possible... However, it&#39;s clear that some require more language than others, so we will work harder to remove the possibility of ambiguity in the future... (I feel that&#39;s what we&#39;ve been doing to this point, but ...)If I was the type that was going to do anything at all close to the edge I wouldn&#39;t bother discussing it here. Someone legitimately asked if it meant the housing could be replaced. I responded that I believed it pretty clearly did. There was nothing untoward or sinister or intended to twist the rules in my response - it was legitimately and remains truly believed that the language as it stands permits it. I don&#39;t believe it is as clear and concise as you believe or intended. I am sure that there was no desire to confuse and don&#39;t believe I am confused by the language as it is written. But there needs to be some acceptance that terms are not as univeral as some would like to claim in the rules.

I made a recommondation for a change in the wording that I believe would clearly and concisely capture the intent as you have communicated it.



Finally, Bill is correct... The purpose of this rule change was to allow people to use air tubes in place of their stock air-tubes between the stock MAF and the throttle plates... Many cars, the 240SX included, have tubes that have production restrictions in them to accomodate installation, clearance, etc..... Many Hondas, etc., or any car that doesn&#39;t utilize an MAF, had the advantage of being able to replace everything ahead of the throttle plates...But when I read it, it does not say what you have been saying on this board. MAF is not a universal term that means the same thing to everyone - there are a lot of different makes, models and generations and tuning techniques. Trust me there assuming that anything is universal between them is the first thing that will result in confusion.


The point was to smooth the airflow going from the MAF to the throttle plates... This in itself should be enough of a performance benefit for most... We tried to write language to restrict the location of the MAF to the factory location, but there was no way to verify in tech exactly where that was on many cars, so we decided it wasn&#39;t important to strictly restrict it, the wiring limits would take care of that to the degree necessary. The rest of the language was choosen so as to assure that the stock, unmodified MAF was retained, and was included in the system. The simple logic is that, in-order for it to be "unmodified", and "operational", as well as retained... It must have the air entering the motor passing through it...It can pass through the sensor and result in the same exact signal when it is installed in a different housing - again the meaining is not universal. I think about it being done - because using the OEM MAF and changing the housing is a technique I have used in tuning and have been requested to do.


So, from where I sit, I can rip your entire argument appart by showing you that the MAF is NOT just the "little black part on top", but rather the whole unit, as delivered on the car, and as sold in every parts store in the world...

All you have to do to prove me wrong is to show me that the MAF is really just the little black part...

Either way, we can get some more language in place to further define the intent, if that&#39;s necessary...But again as so frequently happens within the SCCA the ability to rip my entire argument apart presumes everyone has the same miscopic experiences and understandings as everyone else. There is great diversity in the world of automobiles and performance much of it outside the SCCA&#39;s realm of appreciation. Your assumption that from where you sit defines everyone else&#39;s world is a large part of the criticism others place on the SCCA and why I am continually asked why I would want to bother. This subject has caused me to ask it as well - not because whether or not I am allowed to change MAF housings - but because the entire thing is based on the assumption that my own experiences and knowledge are irrelevant to the SCCA because they do not line up with their own assumptions.

[turboICE]

My frustration comes from voicing with all honesty exactly what I took the language to mean from my own experiences and knowledge, without the knowledge of the basis for the conclusions reached in the rule language. The responses have alternately implied either that I am trying to get away with something or am just ignorant. Neither of which is the case, but either of which offends me deeply.

What good is an organization that would respond to a member&#39;s honest expression in such a manner all over the possibility that there may be more than one accepted definition of the term MAF?

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 7 2005, 08:10 PM
Pull the bypass spring cap of the pump and see if there is a washer in there. Also look at the front of the thrust bearing on the crank because when those gears fail they will normally take the thrust bearing with them. If the thrust is bad then a replacemant spindle will just fail again.
64827

There was no washer and the spring "looks" (for as much as that is worth) the same. Thank you for the warning on the thrust bearing. Your input will be well used in the off season.

[mowog]

I did not ask the question to distort the rules, nor to push the envelope. I asked because, after looking through information on the internet, I was confused.

I initially thought the MAF included the housing, but then I found listings for the sensor separately, and I found references to removing "the MAF" and installing just the sensor into a different housing (i.e. Typhoon, but there are other examples). I also found tuner shops selling different housings that use the original sensor. All this left me totally confused. Maybe I&#39;m not the brightest bulb when it comes to this type of thing, but after more than 20 years of racing, I am absolutely sure that if I&#39;m confused, others will be too.....and some will make modifications based on how they read the rules, not the intent, unless this is stated. The COA, right or wrong, typically only takes wording into consideration, not unstated intent. Does all this matter in the final analysis - i.e. power to the wheels on the race track? I don&#39;t know, but suspect in most cars it wouldn&#39;t matter much. Reading most literature for my type of motor indicates the entire changed intake would make up to 3.7 horsepower. It doesn&#39;t seem to matter if the type os system includes the MAF and housing, or if it includes just moving the sensor. However I&#39;m just looking at one type of motor. So while I very much doubt that just a different housing (including the air intake tube itself) would make more than 1 horsepower difference, I have no data to back this up, and no real incentive to do further research. So....if the ITAC thinks it makes a difference, or they do not want to worry about anyone else being confused by the current wording, I would respectfully suggest a change to include verbage stipulating the housing containing the sensor is considered part of the restricted assembly.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 7 2005, 09:11 PM
The COA, right or wrong, typically only takes wording into consideration, not unstated intent.
64835
I have no reason not to believe this to be the case, and if it is the case even when an ITAC member is protesting you, by having the discussion where it seems at least at some point in time no less than 3 posters in this thread could have appreciated the existence of confusion even while agreeing with the intent, then pushing the issue now will have been beneficial as the ITAC now has the opportunity to bring the language up to the intent. Because I believed (in all my ignorant bliss as to how decisions are reached in the SCCA) that the COA operating under the standard above would agree with me, however wrong that belief would be. I would rather know now that I was wrong via the clarification discussed and knowing that I wouldn&#39;t be racing against someone else that I could understand reaching the conclusion I had that doesn&#39;t participate in this forum.

[mowog]

PS, as to most manufacturers claims of added horsepower for after market intake systems, engine modelling programs very much disagree on the amount of gain (again, using just one motor as my example). I think the real gain, for most, is much more like about 2 horsepower, and most of that is in the lower to mid RPM range. Breaking down dyno and flow bench results on the Focus motor shows that over half the gain is from the type of filter used. Again this leads me to think changing things like the MAF housing nets very little, if any, true gain at the wheel, on the track, where it really matters.

[Joe Harlan]

I would just put it back the way it was and stop all the complaining.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 8 2005, 01:11 AM
So....if the ITAC thinks it makes a difference, or they do not want to worry about anyone else being confused by the current wording, I would respectfully suggest a change to include verbage stipulating the housing containing the sensor is considered part of the restricted assembly.

64835


It will be done... wording will be recommended that includes the housing and the entire MAF assembly, if that&#39;s what it takes to make this clear to all of you. It will be on this months agenda...


As for the oil-pump gear... You can be pissed at us all you want... It&#39;s exactly BS like this air-intake deal that makes the chances for any other type of allowance slim... You open the door for one thing, and suddenly ten other things are considered "allowed"... This would be a special allowance for this one car, which is not in the best interests of IT, or we&#39;d have to open it up to everyone, which is simply rules creep and would likely cause another situation like this...

"well, what about cars where the gear is an integral part of the shaft???", etc... Suddenly, people are replacing entire distributors based on the rule...

No thanks...

[turboICE]

I am more than a little concerned about how desirable the SCCA is, if after all that has transpired in this thread - that there is still a solidly held view by someone who is setting the rules I participate by, that my honest and sincere conclusions were and are viewed as BS. If there is no acceptance at all that solely having the written rule in front of a person with no other background information from the hours of discussion held by the ITAC cannot validly result in differing conclusions as to the meaning by those not privy to them, then there is a real problem.

I fully accept and expect that all best intentions for the organization are in place with every decision made - is it the ITAC&#39;s view though that competitors are going to act with something other than their best intentions? Is the ITAC&#39;s view of us going to be that we are somehow less than sincere in our interpretations? Is the conclusion that this has been BS meant to encourage or discourage open discussion about rules? Do you believe that I have had anything other than the best intentions?

On the gear not at all pissed, was just surprised that an OEM spec part of a different material with better longevity and no performance differential couldn&#39;t be used and so as a result I have complained. I said I can live with it and it is still in its packaging having never been used. Unfortunately, I bought it before I questioned whether or not it could be used. Fortunately, I asked before I installed it because you know what I am doing things with the best intentions as well. And hey I learned something.

It has just become another car prep item, that I would have liked to have been able to use a part with more longevity for.

[mowog]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 01:25 AM
I would just put it back the way it was and stop all the complaining.

64838


Joe, I hope my question wasn&#39;t taken as a complaint. I honestly could read the rule more than one way. Actually I would much prefer to leave the entire assembly as it is, cause if the interpretation had been that the housing was a separate, and therefore dispensable, piece I would have been compelled to spend additional money on a tube that I could install the sensor in. I would also cut up the tube I had, made up adapters, and then spend at least $100 on a dyno just to see if there was any gain at all. I&#39;m somewhat certain the net gain would have been negligible, but I would have felt compelled to test it all anyway just to be sure.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 01:56 AM
I fully accept and expect that all best intentions for the organization are in place with every decision made - is it the ITAC&#39;s view though that competitors are going to act with something other than their best intentions? Is the ITAC&#39;s view of us going to be that we are somehow less than sincere in our interpretations? Is the conclusion that this has been BS meant to encourage or discourage open discussion about rules? Do you believe that I have had anything other than the best intentions?

64844



All right.. HOLD on... Let&#39;s not go jumping ship here...

<damage control mode= ON>

First off, the BS statement was not directed at you, or your specific ideas... If you&#39;ve been around here even as long as I have, you&#39;d realize that this is the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME... Wire = resistor and all that kind of stuff... THAT type of thing is BS... It&#39;s taking a "thing" and turning it into it&#39;s "function"...

People DO read the rules and twist them into all kinds of things they weren&#39;t meant to be... So, naturally, when we write a rule, with all the BEST intentions, and it gets all twisted out of context, it becomes a little irritating...

I don&#39;t know what YOUR specific intentions are, other than what you just stated, but to answer your questions, NO, people do NOT always have the best intentions when reading these rules... They DO do things without the highest levels of sincerity... we see it all the time...

Go back and read through the cam-timing threads, or any number of other threads, on topics which should be clear, but because of the way different people read the rules, they are not...

I DO believe that most people simply want to follow the rules... and we try to write them so that they can... It&#39;s in cases like this, where we FINALLY get a rule change in place that people have been suggesting, and that previous attempts have failed, and then THIS happens, that it gets a little frustating to be in this position... There are sincere people, and then there are those who sincerely try to find all the loopholes... these are the ones trying to outdo Smokey Unich!

It&#39;s when you (general "you") are trying to find a loophole, or an advantage, that this stuff tends to come up... I suppose that&#39;s racing...

So, please don&#39;t go jumping ship on us just yet... we will get this one clarrified, and will continue to try to do so with the rest of this stuff until the time comes for someone else to try...

<damage control mode= OFF>

[pfcs]

well said, Joe! It is with great dismay and sadness that I watch a bunch of snot nosed bozzos chip away at what was once such a sensible and loveable class. And don&#39;t try to convince me that this AFM ducting rule change wasn&#39;t self serving and gratuitous. You fools can&#39;t leave well enough alone. There was NO NEED to make this change. There was no grass roots call for it. If your intake boot is somewhat convoluted, GET OVER IT! If a speed density system needs no boot, that&#39;s life, that&#39;s just how it works. This is typical of the "insiders" ego driven self serving crap that persists in the club that makes me wonder sometimes why I&#39;m a member-really infuraiting!!
and PS: putting a MAF insert in a bigger venturi (housing) results in a load signal that is proportionally lower in relation to the cross sectional area of the bigger hosing. This is why similar inserts can be swapped-ie: you can remove the 2L VW insert and put it in a 3.2 MB and it works great-but put the whole assy in and it&#39;ll see a much larger airflow signal.

[stevel]

Darin,

I gotta tell ya I totally agree with Ed on this whole thing. When you say that the industry accepts the MAF as the entire unit including the housing isn&#39;t exactly true. That&#39;s just the way it&#39;s sold, you can&#39;t buy the sensor without the housing, but it&#39;s just that, a housing. There are plenty of sensors on different makes of cars that you can&#39;t just buy seperately but are only sold with it&#39;s housing attached. Does that mean the housing is part of the sensor? I would still say no. They just won&#39;t sell you the sensor without the housing is how I look at it.

Take for instance the TPS on a honda. You will not be able to find a TPS without buying the throttle body. Would I consider the TPS to include the throttle body? No, you just can&#39;t buy it without the throttle body. Doesn&#39;t mean the throttle body is part of the TPS.

I&#39;m not looking to cheat the rules and always err on the side of caution, but in this case I would have read it as I am allowed to put the MAF sensor onto a different housing. And in thinking about it relative to other cars I wouldn&#39;t be too worried about interpreting it as such. You&#39;re limited to the size and flow of the throttle body anyways, so why not open it up? The hondas can put any size intake tube they want and don&#39;t have this "housing" out there they have to worry about so my line of thinking would have been they&#39;re opening up the rules for us to make it more equal and that way we&#39;ll all be just limited by the throttle body size. That is the thought process that I went thru when thinking how changing the MAF housing would be legal.

If that was not the intent, I would change the wording. Because in my estimation you left it too open for interpretation, regardless of what you may think.

steve

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by pfcs@Nov 8 2005, 02:52 AM
This is typical of the "insiders" ego driven self serving crap that persists in the club that makes me wonder sometimes why I&#39;m a member-really infuraiting!!
64851



Self-Serving?? Now THAT is funny... if you only knew how silly that sounds, at least in my casr...

I&#39;m sure the rest of the guys on the ITAC appreciate the "snot nosed bozzos" comment as well...

I&#39;m always amazed at the amount of input we receive AFTER something has been agreed to... Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??

And, just for the record, the class is still fine!

I see you were driving a Volvo and now a VW Golf in ITB... Funny how those with the mechanical advantages are so against what we have done...

Sorry Phil, but we don&#39;t opperate in a vacuum... What we&#39;ve done is what the membership has wanted us to do, within reason... The last part there is really the only part where we really get to use our best judgement...

Have we had an agenda, perhaps of sorts, but it&#39;s been member driven. Everything is put out for membership comment... the air-intake rule is no exception... We didn&#39;t just pull that out of our hat... we&#39;ve had numerous requests for this to be rectified... Maybe you were never affected, or ??? but there are others that felt this was an issue...

I&#39;d love to hear some constructive feedback for once... We hear nothing, and then we hear about everything that we&#39;ve DONE wrong... It would be nice if you guys would speak up WHILE we are trying to do something, so we will have the whole picture... We can only respond to the information we know...

Personally, I think IT is going in a really good direction. I&#39;m not suprised to hear that there are those that disagree...

[Joe Harlan]

I am not sure we are seeing the samething but thanks. I agree with being able to use an aftermarket intake pipe more for packaging than performance. I don&#39;t believe the adhoc did this for seof serving purposes in anyway. I believe this was a genuine proposal to kind of equalize a couple of different systems. It is unfortunate that alot of use read engrish so much different from each other. I think a little tweek to the wording will fix it and we can get on to something else that is really just silly self pleasure.

[pfcs]

what WAS I thinking?!! A2 VW Golfs have a mechanical advantage-YEAH!

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 11:05 PM
I&#39;m always amazed at the amount of input we receive AFTER something has been agreed to... Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??
64853
I missed when it was suggested before Fastrack, which may be my own short coming. I commented once I did see it and was actually pleased for the whole class at what I thought the rule meant. If I had caught the suggestion and any discussion and understood what the intent was, I still would have commented that the wording hadn&#39;t captured the intent. But also when the suggestion came up I would have voiced my vote that all FI IT cars have potential determined by throttle body bore and expressed my support for what I originally believed was the intent of the rule.

I am fine with what the intent is and will be when the wording captures it. I do believe equality of such a mixed group as IT would be have an easier time with potential based on throttle body bores. But nothing I am going to jump up and down about other than I thought that someone really got it when that was what I mistakenly thought the intent was. I really doubt that the effect would be that the SOHC would suddenly have ITS potential the VE isn&#39;t going to jump that much and am more of the opinion that the effect for any IT car would be 5 hp or less but if there is an assumption in classing that all cars are open in front of the throttle body - there are plenty of models that can determine potential based on CR, cam specs and throttle body bore adding initial classing accuracy. I mean is potential currently considered based on whether or not the car has a more restrictive MAF than its throttle body bore? Do the classing sheets have MAF bore size? Because if only bore size is compared in determining potential that would be misleading with current and proposed rules.

It would take a lot more for me to jump ship - the direction I felt it had gone did raise big concerns with me was all I was trying to say.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by pfcs@Nov 8 2005, 03:28 AM
what WAS I thinking?!! A2 VW Golfs have a mechanical advantage-YEAH!

64857


Phil,

I&#39;m not sure how much of what has transpired over the past year you are aware of, but the A2 VW Golf is one of the cars on the list of cars to be considered for a weight adjustment to correct their ITB classification specs and get them more in line with the target for the class... (not being a VW expert, I believe we are talking about the 85-91 Golf GTI/GT/GL classified at 2280lbs in ITB)...


Forgive me, I mistook your to be the new Golf classification...

Either way, both will be very good ITB cars should our "self-serving" proposal get accepted by the CRB and BoD... As will the Volvo, the Hondas, the BMWs, the...

I completely understand where you are coming from, but, based on what we&#39;ve experienced over the past two years, you are in the minority. Most are pleased to see something being done to "fix" some of this stuff...

Once this season is over, I think you will have seen the most radical of the tweaks from our end... We entered this believing that IT was NOT broken, but needed a few tweaks, and it has been our mission to preserve the "goodness" of the class while, at the same time, removing some of the obstacals that made certain things unfair...

With every move, tweak, and adjustment, that is our intent... We don&#39;t have any desire, or plans, to tweak things much more. There are bound to be a few issues that still have to be dealt with, and we will, but we are determined to preserve the integrity of IT going into the future...

Before we can do that, however, we first must RESTORE the integrity of IT, which is what we&#39;ve been trying to do...

If that&#39;s self-serving and the actions of a bunch of "snot-nosed bozzos", then I&#39;ll just have to be that...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 03:58 AM
I really doubt that the effect would be that the SOHC would suddenly have ITS potential the VE isn&#39;t going to jump that much and am more of the opinion that the effect for any IT car would be 5 hp or less but if there is an assumption in classing that all cars are open in front of the throttle body -

64863


Ed,

I&#39;ve been around 240SX&#39;s for quite some time, both the 3-valve and the 4-valve... The 3-valve has only SLIGHTLY less potential than the 4-valve... it&#39;s limited in it&#39;s stock form by the stock MAF, which is TINY compared to the 4-Valves... I would say more like 15hp on equally preparred engines... Maybe more... In fact, for years, the Nissan race trucks used the 3-Valve because it has more torque and overall power... They&#39;ve only recently gone to the 4-Valves...

Don&#39;t take my word for it... ask some Nissan guys... Using a 280ZX MAF is a very popular Tuner mod for a reason...

I&#39;m positive that Joe could explain it better than I... After all, he built my motor!

Glad to see I didn&#39;t scare you off... That would NEVER be my intent... but I should have worded it so you would understand that more clearly! :D B) ;)

[turboICE]

I really need to get in and take some measurements then. The 10 months working with this car hasn&#39;t gotten me nearly familar enough with it. That type of improvement really would shock me.

I have not come across many street 240sx tuners changing the MAF and housing (whether 280Z, 300Z or mustang 5.0L) unless they were going to larger injectors for either a turbo kit or the few out there putting SOHC pistons in DOHC engines for the 11.7 CR. I really can&#39;t find anyone street tuning a SOHC for anything it doesn&#39;t have any street credit which fine with me I can pick them up all day long from people swapping DOHC, SR20 and RB25&#39;s into their early model S13&#39;s.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 09:23 PM
I really need to get in and take some measurements then. The 10 months working with this car hasn&#39;t gotten me nearly familar enough with it. That type of improvement really would shock me.

I have not come across many street 240sx tuners changing the MAF and housing (whether 280Z, 300Z or mustang 5.0L) unless they were going to larger injectors for either a turbo kit or the few out there putting SOHC pistons in DOHC engines for the 11.7 CR. I really can&#39;t find anyone street tuning a SOHC for anything it doesn&#39;t have any street credit which fine with me I can pick them up all day long from people swapping DOHC, SR20 and RB25&#39;s into their early model S13&#39;s.

64868


Ed, I have done alot with them. The s13 3 valve is clearly limited by the MAF sensor and anyone on the street that is doing anything with them is using a 300zx MAF and tuning the ECU for the alternate signal. The factory injectors are fine for the output we can expect in ITA trim. I have also done several EP versions of this engine so I have some history with them. The 4 valve S13 in ITS is limited the same as the 3 valve by the MAF unit. It have better cams than the S14 but the S14 has a better MAF. All of the KA motors have the same throttle body diameter. You know as well as anybody that it&#39;s all about the air you can get in and out.

[turboICE]

Yeah I definitely need to upgrade my own vehicle awareness then - that news is surprising to me.

I don&#39;t know that it changes my opinion that I think in an ideal world that all cars in IT should be throttle body limited. If my particular car picks up that much then it should go to ITS.

Yeah I can get as much fuel from the OEM system as I could need with IT longblock - never knew that the MAF was so restrictive though figured maybe slightly more than the TB. If that much more air could be brought in I could make use of it with an otherwise IT setup.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 09:28 PM
It will be done... wording will be recommended that includes the housing and the entire MAF assembly, if that&#39;s what it takes to make this clear to all of you. It will be on this months agenda...
As for the oil-pump gear... You can be pissed at us all you want... It&#39;s exactly BS like this air-intake deal that makes the chances for any other type of allowance slim... You open the door for one thing, and suddenly ten other things are considered "allowed"... This would be a special allowance for this one car, which is not in the best interests of IT, or we&#39;d have to open it up to everyone, which is simply rules creep and would likely cause another situation like this...

"well, what about cars where the gear is an integral part of the shaft???", etc... Suddenly, people are replacing entire distributors based on the rule...

No thanks...

64839



Darin,

Let&#39;s not talk about special allowances for certain cars. There&#39;s already precedence for it in IT. Cars w/ phenolic timing gears are allowed to replace them w/ metal gears(the only car I know of that came w/ them were the V6 Mk I Capris, but I would guess that there are more). The Quad 4 GM cars in ITS (Olds and Pontiac) get to swap out their rear hubs and drums for a disc brake system off a different car (Saturn). I&#39;ve asked about this one before, but have never gotten an answer as to when and why this was allowed.

[pfcs]

-Self-Serving?? Now THAT is funny.."
-"many cars, the 240SX included, have tubes that have production restrictions in them"
-the point was to smooth airflow going to the throttle plates. This in itself should be enough of PERFORMANCE benefit for most"
I thought we had gotten clear about performance adjustments through weight.
what about cars with airflow meters instead of MAF sensors? Or cars with CIS? now there&#39;s a real airflow restriction!
-"and just for the record, the class is still fine!"
thank you for your humble opinion. I don&#39;t think Sam moore and Chris Albin would agree. Kurt Weis might argue it also. I hope you&#39;re clear how I feel.
"before we can do that, we first must RESTORE the integrity of IT"
spoken like a true SCCA nerd. Darin, I&#39;m pretty sure you think what you&#39;re doing is sensible. I don&#39;t wish you ill. I just don&#39;t think some of you guys have a very long view or memory. The integrity and appeal of IT was the simplicity and stability of the rules. I think the (weight) adjustments were a good idea. But "tweaking" the rules is BS. It creates instability, not stability (look at this string). It&#39;s been one of the biggest complaints for competitors since the club began. What became of production racing is a good example. As soon as somone aquires some influence/power in the matter, they think it needs fixing. It doesn&#39;t.
"sorry Phil, but we don&#39;t operate in a vacuum..."
I know you don&#39;t, but you should also recognize that EVERYBODY wants something changed in their intersts-that means almost nothing to the majority. You&#39;re not running a poularity contest. Unless there is a strong concensus and expressed will of many competitors, why change rules?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 05:38 AM
Darin,

Let&#39;s not talk about special allowances for certain cars. There&#39;s already precedence for it in IT. Cars w/ phenolic timing gears are allowed to replace them w/ metal gears(the only car I know of that came w/ them were the V6 Mk I Capris, but I would guess that there are more). The Quad 4 GM cars in ITS (Olds and Pontiac) get to swap out their rear hubs and drums for a disc brake system off a different car (Saturn). I&#39;ve asked about this one before, but have never gotten an answer as to when and why this was allowed.

64874


All WAY before my time Bill... and not things worth fighting over...

What I think is important is how we proceed from here... Just because something inconsistent with IT Philosophy has been done in the past, doesn&#39;t mean we should do it again... Precedence, in some cases, is NOT a positive thing...

In the case of this particular oil-gear, it&#39;s unnecessary. How many ARRC championships have been won in ITA by the 240SX to this point with the rules just the way they are??? ;)

[turboICE]

To be clear the crank gear is identical to OEM except material, and it is mated to a gear on a shaft that drives the oil pump and distributor in the exact same circle as the factory part - it was being sought for longevity and to reduce the overall costs through reduced maintenance, not to alter the performance of the vehicle. ARRC championships have little to do with a competitor&#39;s request that was intended to reduce down time and maintenance.

If the consensus with those with more history with this motor is that I had some other problem that produced the failure I can accept that and will work to address it - but the part is not performance enhancing.

I don&#39;t have the history or the full awareness to appreciate the complete scoop - as someone new, it confuses me how the request was undesirable compared to existing rules in place regarding gear materials but will work with it for now. However, I may very well point out any other future changes that I see as being inconsistent with this particular ruling though since based on postings I should be able to reasonably expect consistency in the future on rules such that the same decision will be made for similar requests.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 11:01 PM
To be clear the crank gear is identical to OEM except material, and it is mated to a gear on a shaft that drives the oil pump and distributor in the exact same circle as the factory part - it was being sought for longevity and to reduce the overall costs through reduced maintenance, not to alter the performance of the vehicle. ARRC championships have little to do with a competitor&#39;s request that was intended to reduce down time and maintenance.

If the consensus with those with more history with this motor is that I had some other problem that produced the failure I can accept that and will work to address it - but the part is not performance enhancing.

I don&#39;t have the history or the full awareness to appreciate the complete scoop - as someone new, it confuses me how the request was undesirable compared to existing rules in place regarding gear materials but will work with it for now. However, I may very well point out any other future changes that I see as being inconsistent with this particular ruling though since based on postings I should be able to reasonably expect consistency in the future on rules such that the same decision will be made for similar requests.

64878

Ed, Seriously the bronze gear was made for the wet sump GT engines running high pressure pumps. I have several of them here for my EP stuff. The ITA engines I have built have done 8 hour enduros with the STOCK units and stock pumps with no issues. My problem with opening up the rule even though a small one is that not everyone can use the same rule.

[turboICE]

Wanna buy another one? :lol:

Next year&#39;s engine will have been gone over by me rather than taken as received when I bought all this stuff, so I will have a much greater appreciation of the points that have been made a year from now.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 11:39 PM
Wanna buy another one? :lol:

Next year&#39;s engine will have been gone over by me rather than taken as received when I bought all this stuff, so I will have a much greater appreciation of the points that have been made a year from now.

64880

feel free to e-mail if i can help.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 8 2005, 01:41 AM
All WAY before my time Bill... and not things worth fighting over...

What I think is important is how we proceed from here... Just because something inconsistent with IT Philosophy has been done in the past, doesn&#39;t mean we should do it again... Precedence, in some cases, is NOT a positive thing...

In the case of this particular oil-gear, it&#39;s unnecessary. How many ARRC championships have been won in ITA by the 240SX to this point with the rules just the way they are??? ;)

64876



I guess we will agree to disagree. I think that if you&#39;re trying to &#39;restore the integrity&#39;, you need to address past inconsistencies. I think leaving them hanging out there sends the wrong message. I&#39;m not trying to throw rocks here, or pick a fight, but addressing some issues, and not others, gives the appearence that you want to cherry-pick what you will deal with.

Is there no documentation in Topeka about the Olds/Pontiac rear brakes?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 09:38 AM
I guess we will agree to disagree. I think that if you&#39;re trying to &#39;restore the integrity&#39;, you need to address past inconsistencies. I think leaving them hanging out there sends the wrong message. I&#39;m not trying to throw rocks here, or pick a fight, but addressing some issues, and not others, gives the appearence that you want to cherry-pick what you will deal with.

Is there no documentation in Topeka about the Olds/Pontiac rear brakes?

64906


I don&#39;t want to get deep into this, When I was a full time tech I kina remember GM had a recall on the rear brake of a lot of these models. I know they where a large pile of ****. If an allowance was given strictly to fix an unfixable problem then its not an issue. Same as the drive gear for a KA, If it was really an issue I would be all for a fix.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 04:38 PM
I think that if you&#39;re trying to &#39;restore the integrity&#39;, you need to address past inconsistencies. I think leaving them hanging out there sends the wrong message. I&#39;m not trying to throw rocks here, or pick a fight, but addressing some issues, and not others, gives the appearence that you want to cherry-pick what you will deal with.

Is there no documentation in Topeka about the Olds/Pontiac rear brakes?

64906



I would not characterize this as "cherry-picking"... Rather, more as a list of priorities, with the items mentioned WAY down on the list...

Honestly... are the brake issues with the Old/Pontiac REALLY a burning issue? You rarely even hear of these cars being raced... If we get to a point where there is nothing more important to deal with, then maybe we can look into this...

As for documentation, I&#39;m not sure, we&#39;ve never had inclination to ask. I do know that a lot of "documentation" was lost when they moved from Denver, so it&#39;s entirely possible that it doesn&#39;t exist... Or, maybe it does... Like I said, I&#39;ve never asked...

There is a big difference with allowing people with plastic timing gears to replace them with metal ones (a true "reliability" item), and allowing someone to replace a metal gear with an alternative, race-only part... In my opinion, it&#39;s kind of like allowing alternate rods because someone has been having trouble breaking the stock ones...

I&#39;d be curious as to just what "inconsistencies" people think there are in the rules or spec lines... perhaps someone could start a list in a new thread...

[Bildon]

>> ... Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??

That was my point! :blink: Where/when was this issue brought up before the membership prior to it showing up this month in FT ?

I want to know who recommended it, how many were in favor, or against please.
And I&#39;m talking about the intial motion, not the final approval seen in FT.

I may have missed it but I never saw this item tabled for discussion etc.

[Knestis]

Any make/model specific allowance should be considered an "inconsistency," I think. I kind of agree with Bill that the few cases of this that are in the ITCS should be removed. It&#39;s not that any of them really matter in the micro, but there presence suggests that there is room for individual allowances where I don&#39;t THINK it is going to be standard practice to allow them.

When I requested last week that we be allowed to remove central locking systems, I didn&#39;t ask just that it be allowed for my car. I wouldn&#39;t personally dream of doing such a thing but evidence (proposals submitted) suggests that people believe that it is POSSIBLE for them to get specific allowances.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 8 2005, 05:43 PM
Any make/model specific allowance should be considered an "inconsistency," I think. I kind of agree with Bill that the few cases of this that are in the ITCS should be removed. It&#39;s not that any of them really matter in the micro, but there presence suggests that there is room for individual allowances where I don&#39;t THINK it is going to be standard practice to allow them.

When I requested last week that we be allowed to remove central locking systems, I didn&#39;t ask just that it be allowed for my car. I wouldn&#39;t personally dream of doing such a thing but evidence (proposals submitted) suggests that people believe that it is POSSIBLE for them to get specific allowances.

K

64939


That&#39;s just it Kirk, not only do the proposals submitted support the theory that people believe it is possible, having things like the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 allowance, confirms that it is (was?) possible. I think the phenolic timing gear allowance is similar to what you&#39;ve requested for the central locking system, a generic request to address cars w/ "X" characteristic.

[Bill Miller]

A quick glance at the ITCS shows that there are only a couple of other cars that have these kinds of alternate allowances. One was the Chevy Cavalier Z24 (which I suspect is essentially the same car as the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 cars), and the S13 240SX, w/ the ABS disc/caliper allowance.

Darin,

Can you shed some light on the Nissan issue?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 10:01 PM
... and the S13 240SX, w/ the ABS disc/caliper allowance.

Darin,

Can you shed some light on the Nissan issue?

64941


In 1989 and 1990, the SE models of the 240SX were delivered with ABS brakes... So the 240SX was available with both the standard 252mm brakes for the non-SE models, and the larger ABS brakes for the SE models...... Not a special allowance... just an additional brake listing that apparently needed to be noted...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 03:01 PM
A quick glance at the ITCS shows that there are only a couple of other cars that have these kinds of alternate allowances. One was the Chevy Cavalier Z24 (which I suspect is essentially the same car as the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 cars), and the S13 240SX, w/ the ABS disc/caliper allowance.

Darin,

Can you shed some light on the Nissan issue?

64941



Bill, The 240sx deal is just stating that the factory stock ABS calipers and rotors are legal. There is no rule that states you must remove the ABS equipment. The are other examples of factory alternates second gen RX7 for one. I agree I don&#39;t agree with giving a rear disc conversison to the GM cars. I do feel that if they have an issue that is not safe then alternate parts should be allowed of the same design. (ie DRUM BRAKES FOR DRUM BRAKES)

[turboICE]

I am pretty sure I have seen several 89-90 SE&#39;s without ABS. I thought it was based on where the SE was produced that determined if it came with the option - like Japan produced ABS, North America produced no ABS, but it wouldn&#39;t be the first time I was mistaken.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 03:41 PM
I am pretty sure I have seen several 89-90 SE&#39;s without ABS. I thought it was based on where the SE was produced that determined if it came with the option - like Japan produced ABS, North America produced no ABS, but it wouldn&#39;t be the first time I was mistaken.

64946


Yeah I am sure it wasn&#39;t the SE option that triggered the ABS option the S13. The SE option did have the bigger sway bars. But no difference the ABS caliper and rotor was stock on the 89-94 cars and the caliper and pad were standard on the S14.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 10:54 PM
Yeah I am sure it wasn&#39;t the SE option that triggered the ABS option the S13. The SE option did have the bigger sway bars. But no difference the ABS caliper and rotor was stock on the 89-94 cars and the caliper and pad were standard on the S14.

64949


Joe... If what you are saying is true, then that NOTE on the spec line is wrong... I think I&#39;ll have to look at home for the VTS sheets (which I&#39;m sure I have for the later cars, but not sure about the earlier versions...)... I know that the 91-94 models used different rotors for ABS vs Non... but in the 98 VTS I have, it shows the same rotor/caliper for both...

I get it mixed up... but I thought it was the early cars that used a different Rotor/Caliper package for ABS, and then the later ones that consolidated and just used the same 257mm rotor/caliper package for both ABS and non...

I&#39;ll check again, but I&#39;m pretty sure that the early cars use a 252x20mm rotor for NON-ABS, and a 257mmx22mm rotor for ABS...

BUT, I&#39;ve been wrong about these things before... :blink:

Either way, I know we&#39;ve been down this road before and it was determined that this was all legal and allowed by the rules... Didn&#39;t we have to do this in Production as well??? How many years did that take??? :bash_1_:

;)

[turboICE]

On the 89-90 at a minimum the rotor, caliper (including its carrier) and pad are different on ABS vs nonABS cars - I just don&#39;t think all 89-90 SE&#39;s came with the ABS.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 04:05 PM
On the 89-90 at a minimum the rotor, caliper (including its carrier) and pad are different on ABS vs nonABS cars - I just don&#39;t think all 89-90 SE&#39;s came with the ABS.

64954


Your both right. The S13 with ABS is a rotor,caliper and bracket package. The convert came with the ABS rotor a caliper even without ABS. DJ you are also correct on the S14 stuff.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 11:20 PM
DJ you are also correct ...

64956



:119:

Can I quote you on that??? :blink:

B)

[pfcs49]

the pink elephant is still in the room (Bill sees him , post #106).

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by pfcs49@Nov 9 2005, 12:05 AM
the pink elephant is still in the room (Bill sees him , post #106).

64960


If you&#39;ll refer yourself to the Fastrack dated September 2005 (Here=> September Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-09-fastrack.pdf) ) You will find on the second page, under the heading:

<span style='color:blue'>"Please address all comments, for and against, to the Club Racing Board."


The reason it says "Proposed", is because all proposed rule changes that the ITAC sends to the CRB, and that the CRB accepts and puts out to the membership , must first go before the BoD at one of two meetings... one in August and the other in December... (There are some exceptions, which I believe are the E&O stuff, and certain spec line changes, etc... THIS is NOT one of those... it&#39;s a major rule change...)

The BoD, so I&#39;ve been told, does not usually like to make a decision about things until it&#39;s been put out for member comment, which this was...

Now, in the November Fastrack, which contains the BoD Meeting Minutes dated August 26-27, 2005, you&#39;ll find that the rule was approved by your BoD during this meeting. There was over 2-months of time for membership to comment...

So, you see... it&#39;s not a "Pink Elephant" at all... it&#39;s simply black and white print, and all by the book...

You see, when we put something out for membership comment, and all we hear is support (doesn&#39;t have to be written, can be e-mail, verbal, forums, etc...) then we propose the rule for implementation... Even on something so MASSIVE a change as PCAs, we only received about 60 inputs from competitors, and I posted those results here before that one was even brought before the CRB... (PLEASE don&#39;t make me go find that to prove it to you... you can go look yourself or just take my word for it... ;) ) It&#39;s not unusual to NOT receive any written input at all, and we must rely on what people tell us personally, etc...

Unlike the way things have worked in the past, we are doing are darndest to keep things above board and by the book... we are also trying to keep everyone as informed as we can, as early as we can, so everyone will understand where we are coming from...

So, as I said before, it&#39;s a little bit odd that we only hear the discontent AFTER something has been "done"... Would have been MUCH more useful when comments were requested...

I must go now... I need to go wipe my nose... <_<

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 8 2005, 06:24 PM
In 1989 and 1990, the SE models of the 240SX were delivered with ABS brakes... So the 240SX was available with both the standard 252mm brakes for the non-SE models, and the larger ABS brakes for the SE models...... Not a special allowance... just an additional brake listing that apparently needed to be noted...

64943



Darin,

Was something added to the spec line to allow the SE model? Or was this simply a trim level that&#39;s not discernable by VIN#? I looked at the Sentra spec line right below the 240SX / S13 line, and it has modles E/XE/CXE/SL listed. I&#39;m not trying to be a pain, just trying to learn. I know a lot about VWs, but I don&#39;t really know squat about Datsun/Nissans. Anything else that makes an S13 240SX SE different from a non-SE?

BTW, looks like the intake stuff was put out for member input. :023:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 9 2005, 01:31 PM
Darin,

Was something added to the spec line to allow the SE model? Or was this simply a trim level that&#39;s not discernable by VIN#? ... Anything else that makes an S13 240SX SE different from a non-SE?

64999


I&#39;m not really sure Bill... As Joe mentioned, mentioning the SE model may not be pretinent here, as those brakes were on the base models as well...

To answer the SE vs. Non-SE question, I think the SE was delivered with a larger sway bar, but otherwise, I think it&#39;s just a trim package.... May have included a spoiler as well, but I think I recall seeing SEs that were delivered without those as well... All the nuts and bolts underneath are the same... No engine differences, etc.... just trim, upgraded audio, etc., to the best of my knowledge...

[Tristan Smith]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 9 2005, 02:54 PM
I&#39;m not really sure Bill... As Joe mentioned, mentioning the SE model may not be pretinent here, as those brakes were on the base models as well...

To answer the SE vs. Non-SE question, I think the SE was delivered with a larger sway bar, but otherwise, I think it&#39;s just a trim package.... May have included a spoiler as well, but I think I recall seeing SEs that were delivered without those as well... All the nuts and bolts underneath are the same... No engine differences, etc.... just trim, upgraded audio, etc., to the best of my knowledge...

65006



The SE has the rear spoiler and the sunroof, I believe. That was about it. It was Trim level. If there is anything else it was rendered moot with IT rules in existence.

[handfulz28]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith@Nov 21 2005, 10:35 PM
The SE has the rear spoiler and the sunroof, I believe. That was about it. It was Trim level. If there is anything else it was rendered moot with IT rules in existence.

66209


Correct, the SE was just a trim level, no specific ITCS line required. Also, nobody said all SE models came with ABS. Simply, ABS was an option, but only at the SE trim level. The ABS info on the ITCS line was to clarify that there are different brake pieces allowed. FWIW, I think there are plenty of spec lines with alternate brake pieces.

Michael