IT Piston Rules - Overbore

[Banzai240]

OK guys... In researching some questions concerning IT pistons, I've come up with the following:

17.1.4.D.1.j - "Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used."

We can really stop there, and here is why...

"Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size."

It doesn't say "shall", or "you have to"... it says you MAY...

"Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used."

The "shall" MANDATES that you WILL, should you decide to overbore up to the allowed .040" over, use FACTORY or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT pistons... If factory pistons in .040" are not available, then this means you are out of luck in this department... You can only use an overbore that the factory supplies a piston for... PERIOD. That's exactly what the rule says...

Now, this is NOT affected by the allowance to obtain stock replacement parts from sources other than the manufacturer, because an overbored piston would NOT BE STOCK! It would NOT be a stock replacement part. That, again, is exactly what the rule says...



So, in my humble opinion, here is what I think:

1) You may bore your engine up to whatever size the factory supplies oversized pistons, up to the maximum of .040".

2) You may use either a FACTORY oversized piston, or it's exact equivalent... If the factory does NOT supply an oversized piston, or only supplies it up to .020", or .030", etc., then THAT is the maximum size you are allowed to use.

3) You may NOT have a .040" piston made if the factory does not supply one as well... If they do supply one, then you can make it's equivalent, but it must be an exact equivalent...

This is how the rules read. I see no allowance to create a .040" overbored motor in a case where the factory does not supply an oversized piston. Obviously, this means that not all car can take advantage of the full .040"... some may be limited to .020", .030", etc...

OK, fire away... show me where the holes are... I don't see any other way to read this... It is written... ;)

[Joe Harlan]

OK so I agree, What of the factory used to offer a .040 and no longer does?

[Drew Aldred]

I don't see it that way at all. The key being "or their exact equivalent". If you couldn't use an alternate the rule should read, "Factory oversize replacements shall be used." To me that means if you go to .040 on the overbore and can find exact equivalent pistons that match factory specs you are good to go.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 04:29 PM
OK, fire away... show me where the holes are... I don't see any other way to read this... It is written... ;)

65534


Okay, I'll bite. What car does this concern, it has to be a certain car somewhere for it to show up. I know it isn't the Jensen, even though I no longer have a factory I can still get 0.040" over factory pistons.

R

[JamesB]

I agree with drew, when I read that rule my interpitation meant you could use a .040 overbore piston size that had the exact dome, valve clearance and specs as a factory replacement standard size piston.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 11:29 AM
OK guys... In researching some questions concerning IT pistons, I've come up with the following:

17.1.4.D.1.j - "Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used."

We can really stop there, and here is why...

"Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size."

It doesn't say "shall", or "you have to"... it says you MAY...

"Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used."

The "shall" MANDATES that you WILL, should you decide to overbore up to the allowed .040" over, use FACTORY or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT pistons... If factory pistons in .040" are not available, then this means you are out of luck in this department... You can only use an overbore that the factory supplies a piston for... PERIOD. That's exactly what the rule says...

Now, this is NOT affected by the allowance to obtain stock replacement parts from sources other than the manufacturer, because an overbored piston would NOT BE STOCK! It would NOT be a stock replacement part. That, again, is exactly what the rule says...

So, in my humble opinion, here is what I think:

1) You may bore your engine up to whatever size the factory supplies oversized pistons, up to the maximum of .040".

2) You may use either a FACTORY oversized piston, or it's exact equivalent... If the factory does NOT supply an oversized piston, or only supplies it up to .020", or .030", etc., then THAT is the maximum size you are allowed to use.

3) You may NOT have a .040" piston made if the factory does not supply one as well... If they do supply one, then you can make it's equivalent, but it must be an exact equivalent...

This is how the rules read. I see no allowance to create a .040" overbored motor in a case where the factory does not supply an oversized piston. Obviously, this means that not all car can take advantage of the full .040"... some may be limited to .020", .030", etc...

OK, fire away... show me where the holes are... I don't see any other way to read this... It is written... ;)

65534


To me it's simple.
If the factory for example only has a .020" piston set, you can have pistons made to .040" as long as they are exactly the same as the dimensions of the factory .020" piston (other than the bore size). The rings must also be the same as the factory rings in all aspects.
dj

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 11:29 AM
17.1.4.D.1.j - "Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used."
I think I see what you are getting at in that their refers to factory oversize replacement pistons. If no .040 factory oversized replacements were ever made and you take exact equivilant to mean all dimensions, including bore size, than a .040 over piston would not be legal. The big assumption is what exactly is the definition of exact? If it refers to every dimension including bore size than you might have something.

The bigger question is does this really matter? The standard interpretation up to this point seems to be anything up to .040 over is allowed. If you are trying to make a case for reigning that back in to only applications where the factory made .040" over than a few things happen. Some people suddenly realize they are illegal and have to go through a lot of expense to fix the issue (new pistons, block, rings, etc) and if the process that has been used for classification assumes overboring than suddenly every car is theoretically open to reclassification. I don't think we want to go down either road.

I think in actuallity the wording didn't quite match up with the intent which means change the rule or live with it based on the idea that most people already interpret the rule as desired. Some would say it is better to leave it as is rather risk new wording having unintended consequences. Unless there is a particular case you are looking at this seems like a non-issue, at least compared to the bigger fish the ITAC is trying to fry. Maybe you have too much free time? :)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Drew Aldred@Nov 16 2005, 04:48 PM
I don't see it that way at all. The key being "or their exact equivalent".

How can you have an "exact equivalent" of a factory piston that isn't available? Not possible...



To me that means if you go to .040 on the overbore and can find exact equivalent pistons that match factory specs you are good to go.

65536


Same question as above...


So, if based on your interpretation, you are saying that the .040" piston would have to be dimensionally identical to the "factory replacement" with the exception of bore diameter??? That would include weight, ring sizes, etc..???

I don't see how you can compare something as to it's "equivalentness" to something that doesn't exist...

Again, I'm just going by the exact words in the ITCS, which says very specifically what is allowed...

And, to address the question of a factory not being available anymore (Jensen)... THAT is why the "exact equivalent" line is there, in my opinion... Find out what Jensen used to offer, and you can have THOSE made, based on the rules...

"May"... "Shall"... It's all very specific, and I still don't see how what you guys are suggesting "is" legal is legal...

[joeg]

It seems we have had this discussion before (along with one for forged replacements).

I also remember the argument whether the over bore could be bigger because a replacement piston exactly .o40 was available.

I would not worry about it. You can have a piston made to fit a .040 overbore (and even have it of a forged variety) that is otherwise dimensionally the same as the OEM piston. However, you may want to consider that if the factory did not go to a .040 replacement, perhaps they are telling you the block may not take it.

Cheers.

[stevel]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 06:28 PM
How can you have an "exact equivalent" of a factory piston that isn't available? Not possible...
Same question as above...
So, if based on your interpretation, you are saying that the .040" piston would have to be dimensionally identical to the "factory replacement" with the exception of bore diameter??? That would include weight, ring sizes, etc..???

I don't see how you can compare something as to it's "equivalentness" to something that doesn't exist...

Again, I'm just going by the exact words in the ITCS, which says very specifically what is allowed...

And, to address the question of a factory not being available anymore (Jensen)... THAT is why the "exact equivalent" line is there, in my opinion... Find out what Jensen used to offer, and you can have THOSE made, based on the rules...

"May"... "Shall"... It's all very specific, and I still don't see how what you guys are suggesting "is" legal is legal...

65554



Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bores size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or there exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as the factory replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

If what you're saying is the way the rule is supposed to read then it's not clear from the rule. I know it says exact equivalent but then it mentions that the "dome/dish/valve relief configuration" etc shall be the same as factory oversized pistons. It pretty much mentions everything but the bore size of the piston. If that's what the rule is supposed to mean why was it the only thing left out? IMO, I think there's a hole in that rule if that's the way it's supposed to read. If the bore size is NOT allowed to be bigger than what was offered from the factory then it would be a very simple addition. You could just add it in to the current things it mentions must be equivalent.

And while I don't think it's a bad thing that forged pistons are allowed, but I think that opens up the door to a lot of things also. Good luck ever getting a forged piston to weigh as much as a factory cast piston. It's always going to be lighter. And are guys building engines because they know the forged pistons are lighter? I would bet a lot on it. And though the rule does specifically say that the weight shall be equivalent, what exactly is equivalent? Is it within .0001 grams, 1 gram, 10, 100 grams? Would they win if someone protested and the forged piston was noticably ligther? Well, with they way the rule currently reads I think they should. Why/how? Well, a forged piston isn't available from the factory. You would be hard pressed to keep equivalent dimensions to a factory cast piston, so naturally the weight is going to be less. If you add to the dimensions to make the forged piston the same weight, you're breaking the rules because the dimensions are not equal to the factory cast. So, while it definitely strays from the intent of the rule big time, I bet the guy with the lightweight forged piston would win because with the ruleset there would be no way to get BOTH equal weight AND dimensions. This is another big hole I think and actually a good way to squeeze a few more ponies out of a motor. Do I think it should be that way? Absolutely not. Do I think the guy that does it would and should win a protest? Yes, based on the way the rule reads.

I realize how hard it is to plug all the holes in a rule, but when every dimension of a piston is mentioned except the bore size and the bore size isn't supposed to be larger than what the factory offered, to me that's a pretty obvious hole. If it's not supposed to be that way, add two words to the rule (, bore size, ) and you've plugged it. But, the forged piston is another hole.

I know you can't win, but i don't know the intent behind allowing forged pistons so I don't wanna argue against it without knowing the background, but i think it does allow an advantage.

Now, don't get me started on adding a resistor inline to a sensor rule. I don't even know why that one is there. Yes, I believe a wire is a resistor.

Darin, I don't mean this a shot to you at all in any way. I really support and advocate what you guys are doing. I consider myself straight as an arrow and always look for the intent of the rule instead of the way it reads. In my HONEST opinion, I would never have read that to mean that I CAN'T use .040 over pistons if they weren't made from the factory. If the aftermarket had a .040 over piston available with the same dome/dish, valve relief config, ring spacing etc I would totally assume it was legal and within the intent of the rule. While I may not agree with someone else's interpretation because they may have strayed from what I would consider the intent of the rule. I may agree that they should win a protest based on the wording. If there's a hole there and someone exploits it, which we know is going to happen and does, then they didn't necessarily doing anything wrong. They did inside what the rule said. Like I said I may not agree that they followed the intent of the rule, but the way the rule can read I would support that they win the protest. I think the holes need to be plugged.

I guess a good way to look at the rules is like tax laws. While the government doesn't always agree with the way someone uses the laws, they realize there may have been a hole in it and need to plug it.

steve

[Drew Aldred]

DJ,

I understand what you're saying. Change the rule to read, "Factory oversize replacement pistons shall be used." Period. That would end any confusion or gray area.

miss ya on the prod page....... B)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Drew Aldred@Nov 16 2005, 01:50 PM
Change the rule to read, "Factory oversize replacement pistons shall be used."
65575
I disagree.

I do not believe the original intent of the rule was to limit builders to what the factory offers or what the service manual recognizes. This is supported by the facts described above, where specific requirements of replacement pistons are offered. If the rule was intended to limit the rules to factory oversized pistons, then your recommendation would follow; the rule would read "Factory oversize replacement pistons shall be used", there would be no need for specifics and/or aftermarket allowances.

I am confident that the original intent of the rules was to allow anyone to overbore their engine to a maximum of +0.40". Recognizing that some manufacturers do not provide 40-over pistons, the rulesmakers allowed aftermarket sources (which was on of the only legal aftermarket replacement parts technically allowed in IT until this year) while specifically indicating via the specs requirements that this rule could not be used to install pistons that did not meet factory specs other than bore size. It's the only logical explanation for the wording of the rules.

There are some out there who believe that the lack of a factory .040" oversize factory piston to which to compare the aftermarket one thereby relieves them from the "equivalence" requirement. Hogwash. These folks then decide that since they are not required to be equivalent to a non-existent piston then they can make them super light and/or change the specs as listed in the ITCS; this makes absolutely no logical sense. The day that an engine builder tries to convince me that a larger, .040" overbore piston is allowed to be lighter and/or have different ring sizes than a factory standard piston is the day I laugh in their face and call them idiots.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. If you find guys making pistons with different ring sizes and/or lighter than the factory pistons, throw the book at them. But don't take away legitimate allowed modifications from the rest of the field because a select few people want to play word games with the rules.

Greg Amy

[stevel]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 16 2005, 08:17 PM
I disagree.

I do not believe the original intent of the rule was to limit builders to what the factory offers or what the service manual recognizes. This is supported by the facts described above, where specific requirements of replacement pistons are offered. If the rule was intended to limit the rules to factory oversized pistons, then your recommendation would follow; the rule would read "Factory oversize replacement pistons shall be used", there would be no need for specifics and/or aftermarket allowances.

I am confident that the original intent of the rules was to allow anyone to overbore their engine to a maximum of +0.40". Recognizing that some manufacturers do not provide 40-over pistons, the rulesmakers allowed aftermarket sources (which was on of the only legal aftermarket replacement parts technically allowed in IT until this year) while specifically indicating via the specs requirements that this rule could not be used to install pistons that did not meet factory specs other than bore size. It's the only logical explanation for the wording of the rules.

There are some out there who believe that the lack of a factory .040" oversize factory piston to which to compare the aftermarket one thereby relieves them from the "equivalence" requirement. Hogwash. These folks then decide that since they are not required to be equivalent to a non-existent piston then they can make them super light and/or change the specs as listed in the ITCS; this makes absolutely no logical sense. The day that an engine builder tries to convince me that a larger, .040" overbore piston is allowed to be lighter and/or have different ring sizes than a factory standard piston is the day I laugh in their face and call them idiots.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. If you find guys making pistons with different ring sizes and/or lighter than the factory pistons, throw the book at them. But don't take away legitimate allowed modifications from the rest of the field because a select few people want to play word games with the rules.

Greg Amy

65580



Greg, I agree with everything you said. I read the intent as to allow .040 pistons no matter if the factory made them or not. Just wanted to clarify. In my post I meant if they're not supposed to be allowed the rule certainly doesn't read that way.

steve

[Drew Aldred]

Greg,

I totally agree with your above statement. I was trying to say if the rule was meant for only factory pistons, the part of "exact equivalent" should have been left off.

Good discussion, continue on.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Drew Aldred@Nov 16 2005, 07:50 PM
DJ,

miss ya on the prod page....... B)

65575



I'm pretty sure that you would be the only one! :bash_1_:

:023:

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 11:28 AM
How can you have an "exact equivalent" of a factory piston that isn't available? Not possible...
Same question as above...

"May"... "Shall"... It's all very specific, and I still don't see how what you guys are suggesting "is" legal is legal...

65554


So was this taken into account for the HP potential when a car is classed? An engine with no factory overbore sizes being allowed will definetly lower the potential that one can legally access by this interperatation.

James

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 16 2005, 04:51 PM
So was this taken into account for the HP potential when a car is classed? An engine with no factory overbore sizes being allowed will definetly lower the potential that one can legally access by this interperatation.

James

65590


you mean like a rotary :D

[Joe Harlan]

OK so if the factory doesn't have a 040 piston as an example then how do you determine weight for the replacment? In a protest How do you determine ring thickness and spacing with no original replacement part to compare to? Believe it or not I have 1 stock rod 1 040 piston as samples for every IT engine I build. Maybe I am going to far to be legal?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 16 2005, 03:50 PM
...then how do you determine weight for the replacment?

I think a non-tortured, common sense measurement would be "no less than stock", especially given it's physically impossible to make a same-as-stock-but-larger piston weigh less.


How do you determine ring thickness and spacing with no original replacement part to compare to?
65597


That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 16 2005, 04:39 PM
I think a non-tortured, common sense measurement would be "no less than stock", especially given it's physically impossible to make a same-as-stock-but-larger piston weigh less.
Is it? Your telling me I can't get a .040 weisco lighter than a stock KA24 piston?


That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

65610


Obvious to me, Yes Obvious to the COA,? Rules don't get written for me rules are writtenfor those that enforce them. As an SIT I can tell you the book says you enforce them as written.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 04:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that you would be the only one! :bash_1_:

:023:

65588



So what am I, chopped liver?? :P

Guys,

I'm w/ Darin on this (duck, was that another flying pig?). If the factory never offered a .040-over piston, the way the rule is written today, you can't just have one made up. Do I think the intent of the rule is to limit people that happen to pick a car where no 040-over factory offering was made? No, I don't, but it doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what's written in the rule book.

Darin, you get a gold star on your rules nerd hat!! :023:

[Greg Amy]

If the written letter of the rules trumps all and intent and philosophy mean nothing, then bearings are bushings, wire is a resistor, "is" is what you make of it, and some participants don't get to maximize the preparation of their engines.

Be careful what you ask for, and don't bitch when you get it... - GA

[Knestis]

It's a shame that it comes down to an vague pronoun antecedent.

Darin's right about the literal wording but in my 20 years experience with these rules - and DOZENS of conversations about oversize pistons - I have never seen this explicit interpretation trump the intent that Greg describes.

K

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 16 2005, 09:50 PM
OK so if the factory doesn't have a 040 piston as an example then how do you determine weight for the replacment? In a protest How do you determine ring thickness and spacing with no original replacement part to compare to? Believe it or not I have 1 stock rod 1 040 piston as samples for every IT engine I build. Maybe I am going to far to be legal?

65597


From what I've seen, when you get to the protest, it's up to the protestor to privide any required information (even the factory workshop manual if the car owner has documentation showing it wasn't available). Credible proof that the oversize pistons in question were NEVER available will surely be difficult to come by. Even then it's left up to the interpretation of several people who probably would not have had any significant exposure to the rule beforehand.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 16 2005, 08:38 PM
It's a shame that it comes down to an vague pronoun antecedent.

Darin's right about the literal wording but in my 20 years experience with these rules - and DOZENS of conversations about oversize pistons - I have never seen this explicit interpretation trump the intent that Greg describes.

K

65632


I understand all the issues but what I am having a problem with is we have to ASSUME what the piston weight is that we have to be equal to.

To illustrate (just using round numbers - I ave no idea what these things weigh - YET :) )

Car X is only available with .020 factory replacement pistons (FRP). They weigh 1000 grams.

Car X's stock pistons are 950 grams (exact duplicates, just smaller)

I want to go to a .040 overbore. I source forged .040 pistons. There is no FRP for a .040 overbore. What weight do I require the .040's to weigh? Greg would submit that 950 grams would be the absolute minimum allowed by the rules...some argue that since there is no spec, you can't hold them to a number that isn't printed ANYWHERE.

I do agree that the intent of the rule was to allow UP TO a .040 overbore. But where the heck are you going to get a piston that matches the specs, at the same weight of a factory piston. Aren't forged pistons lighter by nature? I would submit that nobody is gonna pay big bucks to have a custom piston made that is the same weight as a FP, just to get the additional 1mm of bore.

Lucky for me, the .020 FRP from Mazdacomp are $39 each.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 16 2005, 09:18 PM
If the written letter of the rules trumps all and intent and philosophy mean nothing, then bearings are bushings, wire is a resistor, "is" is what you make of it, and some participants don't get to maximize the preparation of their engines.

Be careful what you ask for, and don't bitch when you get it... - GA

65631


Greg,

Haven't we been told that that's what the stewards are supposed to rule on, what's written in the GCR, not some unwritten intent? Isn't it the CoA's job to rule on intent?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 17 2005, 01:18 AM
...wire is a resistor,

65631



Again, that's BS! A wire is a wire... a resistor is a resistor...

Just because a wire has resistance, it is not the OBJECT "RESISTOR"... No more than just because a resistor provides continuity, can it be considered a WIRE...

You guys take the cake for reading into the rules what you WANT to see...

[AJ 14]

Guys let be logical about this. I really don't believe that the rules would not let any car have a .040" overbore if the manufacture did not make a .040" piston. But just the opposite, they want all manufactures of race cars to have the .040". With the ECU Machines aftermarket piston manufactures can duplicate anything they want and with the engineering can match weights even if the piston doesn't exist from the car manufactures.
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

So we can all agree that any overbore piston (factory or exact equivilant) that is lighter than the stock is illegal - even when a specific sized factory overbore piston is not available from the MFG...

Right? Some people aren't seeing it that way.

AB

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 17 2005, 10:26 AM
...that's BS! A wire is a wire... a resistor is a resistor...
65688

Of course it is, Darin. But my point is that if you live by the literal interpretation of the rules with disregard to original intent, philosophy, and common sense, you give rise to 'legal' loopholes where the literal words can be twisted to anyone's desire. That's the nature of written and spoken language. The results go both ways, positive and negative.

Said differently, if you restrict someone from running +.040 pistons by reading the rules as literally and you propose, then you logically run the risk of 6-foot wires being used as 'resistors' in order to move the MAF to a more desireable location. All I'm proposing is a little sanity and common sense enter the discussion. - GA

[tom91ita]

this type of thinking seemed to be behind the spherical bearings & heim joint issues.

heim joint is a name brand for spherical bearings. some of the rules say we can use heim joints. it does not say sperical bearings. i have some aurora spherical bearings on my car.

i will be at cen-div events next summer and if anyone needs an ink pen, i will gladly give, not loan but give, them the pen to write the protest.

[Knestis]

Ack.

Someone willing to push the rules should need to decide which standard he's going to apply. One cannot put forth contrary propositions, that...

1. "Despite the fact that there have never been 40-over pistons made for my engine, the rules infer that it's okay for me have a set made" - an argument grounded in non-literal interpretation of the rules

and...

2. "Since there's no specification for my oversized pistons (since they never existed) I can make them as light as I want" - taking a position possible only through a literal interpretation, grounded in the absence of a specific requirement.

Damn - that made my head hurt.

That's like claiming that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is incorrectly applied by laws intended to protect endgangered species, then ignoring that fundamental presumptive position to support federal laws prohibiting medical uses of marijuana.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 17 2005, 04:31 PM
Ack.

Someone willing to push the rules should need to decide which standard he's going to apply. One cannot put forth contrary propositions, that...

1. "Despite the fact that there have never been 40-over pistons made for my engine, the rules infer that it's okay for me have a set made" - an argument grounded in non-literal interpretation of the rules

and...

2. "Since there's no specification for my oversized pistons (since they never existed) I can make them as light as I want" - taking a position possible only through a literal interpretation, grounded in the absence of a specific requirement.

Damn - that made my head hurt.

That's like claiming that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is incorrectly applied by laws intended to protect endgangered species, then ignoring that fundamental presumptive position to support federal laws prohibiting medical uses of marijuana.
K

65763

I may need to apply for a medical card after reading that......I think you need to have smoked a little bud to understand it. :blink: :119:

[lateapex911]

When I call the electronics supplier to order a resistor, he needs to know the value, the tolerance and the specific type.

What I get is a little device, specifically engineered and designed to alter current flow to a specific value.

When I get a wire, it doesn't have that function...it does have resistance, but it isn't calibrated that at 3 feet long it will provide XX amount of resistance..it isn't designed or sold for that purpose....

The piston rule seems clear, if I was building, and a40 over wasn't available, I would use a 30 or 20, as thats what the rule says...you can't have an exact replacement if there is nothing to match...without making assumptions...

That said, I can see how the intent was something else, and the rule could be read with out a bunch of brain sweat in such a way as to result in an illegal situation.

Changing the rule would result in an ugly scene where the genie gets crammed back in the bottle, which we all know is nearly impossible without his co-operation.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 17 2005, 09:12 PM
Changing the rule would result in an ugly scene where the genie gets crammed back in the bottle, which we all know is nearly impossible without his co-operation.

65796

Well, then, let's stop cramming. By bringing up this overtly-literal "interpretation" of the overbore rule, you are, de facto if not du jure, already changing the rule.

I'm personally aware of more than one person who are driving cars built with +.040 bore pistons that meet the intent of the rule but whose cars' manufacturers do not offer a +.040 bore piston. These folks are as squeaky clean as you can imagine, with pistons that meet every implied intent of the rule, and have made it a specific point to be so. You are now telling them they're illegal.

If this stands, you are asking them to spend FAR more money to "rectify" this situation than what one would have to spend if you rescended the Motec and/or spherical bearings allowances. If you're OK with cramming the +.040" bore genie back into its bottle, then we've got a HELL of a lot more rules to talk about... - GA

[biovic]

So what was the real intent of the original rule? To allow IT cars to overbore the cylinders to give greater displacement and hence power, or was the rule made to allow cylinders to be overbored due to their need to be overbored, due to smoothing of possible scoring of the cylinder walls from high use? If you wanted to freshen up an old block and wanted to smooth out the cylinder walls, then you would have to add larger diameter pistons. That is the reason that car manufacturers make available factory oversized pistons, no? Like for the Hondas/Acuras, the OEM pistons only come in 0. 010 and 0.020 over stock, not 0.040 over. So was the rule written to allow for freshening up of the block a couple times so that you didn't have to buy a new block every time you wanted to do this?
Just asking.

Victor

[RSTPerformance]

As an SIT, I find this discussion very interesting... As of right now I think that Darin is right... I have always questioned it because our Auid's have in the service manual that you can put in .020 and .060 pistons... we can't afford getting any made so the decision was easy, put in .060 pistons :smilie_pokal: (That was a joke, we have been told .020 wontmake much of a difference so we have to date done nothing). Anyway when we have thought about it we certainly questioned the legality of .040 pistons. Darin, sorta glad you brought this up... good discussion, and I think a lot of people are going, oh shit!!! :unsure:

Someone mentioned Hondas and Accuras... maybe this would be a way to slow that dominant breed down a little ;) (another joke... its late, sorry :rolleyes: ).

Anyway, as an SIT that did way to many stewarding jobs this past year I have had the experience of dealing with many teny tiny "technical" issues that I think are far less of an advantage then .020 vs made up .040 pistons. The penalties were severe when I was new and I went with the flow, toward the end of the year I might have suggested less strict penalties (on some issues, but didn't because I thought it was important to follow similar penalties within region at each race every year) when someone obviosly either made a mistake or had a very very valid argument in a "gray" area especialy those that did not in my mind give the compeditors a compeditive advantiage (you would be suprised how many protest are about stupid non-benefiting issues we get sometimes). Anyway you might win a protest with me on this issue (I said might), however I might just suggest a "fix for next race" is documented in the Logbook. The only reason I say that I might consider this is cause I do agree that most view the other interpritation (that you can make pistons that never existed) and think that probably half of our leaders run what I might consider illigal pistons as it for whatever reason has become the "norm" or "accepted practice."

I have to say though I think that a larger piston would have to have a same size/weight ratio as the factor original.

This really has me thinking... how can you make an exact equivelent of something never made???

Raymond "Maybe I should shut up :bash_1_:" Blethen

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 18 2005, 04:24 AM
Well, then, let's stop cramming. By bringing up this overtly-literal "interpretation" of the overbore rule, you are, de facto if not du jure, already changing the rule.

... You are now telling them they're illegal.



65808


Let's make NO mistake about what I've done here... I am not "telling" anybody ANYTHING... I simply reprinted the rule here, then broke it down...

Let's not forget that this rule HASN'T been changed in MANY years, with the exception of adding the words "or forged" to it... You know why that was done, right??? (because people were making ASSUMPTIONS about what the rule "means", and were using forged anyhow...)

It's the creative minds of you-all that has changed how these rules are "accepted" amongst competitors, and the lack of tech that has allowed it to happen...

I still am finding it rather interesting how people want to follow the "letter of the rule" in some cases, and not in others... In this case, it's very clear what the rule SAYs... Unfortunately for many, it doesn't say what they'd like it to say...

As for those who are running well within the presumed "intent" of the rule (again, funny, because many of you same people have argued that we can't go by intent... only what's written...), I tend to agree... Logically, if it were intended for EVERYONE to be able to go .040" over, and it were intended for pistons to be able to be obtained or made in the appropriate equivalent size, then these people are legal... based on "intent"...

It's the ones who take it a step further and claim that in the cases where no factory oversized .040" replacement was available/offered, there are no specs to compare to and therefore, there is no requirement to maintain any "equivalency"... i.e.: .040" lightweight, or otherwise altered pistons...

THAT is where this becomes of issue... It creates outliers in the data that hurts the classification process, and, more importantly, hurts all of you trying to do things the right way, because these outliers become data points that must be taken into consideration... You know, the ones that everyone else says "there's NO WAY they are making that kind of HP..."

[Knestis]

I have to confess that part of my problem is that I was around when the first "national" set of IT rules were written, so what are in fact just intepretations FEEL like long-accepted precedents.

At least in my neck of the woods 20 years ago, the commonly held understanding was that this rule allowed a "forty over" piston, that was of the same design as the OE parts - in terms of skirt length, pin height, ring arrangement, etc. I spent some dough having a set made for the old Renault after a renter blowed it up, so we went thorugh the process of defining all of those things. They were spun out of forged blanks and ended up marginally heavier than the OE parts, so we never felt like we were pushing the limits. This reflects Greg's understanding as well - not surprising 'cause he's an old fart like me.

There's little question in my mind that the roots of the overbore allowance are in the need to clean up damaged cylinders but there's no way to allow it ONLY in these cases.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 18 2005, 01:51 PM
At least in my neck of the woods 20 years ago, the commonly held understanding was that this rule allowed a "forty over" piston, that was of the same design as the OE parts - in terms of skirt length, pin height, ring arrangement, etc.

65837



Kirk,

I agree and we share the same understanding of the rule in this case... It's only in the cases where someone uses the fact that there is NOT a factory replacement available as reasoning to make something other than the specs would limit one to that this really is an issue, because to prevent THIS from happening (via protest, or ???), it brings the specific wording into light, and suddenly those of you out there who are built to the "spirit" of this rule would come into question...

[mowog]

I can honestly see both sides of this, so now I have a different question. How SHOULD the rule be written based on what the competitors want, with input of course from the AC and CRB. I say based on the competitors because ultimately this is a club, and therefore in my opinion the goal shouldn't be nit-picking rules with the intent of protesting others, the preparation rules should be based on creating a level playing field, and contain allowances that participants feel are needed. I know I wouldn't want to play with lots individuals (stewards and competitors) whose sole purpose seems to be disecting rules to the point where everyone eventually quits cause it just isn't fun anymore.

So with that in mind, is it fair for some to be able to bore to .040, and others less, if at all? How many want to move up to Production, or more importantly run both classes? In Prod, you can overbore .047. Cast pistons (few, if any stock pistons are forged) require a fair amount of clearance. Some stock .040 pistons will require enough clearance to make the motor illegal without any wear. After a year or two on most motors bored just to .040, the motors will be worn to illegal limits, and therefore junk because the wear will take them over the .040 limit. This was the reason other classes (Prod and GT to name 2) allowed a little bit of leeway. So now if people can't bore beyond .040, regardless of the stock piston issue, there are going to be some illegal cars out there. Is that what everyone wants? Now look at those wanting to make the jump to Prod, or run both. I really think the rules need to be closer together here to encourage people to run both classes. How about we get back to being a club for the members. Once it's determined what the majority want, then maybe TOGETHER we can work on the wording of the rule(s) to make it clearer for all.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 18 2005, 10:26 AM
I can honestly see both sides of this, so now I have a different question. How SHOULD the rule be written based on what the competitors want, with input of course from the AC and CRB. I say based on the competitors because ultimately this is a club, and therefore in my opinion the goal shouldn't be nit-picking rules with the intent of protesting others, the preparation rules should be based on creating a level playing field, and contain allowances that participants feel are needed. I know I wouldn't want to play with lots individuals (stewards and competitors) whose sole purpose seems to be disecting rules to the point where everyone eventually quits cause it just isn't fun anymore.

So with that in mind, is it fair for some to be able to bore to .040, and others less, if at all? How many want to move up to Production, or more importantly run both classes? In Prod, you can overbore .047. Cast pistons (few, if any stock pistons are forged) require a fair amount of clearance. Some stock .040 pistons will require enough clearance to make the motor illegal without any wear. After a year or two on most motors bored just to .040, the motors will be worn to illegal limits, and therefore junk because the wear will take them over the .040 limit. This was the reason other classes (Prod and GT to name 2) allowed a little bit of leeway. So now if people can't bore beyond .040, regardless of the stock piston issue, there are going to be some illegal cars out there. Is that what everyone wants? Now look at those wanting to make the jump to Prod, or run both. I really think the rules need to be closer together here to encourage people to run both classes. How about we get back to being a club for the members. Once it's determined what the majority want, then maybe TOGETHER we can work on the wording of the rule(s) to make it clearer for all.

65866
Chris the issue I have with that is guys like me will build them to that limit instead of worrying about a worn out bore. I can show you the build sheet for my 1600 roadster pistons if you like. The point is it wouldn't matter the spec, somebody would try to take advantage of it. I pesonally thinkthe option for those that can't get a 040 piston from the factoryis. Submit a request for allowance. Provide specs on the factory STD,.010,.020 including weights. This would allow the adhoc to come up with a spec and add it to the spec line.

[Geo]

Originally posted by mowog+Nov 18 2005, 10:26 AM-->
I can honestly see both sides of this, so now I have a different question. How SHOULD the rule be written based on what the competitors want, with input of course from the AC and CRB. I say based on the competitors because ultimately this is a club, and therefore in my opinion the goal shouldn't be nit-picking rules with the intent of protesting others, the preparation rules should be based on creating a level playing field, and contain allowances that participants feel are needed. [/b]

I agree with you completely. I too see both sides of this. At first I thought Darin was nuts. Then, as I pondered and read more carefully, I think he's right. But I also think Kirk an Greg are right. But then I think Darin is right about trying to match non-existing specs. Clearly a quandry. In the end, whatever happens there is likely to be a group of people who will be quite unhappy.


Originally posted by mowog@Nov 18 2005, 10:26 AM
So with that in mind, is it fair for some to be able to bore to .040, and others less, if at all?

I wonder how the rotary guys feel about this? I wonder how those with carbs feel about ECU allowances for some (actually I don't, it's been covered quite well - this was rhetorical)? In the end there will always be those can take advantage of a rule while others cannot. Unless we want to race spec, this will always be the case.

<!--QuoteBegin-mowog@Nov 18 2005, 10:26 AM
Some stock .040 pistons will require enough clearance to make the motor illegal without any wear. After a year or two on most motors bored just to .040, the motors will be worn to illegal limits, and therefore junk because the wear will take them over the .040 limit. This was the reason other classes (Prod and GT to name 2) allowed a little bit of leeway.


Actually, bores can increase at the same rate at the pistons, so both increase in diameter 0.040" so this is no mismatch of piston to bore regarding legality.

Hey, if someone builds a fresh engine to 0.040" over and it wears beyond the limit, thems the breaks for racing on the edge. I feel no sympathy. They knew that was a possibility before they started. AS for allowing boring beyond 0.040" to allow for greater wear, at what point do we stop? When the 0.047" pistons wear, will Production increase the limit? I doubt it.


Originally posted by mowog@Nov 18 2005, 10:26 AM
So now if people can&#39;t bore beyond .040, regardless of the stock piston issue, there are going to be some illegal cars out there. Is that what everyone wants?
65866


I&#39;m not seeing the issue here. See above.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 18 2005, 12:24 AM
Well, then, let&#39;s stop cramming. By bringing up this overtly-literal "interpretation" of the overbore rule, you are, de facto if not du jure, already changing the rule.

I&#39;m personally aware of more than one person who are driving cars built with +.040 bore pistons that meet the intent of the rule but whose cars&#39; manufacturers do not offer a +.040 bore piston. These folks are as squeaky clean as you can imagine, with pistons that meet every implied intent of the rule, and have made it a specific point to be so. You are now telling them they&#39;re illegal.

If this stands, you are asking them to spend FAR more money to "rectify" this situation than what one would have to spend if you rescended the Motec and/or spherical bearings allowances. If you&#39;re OK with cramming the +.040" bore genie back into its bottle, then we&#39;ve got a HELL of a lot more rules to talk about... - GA

65808



Greg,

The rule is pretty clear. It says "Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used." If you can&#39;t get something that meets that rule, and elect to use just any .040-over piston that fits, you are putting yourself at risk. And in the case you cited above, they are in fact in violation of the rule. How much it would cost them to bring their motor into compliance really has no bearing on the subject, and is a risk that you accept when you make your own interpretations of what rules &#39;really mean&#39;. And while it&#39;s not really germane to the discussion, what&#39;s a fresh short block cost, vs. the MoTeC system? I&#39;d really be surprised if the short block cost FAR more than a MoTeC. Same ballpark (~$2500?) maybe.

[Greg Amy]

Sorry, Bill, but in lieu of a point-by-point reply, I&#39;m just gonna say "you&#39;re full of water". Overboring +.040 has been "legal" for EVERYONE since at least 1984 when I started racing IT (and I&#39;ve got a copy of the rulebook somewhere around here).

You wanna start "interpreting" the rules differently than the to-most-folks-obvious intent, you&#39;re free to do so, but until you drop the $25 it&#39;ll be nothing more than an Internet forum pissing match... - GA

[dj10]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 18 2005, 10:58 AM
Kirk,

I agree and we share the same understanding of the rule in this case... It&#39;s only in the cases where someone uses the fact that there is NOT a factory replacement available as reasoning to make something other than the specs would limit one to that this really is an issue, because to prevent THIS from happening (via protest, or ???), it brings the specific wording into light, and suddenly those of you out there who are built to the "spirit" of this rule would come into question...

65853


Darin,
You&#39;ve seen all these posts, my question is since you are on the board, what do you propose now? :D
dj

[Knestis]

Having thunk a little more about this point, it hit me. IT JUST DOESN&#39;T MATTER what the rules say!

The culture of IT is such that it&#39;s going to take a pretty huge kerfuffle for a protest to ever get to the point of SEEING a set of pistons - let alone actually weighing or measuring them. The de facto solution is that each of us runs what might be consistent with our values and view on the rules, or what we think we can get away with.

My last engine had the original, 129K-mile slugs. The new one will have silly-expensive, German quality factory oversize units. Neither decision was based on a strict reading of the rules, I&#39;m afraid. The guy who would have ordered super-light, forged, extra-zoomy pistons for the same engine would have done so whatever the rule says.

Kirk (who is getting less NERDLY every day)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 19 2005, 11:52 AM
Having thunk a little more about this point, it hit me. IT JUST DOESN&#39;T MATTER what the rules say!

The culture of IT is such that it&#39;s going to take a pretty huge kerfuffle for a protest to ever get to the point of SEEING a set of pistons - let alone actually weighing or measuring them. The de facto solution is that each of us runs what might be consistent with our values and view on the rules, or what we think we can get away with.

My last engine had the original, 129K-mile slugs. The new one will have silly-expensive, German quality factory oversize units. Neither decision was based on a strict reading of the rules, I&#39;m afraid. The guy who would have ordered super-light, forged, extra-zoomy pistons for the same engine would have done so whatever the rule says.

Kirk (who is getting less NERDLY every day)

65973


Ya but there are SOME of us who want the zoomiest stuff WHILE being within the rules. I take no pride in winning while cheating. It&#39;s empty and shallow.

I have decided to buy the Mazda .020 factory overbore pistons from Mazdacomp. $40 each. For me to have .040 versions made that are NOT lighter than a stock slug is WAY too expensive for the benefit I would get from the extra .020. Plus it allows me to overbore this block again when I pop it trying to keep up with the HondAcuras. :)

It&#39;s been a good debate. People will do what they want, you are right Kirk, but hopefully, if the rules are clear, more people will follow them.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 10:28 AM
Ya but there are SOME of us who want the zoomiest stuff WHILE being within the rules. I take no pride in winning while cheating. It&#39;s empty and shallow.

I have decided to buy the Mazda .020 factory overbore pistons from Mazdacomp. $40 each. For me to have .040 versions made that are NOT lighter than a stock slug is WAY too expensive for the benefit I would get from the extra .020. Plus it allows me to overbore this block again when I pop it trying to keep up with the HondAcuras. :)

It&#39;s been a good debate. People will do what they want, you are right Kirk, but hopefully, if the rules are clear, more people will follow them.

AB

65976



Just a thought here. All else being the same. .040 is worth .1 compression points on a L24 Datsun over .020..

[lateapex911]

Well, thats the nut of it all, right? If you can take advantage of the extra displacement, what do we really get?? How much torqe and power does it result in? And of course, what does that mean to lap times?

Yes, Kirk, of course it is a moot point among a certain part of the group, but I think there is a large group that uses the rules as the fromework for the build. If there is any ambiguity and it can be cleared up, then it should be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 05:06 PM
Just a thought here. All else being the same. .040 is worth .1 compression points on a L24 Datsun over .020..

65999


Can&#39;t I max out my .5 point increase when I *true* the head under ITCS D.1.l?

I don&#39;t think I should be giving away anything other than the displacement right?

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 04:25 PM
Can&#39;t I max out my .5 point increase when I *true* the head under ITCS D.1.l?

I don&#39;t think I should be giving away anything other than the displacement right?

AB

66003

Andy I have not CC&#39;ed a Miata head so I cant tell you the combustion chamber shape and how much you would need to take off to get to the max compression. Be sure to optimize your deck height before cutting the head. I also am not sure that the total displacement will out do the extra weight of the piston.

Andy sorry If I am confused but I think your doing an 1800 miata?

1839 stock displacement
1861 .020 displacement
1884 .040 displacement

23cc less displacement.............will it matter at 8000 rpm?

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 17 2005, 11:26 AM
Again, that&#39;s BS! A wire is a wire... a resistor is a resistor...

65688


So, if I just happen to use a piece of nichrome WIRE as a "professional" replacement for the connection between my coolant temp sensor and my ECU, that&#39;s acceptable, right??

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 05:06 PM
Just a thought here. All else being the same. .040 is worth .1 compression points on a L24 Datsun over .020..

65999


Which is why "OEM" OS pistons have slightly more dish than stock pistons - therefore the "dome / dish" doesn&#39;t not EXACTLY meet stock spec - which means that even the manufacturers&#39; replacement OS pistons are illegal, by the strictest interpretation. The tops of most OEM-supplied OS pistons DO NOT exactly match the factory-installed ones, and there is more difference in the 1mm OS than there is in the .50mm OS.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Nov 21 2005, 09:58 AM
Which is why "OEM" OS pistons have slightly more dish than stock pistons - therefore the "dome / dish" doesn&#39;t not EXACTLY meet stock spec - which means that even the manufacturers&#39; replacement OS pistons are illegal, by the strictest interpretation. The tops of most OEM-supplied OS pistons DO NOT exactly match the factory-installed ones, and there is more difference in the 1mm OS than there is in the .50mm OS.

66145

I disagree. If the OEM replacement is the proper factory manual part number and tolerance it is completely legal. Some OE&#39;s decreased dome size or increased dish size to correct compression as part of a rebuild. Remember same late cars run pretty close to the edge as far as fuel goes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Nov 21 2005, 11:58 AM
Which is why "OEM" OS pistons have slightly more dish than stock pistons - therefore the "dome / dish" doesn&#39;t not EXACTLY meet stock spec - which means that even the manufacturers&#39; replacement OS pistons are illegal, by the strictest interpretation. The tops of most OEM-supplied OS pistons DO NOT exactly match the factory-installed ones, and there is more difference in the 1mm OS than there is in the .50mm OS.

66145


I disagree. It says specifically that factory overbore pistons may be used...or THEIR exact replacements...not that the FOB pistons have to be exact duplicates of the originals.

I think we should clean up the rule. It should allow an overbore up-to .040 using FRP or their exact equivilants. When a FPR is not available in the size you want, you may have one made - but the stipulation then becomes it can&#39;t be any lighter than the factory-standard-sized unit - as well as being exact in every other way...

This cleans up the thought process out there that &#39;if there is no spec to design too, I can do what I want&#39; - eliminating lightweight pistons from even entering someones &#39;creative&#39; mind.

Right now, original intent or not, I don&#39;t see how anything but FRP or there exact equivilants can be used. If we want to match the rule to what some perceive as the intent, we can...but we will need some support.

AB

[Greg Amy]

If you guys wanna play word games, chew on this:

The rule states "Factory oversize replacement pistons (FORP) or their exact equivalent shall be used." Your position seems to be that if the factory did not offer +0.040"/1mm oversize pistons for your car, you cannot use them.

However, since we&#39;re getting down to the nitty-gritty of the words, remember that our rules are &#39;if it doesn&#39;t say you can, you cannot&#39;. Also note that once a modification is allowed, &#39;if it doesn&#39;t say you cannot, you (bloody well) can.&#39;** Finally, since FORPs are allowed and the rules state specific minimum requirements for these pistons, where does the rule state that these factory oversize pistons have to be from the same market/car?

Example: I want to overhaul an Acura Integra engine, but the factory seems to only provide 1/2mm overbore pistons. Or does it? For that exact same engine as used in Japan (same engine code, let&#39;s say) - but in the JDM Civic - Honda supplies both 1/2mm and 1mm overbore pistons. Therefore, I can use these pistons legally in IT, because:

1) They are (less than) +0.040" overbore,
2) They are supplied by "the factory".
3) They meet all the subsequent criteria.

Bottom line, oversize pistons - or their exact equivalents - are allowed if supplied by the factory and meet the subsequent criteria ("...shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration..., etc). Further, I can legally make aftermarket equivalents to those pistons as well. Therefore, these JDM pistons are totally legal on the Honda.

Hell if you REALLY want to play the wordsmith games, where does it even indicate these pistons have to even come from the same engine? All they have to be in order to be legal is "factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent..." Given that truck-sized loophole, why can&#39;t I use super-trick pistons from the Honda NSX?

Oh, I can see it now: the response of "That&#39;s Bullshit!" Yeah, well, prove me wrong. Remember what I wrote earlier, folks: playing these silly word games works both ways, and you may have just opened up a hole that someone will drive a toter home through... - GA


**Quoting a great IT.com philosopher... ;)

[Bill Miller]

All they have to be in order to be legal is "factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent..." Given that truck-sized loophole, why can&#39;t I use super-trick and super-lightweight oversize pistons from the Honda NSX?


Greg,

Because that&#39;s where you cross the line of &#39;strained and tortured&#39; interpretation.

[Greg Amy]

Oh? And how does one prove this? Are you going to protest someone for GCR 1.2.4 because they "tortured" the interpretation of the rules, while trying to also tell the scrutineer that this particular car cannot overbore +0.040" like the others in its class? Can you really say that with a straight face, given the discussions in this thread, not to mention other allowed mods that are "acceptable" (e.g., spherical suspension bushings, MoTec, etc)?

GCR 1.2.4 reads, in part, "The GCR shall not be given a strained or tortured interpretation and shall be applied in a logical manner, keeping in mind that it cannot specifically cover all possible situations." "Strained and tortured", my friends, is a red herring and completely unenforeable and has, historically, been ignored. It is the &#39;last bastion&#39; of a debator with no logical standing. ;)

Best of luck if you try a protest on it.

Your appeal is not well founded, and your thread returned to you. Next? - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 11:30 AM
Oh? And how does one prove this? Are you going to protest someone for GCR 1.2.4 because they "tortured" the interpretation of the rules, while trying to also tell the scrutineer that this particular car cannot overbore +0.040" like the others in its class? Can you really say that with a straight face, given the discussions in this thread, not to mention other allowed mods that are "acceptable" (e.g., spherical suspension bushings, MoTec, etc)?

GCR 1.2.4 reads, in part, "The GCR shall not be given a strained or tortured interpretation and shall be applied in a logical manner, keeping in mind that it cannot specifically cover all possible situations." "Strained and tortured", my friends, is a red herring and completely unenforeable and has, historically, been ignored. It is the &#39;last bastion&#39; of a debator with no logical standing. ;)

Best of luck if you try a protest on it.

Your appeal is not well founded, and your thread returned to you. Next? - GA

66167


All they have to be in order to be legal is "factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent..." Given that truck-sized loophole, why can&#39;t I use super-trick pistons from the Honda NSX?Um I think we are forgetting the factory manual requirement.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 12:35 PM
Um I think we are forgetting the factory manual requirement.

66169


No, Joe, I haven&#39;t forgotten anything. Explain to me how the factory manual is relevant? The rules allow something (FORPs), with no reference to the factory manual, the vehicle, the engine, anything. How does the FSM resolve this when its reference is no longer valid?

I think this is gonna be fun...

Next?

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

What we are debating here, is not the intent of the rule. I&#39;m right there w/ you, and agree that everyone should be allowed to bore their motor .040" over. I&#39;ve already said that. What&#39;s at issue here, is what exactly allowed, vis-a-vis the written rule. The way the rule is written, if you don&#39;t have a factory spec for an .040" over piston, you can&#39;t run one, by the letter of the rule. I&#39;m all for taking a pragmatic approach to things, but what we&#39;re trying to do here, is figure out how to change the wording of the rule to allow everyone to do it, but make it fair to everyone at the same time. At least that&#39;s what I think Darin&#39;s intention was.

What&#39;s a red herring here, is you using issues that are already addressed in the GCR. Do I think spherical bearings constitute bushings? Hell no, but that&#39;s already been ruled on. I don&#39;t agree w/ the decision, but it&#39;s been made. Same goes w/ MoTeC et. al. I don&#39;t agree w/ it, but the ruling has been made. No such ruling has been made in the case at hand.

And you just supported my arguement. Find me someone that thinks it&#39;s a logical arguement to use a piston from another make/model just because it came out of the same factory. But, if we&#39;re tightening up rules, it shouldn&#39;t take much to add the extension "for the same make/model/displacement." to "Factory oversize replacement pistons (FORP) or their exact equivalent shall be used."

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 11:39 AM
No, Joe, I haven&#39;t forgotten anything. Explain to me how the factory manual is relevant? The rules allow something (FORPs), with no reference to the factory manual, the vehicle, the engine, anything. How does the FSM resolve this when its reference is no longer valid?

I think this is gonna be fun...

Next?

66170



Greg, Where do you think the specs for the protest are gonna come from? When I protest you for .040 pistons I am gonna also include the in the protest the factory manual requirement. You can&#39;t just make up a spec for a piston that does not exist in the factory manual. The factory manual also provides proper limitations for reconditioning of the engine. The word maydoes not overide the requirement for a factory spec to cover it.

O and BTW I would prefer we have a 040 spec for everyone so we don&#39;t have an issue.

[Greg Amy]

Whoa, whoa, wait a second, Bill: are we debating the logical meaning of the rules, keeping in mind the philosophy of the class and the most logical original intent of the rulesmakers? Or, are we arguing the (idiotic) extreme literal interpretation of the rules as they are written today?

If we are arguing the former, then this whole (four page now) thread is utterly pointless and wasted, for anyone with a reasonable and logical brain understands that any engine can be overbored +0.040". However, if we are arguing the latter then it only follows that Honda NSX JDM pistons (as an example) are legal in the Acura Integra...

So, which is it, brother? You just can&#39;t have it both ways... - GA

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 12:47 PM
Greg, Where do you think the specs for the protest are gonna come from?
66174

That&#39;s exactly my point, Joe: using the idiotic extreme literal interpretation of the written words, there are no specs for replacement pistons! As long as I can produce a "factory oversize replacement piston" that fits within the allowed bore and keeps the compression within 1/2 point of original, they are totally legal. It simply doesn&#39;t matter what the original engine&#39;s specs were; once that sentence was added it becomes a free-for-all, limited only by the subsequent requirements and the remainder of the ITCS.

Thanks for playing, try again. ;) - GA

[Bill Miller]

Well Greg, there&#39;s the rub. Are those whiz-bang NSX pistons listed as a replacement piston for the Acura? If not, you can&#39;t use them. Just because they happen to be the same size, doesn&#39;t make them a &#39;replacement&#39; piston for the application in question. If you&#39;re going to claim that these are &#39;factory replacement&#39; pistons, you need some documentation that they are a replacement for the application in question.



You&#39;re right, this is fun! :023: :happy204: NEXT!

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 12:59 PM
Are those whiz-bang NSX pistons listed as a replacement piston for the Acura?

No, and they don&#39;t have to be; that&#39;s my point! Where in the IT piston rule does it specify they have to be a replacement for the Acura Integra? You&#39;re &#39;assuming facts not in evidence&#39;, Bill. Nowhere in the ITCS rule does it state - or even imply - that those "factory oversize replacement pistons" have to be originally intended for the Acura Integra.

So, if you protest me, saying I am not running legal pistons, and I produce one and say "this is what I am using, and it is a factory oversize replacement piston" and I provide the documentation proving that it is, truly, a FORP (despite being a FORP for an NSX), how am I illegal?


...doesn&#39;t make them a &#39;replacement&#39; piston for the application in question. (You must prove they) are a replacement for the application in question.


Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Where is that requirement in the ITCS? Remember, "FORPs" are allowed, and unless further restricted are wide open...

So, are we being logical, or are we being literate?

Check, fast approaching -mate... - GA


P.S. I feel sorry for all those that actually have to WORK this week...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 12:09 PM
No, and they don&#39;t have to be; that&#39;s my point! Where in the IT piston rule does it specify they have to be a replacement for the Acura Integra? You&#39;re &#39;assuming facts not in evidence&#39;, Bill. Nowhere in the ITCS rule does it state - or even imply - that those "factory oversize replacement pistons" have to be originally intended for the Acura Integra.

So, if you protest me, saying I am not running legal pistons, and I produce one and say "this is what I am using, and it is a factory oversize replacement piston" and I provide the documentation proving that it is, truly, a FORP (despite being a FORP for an NSX), how am I illegal?
Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Where is that requirement in the ITCS? Remember, "FORPs" are allowed, and unless further restricted are wide open...

So, are we being logical, or are we being literate?

Check, fast approaching -mate... - GA
P.S. I feel sorry for all those that actually have to WORK this week...

66181
I am not gonna type it so go read it complete .17.1.4c Checkmate pal... ;)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 01:20 PM
I am not gonna type it so go read it complete .17.1.4c Checkmate pal... ;)

66182

Sorry, Joe, there&#39;s nothing in there that disallows what I&#39;m suggesting.

Para. 1, requirement to publish specs? Not relevant.

Para. 2, updating and backdating of components and assemblies? Not relevant. This section is in regards to swapping STOCK parts and assemblies between vehicles, but ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j allows the replacement pistons; that trumps this paragraph.

Para. 2, source for stock replacement parts? Not relevant, same as above. ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j trumps it.

Para. 3, requirement for a shop manual? Not relevant.

Para. 4, VIN requirement? Not relevant.

Para. 5, minimum weight? Not relevant.

Para. 6, initial vehicle classification requirements? Not relevant.

Para. 7, reclassification/weights/restrictors? Not relevant.

Let&#39;s even step back one: read 17.1.4.B, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage." Guess what? 17.1.4.D.1.j allows this...

So just where is that checkmate, my friend? the board looks awfully tilted in my favor still. Good try, though, you get nerdie points for that. ;) - GA

[Greg Amy]

Let me just nip further discussion in the bud: you won&#39;t find a way to refute this. Trsut me: you can try, and I&#39;ll respond to you, but it&#39;s clear: if you were to take this discussion to its idiotic literal extreme as is has been going over the last few days, I could literally justify a CHEVY "factory oversize replacement piston" used in an Acura. Taken to the literal extreme, it&#39;s completely legal.

But is it "right"? Of course it&#39;s not.

I just wasted a few minutes (hours?) of your time to demonstrate a point, that if you try to read into the rules something that&#39;s not there, it will bite you. By trying to literally interpret the rules in order to "legally" find against someone that is trying to use logically illegal parts (e.g., lightweight pistons, improper ring sizes), you&#39;re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is, you need that baby - reasonable logic, as is described in GCR 1.2.4 - in order to justify a whole lotta other rules. Do I believe it&#39;s within the intent, philosophy, and spirit of the rules (IPSOTR) to run Chevy or NSX pistons in an Integra? Of course not. Do I believe it&#39;s within the IPSOTR to run lightweight overbore pistons or incorrect ring lands if the factory doesn&#39;t offer them? Of course not.

But, do I believe it&#39;s within the IPSOTR to block someone from running +0.040" pistons as long as they meet the factory physical characteristics of the stock piston, save bore diameter? OF COURSE NOT.

If you try to enforce that last point by literally interpreting the rules, you leave yourself open to other people literally interpreting other rules to their advantage. By doing so you create an environment of entrants who have seen where those in charge decide to do this to their advantage, "so why can&#39;t I"? Good for the goose, good for the gander, right?

Don&#39;t go there folks. Don&#39;t open yourself up to such silly things, because once that Pandora&#39;s box has been opened (further), it will get totally out of hand, MUCH worse than what I&#39;ve been describing. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 01:01 PM
Let me just nip further discussion in the bud: you won&#39;t find a way to refute this. Trsut me: you can try, and I&#39;ll respond to you, but it&#39;s clear: if you were to take this discussion to its idiotic literal extreme as is has been going over the last few days, I could literally justify a CHEVY "factory oversize replacement piston" used in an Acura. Taken to the literal extreme, it&#39;s completely legal.

But is it "right"? Of course it&#39;s not.

I just wasted a few minutes (hours?) of your time to demonstrate a point, that if you try to read into the rules something that&#39;s not there, it will bite you. By trying to literally interpret the rules in order to "legally" find against someone that is trying to use logically illegal parts (e.g., lightweight pistons, improper ring sizes), you&#39;re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is, you need that baby - reasonable logic, as is described in GCR 1.2.4 - in order to justify a whole lotta other rules. Do I believe it&#39;s within the intent, philosophy, and spirit of the rules (IPSOTR) to run Chevy or NSX pistons in an Integra? Of course not. Do I believe it&#39;s within the IPSOTR to run lightweight overbore pistons or incorrect ring lands if the factory doesn&#39;t offer them? Of course not.

But, do I believe it&#39;s within the IPSOTR to block someone from running +0.040" pistons as long as they meet the factory physical characteristics of the stock piston, save bore diameter? OF COURSE NOT.

If you try to enforce that last point by literally interpreting the rules, you leave yourself open to other people literally interpreting other rules to their advantage. By doing so you create an environment of entrants who have seen where those in charge decide to do this to their advantage, "so why can&#39;t I"? Good for the goose, good for the gander, right?

Don&#39;t go there folks. Don&#39;t open yourself up to such silly things, because once that Pandora&#39;s box has been opened (further), it will get totally out of hand, MUCH worse than what I&#39;ve been describing. - GA

66191


I guess we agee to disagree until the protest happens because I think there is enough reference to the factory manual and factory replacement parts and specs for the model that I will make enough of a case to win a protest.

You have to make a stretch to get to a factory part being any factory blah,blah. I have 125 bucks wanna share in the COA ruling. Looser pays the second half back?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 02:15 PM
I have 125 bucks wanna share in the COA ruling. Looser pays the second half back?

66192

Bravado doesn&#39;t work on me, Joe; besides, I typically don&#39;t respond until the taunting gets to the "triple-dog-dare-you" stage.

However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 01:27 PM
Bravado doesn&#39;t work on me, Joe; besides, I typically don&#39;t respond until the taunting gets to the "triple-dog-dare-you" stage.

However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

66194



Greg, I am not trying to exclude anyone. Second it was not a dare it was an offer to secure a ruling. The second part was a bet do we need to look up the definition of bet?

I think everyone should be able to legally bore .040 over the standard bore given in the factory manual for their make model and color and weight and date of construction for said vehicle. I agree with the absurd way rules get tortured but let me say I specifically asked about this one based on an engine I may be building and believe after a complete reading that Darin has read the rule correct.

[Knestis]

Veddy interrresting.

The problem here is that the only really good solution would be a REAL re-write of the pertinent bits. The addition of "clarifying" language simply puts more specific fodder for literal interpretation into play, methinks.

K

[HOOSER 99]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 08:27 PM


However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

66194


I think changing the rule so everyone has the same option is the only way to do this. Leaving it up to the COA could result in an answer nobody wants.(remember functional reverse gear protest in Prod a few years ago?)
jerry

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by HOOSER 99@Nov 21 2005, 11:39 PM
I think changing the rule so everyone has the same option is the only way to do this. Leaving it up to the COA could result in an answer nobody wants.(remember functional reverse gear protest in Prod a few years ago?)
jerry

66245


Damn Jerry, I thought I was the only one that remembered that!!! :023:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 11:43 PM
Damn Jerry, I thought I was the only one that remembered that!!! :023:

66246


Oh, I am sure my friends on the CRB will NEVER forget that one!

(Wasn&#39;t it the case where the rule said you had to have a functional reverse, so a competitor rigged up a way to get a 5 speed with the shift lever, but you had to get under the car and change something with a wrench to get the car in reverse??)

It was...functional...

The CRB, as I recall, rolled their eyes, and used the word "tortured" more than once, and in several contexts....

[lateapex911]

Regarding the piston debacle...

Do we like the idea that big engine shops are building 40 over pistons to their own specs where no factory part exists...(because with nothing to match, it&#39;s all good to go, LOL)?

Well, we&#39;d be fools to think that, regardless of intent or philopsphy, that it aint happening. It sure as hell is, and I *bet* there are guys out there with nice 40 over, but lightweight pistons that have no idea they have them....but their builder does...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 21 2005, 09:47 PM
Regarding the piston debacle...

Do we like the idea that big engine shops are building 40 over pistons to their own specs where no factory part exists...(because with nothing to match, it&#39;s all good to go, LOL)?

Well, we&#39;d be fools to think that, regardless of intent or philopsphy, that it aint happening. It sure as hell is, and I *bet* there are guys out there with nice 40 over, but lightweight pistons that have no idea they have them....but their builder does...

66252



I&#39;ll go you one better. I bet there are guys out there that do know they have them and they&#39;ll be the ones kickin dirt. ;)

[lateapex911]

LOL, well I was trying to take the high road, but I&#39;ll go YOU one better and say there are probably enough of both...

;)

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 11:42 AM
What&#39;s a red herring here, is you using issues that are already addressed in the GCR. Do I think spherical bearings constitute bushings? Hell no, but that&#39;s already been ruled on. I don&#39;t agree w/ the decision, but it&#39;s been made. Same goes w/ MoTeC et. al. I don&#39;t agree w/ it, but the ruling has been made.
66172


Ah... but..... (and NOT taking sides - I&#39;m on the fence)

Like in the US courts, the court may rule on the law as it exists (excluding constitutionality which for which there is no real equivilent here), but law makers can certainly change the laws to refine them.

But your point is of course correct, rulings in the above cases have already been made, but in the current case none have. Very good points Bill.

[Geo]

Interesting discussion and since it has gone beyond practical, I&#39;ll throw a few things into the mix.

1) The FSM is worthless in most cases to establish correct piston specs. The factory doesn&#39;t need to. They already know them. Things like dish volume, ring spacing, and God forbid, weight, are simply not going to be there. So, that leaves acquiring a sample and assuming that example of one is OK if we allow some arbitrarily arrived at (and immediately, not through rules making) allowances for deviation from the factory. It only gets uglier from there.

2) I am not a lawyer (I know we have some here), but somewhere in the cobwebs of my brain I think there is something somewhere in US law (just for a basis, not that US law applies here) that says if there is some common interpretation of a law in general acceptance it effectively becomes the standard to be applied. Perhaps this isn&#39;t true, but I have some vauge recollection of something like this. How does this apply you might ask? Well if it indeed exists and we apply the same sort of thinking, if people have accepted 0.040" overbore pistons for years regardless of availablility of OEM replacements, then it would in fact become law.

Any lawyers able to confirm or send me down in flames?......

[RSTPerformance]

Just an FYI:

When the SOM review a protest they look at that individual protest, we may or may not take into consideration a prior ruling (to keep consistancy within a region/track/group/scca/etc.), however in most cases we have no actual knowledge of any prior protests and we do not base any of our decision on what someone might say was a prior ruling. Each determination is strictly OUR interpretation of the GCR. If you want something that is "grey" to be black and white then get it made black or white and file a 13.9 in the GCR and get a ruling from Topika.

I am not sure why people don&#39;t understand this, but prior determinations hold absolutely no bearing... As with drivers sometimes stewards don&#39;t agree, and it is the SOM of each event that will make thier independent determination.

Raymond "good luck" Blethen

PS: also on an "accepted practice" argument might work wiith some, but I can guarentee that it wont work for others... for me (If i agree from a drivers standpoint on it), it might help make the penalty less harsh for being illigal, but it wont make something illigal legal.

[Super7]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 23 2005, 05:33 AM
I am not sure why people don&#39;t understand this, but prior determinations hold absolutely no bearing... As with drivers sometimes stewards don&#39;t agree, and it is the SOM of each event that will make thier independent determination.


IIRC, this was an issue that the COA ruled on a few (many) years back, and it didn&#39;t result in a rule change, so the ruling is moot in the case of a new protest.

COA rulings only set precedence for this year, (or so I&#39;ve been told) and if the rules don&#39;t change as a rusult of the COA decision, then at the end of the year, thats the end of it. The COA may rule differently in following years on the exact same protest. Like the Supreme Court, the membership of the COA does change over time.

Now, about the question asked:

IIRC, in the past, the COA has ruled that if the factory only provided pistons that were .010 and .020 over, than that was it, .040 was not allowed by any tortured reading of the rules. I remember reading the COA letter that we get for the protest. (We (actually, my better half) get copies of all the COA rullings that deal with any NEDIV drivers. We have for the last 12 or so years.)

Use that as a data point, not as the rule, as future COA rulings may reverse that decision.

(Side note: They also ruled on tortured reading of the rules, in one case of a driver claiming that a lead plug with a tiny hole drilled in it was a "bushing", and since in his class bushings were free, it was allowed. That falicy cost him about $500 and a podium at the Runoffs, IIRC. Or the driver who used a window net that was solid, and claimed it was a mirror. Or any of the other drivers who claimed things like that a 20 foot long wire was a resistor. The COA doen&#39;t put up with many silly arguments. :bash_1_: )

[Knestis]

Just for giggles, here&#39;s the parallel rule for NASA Honda Challenge. The HC rules were originally a direct derivative of the ITCS, with fixes where the inventors thought they were necessary:

7.1 c) Factory replacement pistons or the exact equivalent shall be used. Exact equivalent shall be defined as the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, weight, ring thickness and location, and pin location as the OEM replacement piston. Wrist pins and method of retention must also conform to OEM specifications. In the event that a .040 factory replacement piston/wrist pin is not available, the oversize pistons/wrist pins shall not weigh any less than the largest size OEM piston for that engine. d) Piston rings are unrestricted but must be of proper OEM ring thickness. (Emphasis mine)

K

[bldn10]

"COA rulings only set precedence for this year, (or so I&#39;ve been told) and if the rules don&#39;t change as a rusult of the COA decision, then at the end of the year, thats the end of it. The COA may rule differently in following years on the exact same protest."

I am unaware of any provision in the GCR or elsewhere that makes ANY ruling by ANY body in the SCCA precedential. COA opinions are not searchable or even archived to my knowledge. IMO COA opinions should be precedential and, w/ today&#39;s technology, a searchable database of opinions is not impracticable. W/ precedential opinions we would reduce the amount of diametrically inconsistent outcomes and over time add some clarity to many of our rules that are so vague as to be practically worthless. Such as the passing rules.

[RSTPerformance]

"I am unaware of any provision in the GCR or elsewhere that makes ANY ruling by ANY body in the SCCA precedential. COA opinions are not searchable or even archived to my knowledge."

Correct.


"IMO COA opinions should be precedential and, w/ today&#39;s technology, a searchable database of opinions is not impracticable. W/ precedential opinions we would reduce the amount of diametrically inconsistent outcomes and over time add some clarity to many of our rules that are so vague as to be practically worthless. Such as the passing rules."

A ) How would this archived data be accessable to the SOMs at each event? Will laptops be supplied with the data in a searchable format?

B ) Multiple events per weekend could have the same protest across the country. Does the first completed protest hold the precedence? What if both rulings are different?

C ) Do you really think that all the SOM&#39;s and compeditors whom are protested should set our rules??? These interpretations I think can be made poorly and many times go undisputed just caused some people are here for fun and don&#39;t find it worth the argument. I know for sure, I DON&#39;T want the SOMs to have this power (and I am one sometimes!!!).

I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference). Prior rulings are and should be more important. The decisions are made most of the time by people who are knowledgable and who are trying to enforce an fun and even playing field. I can&#39;t stress enough though that I think T\the rulings should not be precedent setting and should be a reference only for the SOMs. This would help educate some SOMs who might not have the knowledge (sometimes these things can be difficult to understand) and it may also help in a needed attemp of consistancy accross the country.

Raymond "I had forgoten about this fun thread" Blethen

[Knestis]

A ) How would this archived data be accessable to the SOMs at each event? Will laptops be supplied with the data in a searchable format?

Write the policy so that the COA precedent database is effective for any given race weekend at 8:00am on the Thursday before that event. Use XML to provide printer-friendly versions of the cumulative dataset and stipulate that it be the responsibility of the tech shed boss to have a copy of that week&#39;s version on hand at the track.


B ) Multiple events per weekend could have the same protest across the country. Does the first completed protest hold the precedence? What if both rulings are different?

But the COA doesn&#39;t meet every weekend. I don&#39;t think the suggestion here is that individual stewards&#39; rulings, at events, would set precedent. Instead, Court of Appeals findings would do so. Totally workable since they are a body unto themselves.


C ) Do you really think that all the SOM&#39;s and compeditors whom are protested should set our rules??? These interpretations I think can be made poorly and many times go undisputed just caused some people are here for fun and don&#39;t find it worth the argument. I know for sure, I DON&#39;T want the SOMs to have this power (and I am one sometimes!!!).

We don&#39;t have any choice in the matter - protests and appeals are real-world applicaitons of the rules, so it makes complete sense that they should be part of the process, rather than randomly reactive to it. The COA is SCCA&#39;s judicial, to the CRB which is our legislative branch.


I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference). Prior rulings are and should be more important.

Making them "more important" without carrying the weight of policy is just asking for more trouble, in my opinion. It would give everyone ammo to support whatever position they want to get behind, without any expectation that they do so consistently or fairly. I totally agree that all protests should be available for review however, for the purpose of education that you describe, and to make it clear how wacky things might look when viewed from beyond a regional level.[/quote]

Back to our regularly scheduled topic.

K

[RSTPerformance]

Kirk-

Agreed COA&#39;s should be presedent setting, afterall the COA rulings should be setting a standard across the country. COA rulings are generally at every race as they are in fast track (right?). I would think that someone at the track always has the fast tracks on hand. This year I will keep my electronic copy of the GCR along with my Fast Tracks with me at every event that I am an SOM I would also suggest that any compeditor have the fast tracks with them in case of a protest ruling that they might want to reference.

Taking it the further step that I mentioned, regular protest rulings from SOMs should be reference only. ALL should be in a database for reference to all members.

Raymond

[Greg Amy]

COA rulings are currently de facto precedent, in that:

- Most people interested in the process read them, including competitors and tech inspectors,
- Based on that reading, competiotrs and/or tech inspectors will probably act accordingly,
- Should a competitor get protested/bounced for the same infraction and choose to appeal, the result is expected to be the same.

True, these items may not make it into a subsequent GCR, but there&#39;s no indication that this result doesn&#39;t become a "de facto precedent". - GA

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 05:37 PM
Just for giggles, here&#39;s the parallel rule for NASA Honda Challenge. The HC rules were originally a direct derivative of the ITCS, with fixes where the inventors thought they were necessary:

7.1 c) Factory replacement pistons or the exact equivalent shall be used. Exact equivalent shall be defined as the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, weight, ring thickness and location, and pin location as the OEM replacement piston. Wrist pins and method of retention must also conform to OEM specifications. In the event that a .040 factory replacement piston/wrist pin is not available, the oversize pistons/wrist pins shall not weigh any less than the largest size OEM piston for that engine. d) Piston rings are unrestricted but must be of proper OEM ring thickness. (Emphasis mine)

K

67778



We did over 4 pages on the issue of oversize pistons and we can&#39;t get further comment based on Kirk&#39;s post (COA rulings precendent hijiack notwithstanding).

The wording of the rule needs to be changed to match the original intent. I am planning on submitting a change request that currently reads as follows:

Current GCR rule:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons
or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged
equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve
relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height
relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory
replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.


Proposed change:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size, and oversize pistons may be used.
Cast or forged pistons are allowed but shall provide the same
dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing,
pin height relationship, minimum weight, and compression ratio as factory
OEM pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.


Thoughts/comments?

Rick

[Geo]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Dec 10 2005, 10:43 PM
I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference). Prior rulings are and should be more important. The decisions are made most of the time by people who are knowledgable and who are trying to enforce an fun and even playing field. I can&#39;t stress enough though that I think T\the rulings should not be precedent setting and should be a reference only for the SOMs. This would help educate some SOMs who might not have the knowledge (sometimes these things can be difficult to understand) and it may also help in a needed attemp of consistancy accross the country.

67854


Ah, I believe you are talking about a case book, something I brought up two or three years ago. I also think this would be valuable to anybody involved with having to interpret rules from the CAO to competitors. I&#39;m surprised it doesn&#39;t already exist. It would be a lot of work of course and my plate is overflowing so I am not ready to volunteer. But it would be nice if the CRB or BOD found value in this and explored it. I think it would help guide a lot of people.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 11 2005, 10:47 AM
We did over 4 pages on the issue of oversize pistons and we can&#39;t get further comment based on Kirk&#39;s post (COA rulings precendent hijiack notwithstanding).

The wording of the rule needs to be changed to match the original intent. I am planning on submitting a change request that currently reads as follows:

67874


Rick, it&#39;s not my intention to be rude, but were you part of the team that wrote the original rule? If not, how can you determine what the original intent was?

Again, this is NOT ment to be rude, but reasonable people can disagree what the original intent was because it is not stated.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 07:10 AM
Write the policy so that the COA precedent database is effective for any given race weekend at 8:00am on the Thursday before that event. Use XML to provide printer-friendly versions of the cumulative dataset and stipulate that it be the responsibility of the tech shed boss to have a copy of that week&#39;s version on hand at the track.

67861


Actually, it&#39;s easier than that. If the club issued a case book, one could buy it as of the start of the current year. Updates could be on a subscription basis (and more money for the club, also making this pay for itself). Each month the rulings for the previous month could be placed on the club web site (with a required password such as a subscription number for access) and hard copy mailed to subscribers. The case law in place on a race weekend would be the current year case book plus all updates to date througout the year. Everybody is working from the same case law in that case.

I think this could work. Time to start working on a letter to the CRB/BOD/COA.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 11 2005, 07:18 PM
Rick, it&#39;s not my intention to be rude, but were you part of the team that wrote the original rule? If not, how can you determine what the original intent was?

Again, this is NOT ment to be rude, but reasonable people can disagree what the original intent was because it is not stated.

67884



Careful George, If you want to restrict the group that is allowed to comment on &#39;original intent&#39; to those people that wrote the rules, you&#39;ve made a pretty small list, and you&#39;ve closed out some of your colleagues.

[Knestis]

It strikes me that Rick&#39;s rewrite is more accurately about "prevailing interpretation going back 20 years," rather than original intent necessarily. It is NOT a tortured interpretation to infer - absent Darin&#39;s excellent observation - that we have all been allowed to run +20 or +40 pistons. Since we are allowed to use aftermarket parts - forged or cast, and there&#39;s even stipulations applied to them - it has been REASONABLY interpreted by a lot of people, for a lont time, that we should be allowed to combine the two allowances.

Please don&#39;t resort to hyperbolic responses trying to poke holes in this by claiming that I&#39;m suggesting that doing something illegal long enough should be an argument for allowing it. The test here, to my mind, is what have sensible, law-abiding racers been doing with this rule since it was written - absent any twisted effort to be clever with it.

K

[RSTPerformance]

If you are looking at original intent of the rule I would argue that the original intent was Factory available replacement pistons only. "made up" pistons can be big $$$, and in 1985 they were huge $$$. It could be argued that the original rules and ever rule since then was/is not created for "equal" competition, but in an effort to keep costs down while running in IT.

Just a thought. Feel free to change the rule (or for those who like to "push the limit" of the rules clarify it). I am fine with the rule how it is now, or if it were changed to allow "made up" replacement .040 pistons.

Raymond

[Bildon]

Soooo just to play highjacker for fun....
Why doesnt&#39; the rule say that you can only bore .040" over?

Afterall if I want to choose between a +.040" cast piston and a +.040" forged piston and the forged piston expands 10x more than a similar cast piston, don&#39;t I now need a .045" overbore engine? :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 05:34 PM
It strikes me that Rick&#39;s rewrite is more accurately about "prevailing interpretation going back 20 years," rather than original intent necessarily. It is NOT a tortured interpretation to infer - absent Darin&#39;s excellent observation - that we have all been allowed to run +20 or +40 pistons. Since we are allowed to use aftermarket parts - forged or cast, and there&#39;s even stipulations applied to them - it has been REASONABLY interpreted by a lot of people, for a lont time, that we should be allowed to combine the two allowances.

Please don&#39;t resort to hyperbolic responses trying to poke holes in this by claiming that I&#39;m suggesting that doing something illegal long enough should be an argument for allowing it. The test here, to my mind, is what have sensible, law-abiding racers been doing with this rule since it was written - absent any twisted effort to be clever with it.

K

67889


Wow. Just in time for the Rules Creep thread. Some would argue that Raymond is right. Overbores were originally allowed to facilitate rebuilds and/or competition builds of used engines. Remember, no factory allowed overbore in SS or SM...

Factory replacement pistons may be used UP TO .040. CREEP FACT 1: Forged equivilants are now allowed. CREEP POTENTIAL 2: Larger custom (forged) pistons are allowed without a factory equivilant to measure against in some cases.

To me...if the wording by Rick below is approved by the CRB, it is a classic case of rules creep. CLASSIC. Having said that, I like the wording and will rely on input FROM the CRB on their thoughts before I vote.

Currently I concur with the way Darin spelled this out. If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

AB

[Bildon]

>> Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over

Or do you mean to say: Engines may use .040" oversized pistons?
See my Forged comment above.

>> If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

Since we&#39;re allowing other cars to make a piston that never existed (Forged +.040) don&#39;t you think this is unfair to the guys who happen to drive a certain model that doesn&#39;t have a cast .040" overbore factory replacement?

I think we make rules too difficult at times. Can&#39;t we simplify this? All engines can go +1mm in piston diameter.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bildon@Dec 11 2005, 09:17 PM
>> Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over

Or do you mean to say: Engines may use .040" oversized pistons?
See my Forged comment above.

>> If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

Since we&#39;re allowing other cars to make a piston that never existed (Forged +.040) don&#39;t you think this is unfair to the guys who happen to drive a certain model that doesn&#39;t have a cast .040" overbore factory replacement?

I think we make rules too difficult at times. Can&#39;t we simplify this? All engines can go +1mm in piston diameter.

67911


I am not sure what you are getting in the first comment.

We are allowing exact replica&#39;s of FPR&#39;s manufactured by a different process...nothing more, nothing less. Do I wish I thought it was legal to do a .040 set-up on my car - yup...but you can&#39;t make life equal across the board. EFI mods to cars in a class where carbed cars run? Overbores allowed in a class with rotories and no equivilant displacement increase? The list could go on and on.

We could simplify it but prepare for CREEP. See the other thread. We would be allowing additional modifications because it was EASY - and it will cost more. WHY?

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 11 2005, 04:27 PM
Careful George, If you want to restrict the group that is allowed to comment on &#39;original intent&#39; to those people that wrote the rules, you&#39;ve made a pretty small list, and you&#39;ve closed out some of your colleagues.

67887


I quite agree Bill. The only people who know the original intent are those who wrote the rule in the first place. The rest of us are speculating which is why reasonable people may disagree.

That said, it doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m taking sides on the rule. I&#39;m personally on the fence.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bildon@Dec 11 2005, 07:26 PM
Soooo just to play highjacker for fun....
Why doesnt&#39; the rule say that you can only bore .040" over?

Afterall if I want to choose between a +.040" cast piston and a +.040" forged piston and the forged piston expands 10x more than a similar cast piston, don&#39;t I now need a .045" overbore engine? :D

67900


Because the rule specifically states you may bore a maximum of 0.040" over. If it said you may use a piston 0.040" instead you might be right, but the bore is the specific limitation.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 12 2005, 05:11 AM
Because the rule specifically states you may bore a maximum of 0.040" over. If it said you may use a piston 0.040" instead you might be right, but the bore is the specific limitation.

67937


The limit must be the bore not the piston.. The bore is .040 over the maximum factory clearance. If you state .040 piston then you allow for what ever clearance people want to use. If you use a piston rule you would need to specify .040 Max at any point on the piston. This whole deal is goofy ever car has it&#39;s limits and if piston size is it for one model over another then that&#39;s the way it is. Sounds like this will be sorted at one of the early races by a checkbook to get an answer.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Bildon@Dec 11 2005, 10:26 PM
Soooo just to play highjacker for fun....
Why doesnt&#39; the rule say that you can only bore .040" over?

Afterall if I want to choose between a +.040" cast piston and a +.040" forged piston and the forged piston expands 10x more than a similar cast piston, don&#39;t I now need a .045" overbore engine? :D

67900



I wonder if this is where the 0.0472" overbore allowance on Prod cars came from???

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 12 2005, 09:23 AM
I wonder if this is where the 0.0472" overbore allowance on Prod cars came from???

67978



Yep.....And then you start builing pistons for .0036 clearance now subtract that number from .0472 doesn&#39;t lok like much but it is. Figure out the displacement difference on you bore stroke on a VW motor with a .003 diference in bore. doesn&#39;t look like much but if your competitor has that much more displacment with all else being equal?

I just did a study on the GM 6.0 liter specs that were misprinted for T2 . It turned out by the specs that the caddys would end up with 16cc&#39;s more than the correct numbers...That again does not look like much.

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 11 2005, 03:18 PM
Rick, it&#39;s not my intention to be rude, but were you part of the team that wrote the original rule? If not, how can you determine what the original intent was?

Again, this is NOT ment to be rude, but reasonable people can disagree what the original intent was because it is not stated.

67884


You are right George. I don&#39;t know the original intent. No offense taken.

My honest opinion is that the original intent was to allow only factory replacement pistons offerings but then along came the allowance to order pistons to suit the need for those who wanted to max out the bore. At this point I believe the "prevailing interpretation" was to allow for all cars to go to the max .040 over bore.



Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Dec 11 2005, 06:45 PM-->
To me...if the wording by Rick below is approved by the CRB, it is a classic case of rules creep. CLASSIC. Having said that, I like the wording and will rely on input FROM the CRB on their thoughts before I vote.

Currently I concur with the way Darin spelled this out. If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

AB

67902
[/b]

I don&#39;t think what I propose is rules creep as much as it is clarifying. As far as rules creep that occured with the forged pistons.


<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Dec 11 2005, 06:45 PM
Currently I concur with the way Darin spelled this out. If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

AB

67902


I agree with this statement. But I&#39;ll bet that there are lot of .040 over motors out there raced by people who thought they were abiding by the rule. I am for one. Luckily, I have an .020 over lump that I can freshen up next season if this wording is not revised. That may not be true for a signifcant amount of the grid.


Rick

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 12 2005, 11:08 AM
You are right George. I don&#39;t know the original intent. No offense taken.

My honest opinion is that the original intent was to allow only factory replacement pistons offerings but then along came the allowance to order pistons to suit the need for those who wanted to max out the bore. At this point I believe the "prevailing interpretation" was to allow for all cars to go to the max .040 over bore.
I don&#39;t think what I propose is rules creep as much as it is clarifying. As far as rules creep that occured with the forged pistons.
I agree with this statement. But I&#39;ll bet that there are lot of .040 over motors out there raced by people who thought they were abiding by the rule. I am for one. Luckily, I have an .020 over lump that I can freshen up next season if this wording is not revised. That may not be true for a signifcant amount of the grid.
Rick

67988


I disagree Rick. If you are &#39;clarifiying&#39; the rule (by increasing the allowance) just because people are doing it - that is creep to me. The Forged issue isn&#39;t creep IMHO but if the rules are followed, it just allows an alternate source with no performance gain.

And Rick, the rules have been the same for a while now...why would you build a .040 unit if you read the rules like we do - you must have changed your interpretation based on this thread...and that is fine too.

AB

[RSTPerformance]

Sounds like this will be sorted at one of the early races by a checkbook to get an answer.

Instead of continuing to argue (maturley I must add, as I am impressed that this has been a resonable discussion of interpretations) and instead of wasting drivers time at the first race along with the SOM&#39;s time, the Mechanics time, and everyone elses involved why don&#39;t we all pitch in 10 bucks and get at 13.9 after January 1st? We will then have a nice clarificaion good for the year!!! After that year hopefully SCCA will put something into the GCR to better clarify the rule.

I know for one that if I am on the SOM and get a protest reguarding this issue and it is clear that the protest is for clarification purposes only I will be some peo&#39;d SOM :bash_1_: A protest is NOT the correct way to get a rule clarification. A protest IS for protesting someone that you feel has clearly broken the rules. It is far more time consuming and expensive for all parties involved, and the only way to get any sort of clarification would be through an appeal to the COA. Lets just send it off in advance and get the clarification without wasting anyones time and money.

I am in for $10 and my brother will also (If he wont give it up I will for him).

Raymond "$20 raised so far" Blethen

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 12 2005, 08:05 AM
The limit must be the bore not the piston.. The bore is .040 over the maximum factory clearance. If you state .040 piston then you allow for what ever clearance people want to use. If you use a piston rule you would need to specify .040 Max at any point on the piston. This whole deal is goofy ever car has it&#39;s limits and if piston size is it for one model over another then that&#39;s the way it is. Sounds like this will be sorted at one of the early races by a checkbook to get an answer.

67965


Don&#39;t be too shocked Joe, but I think we are in total agreement here. The FSM specifies the largest bore for stock size. You are allowed that plus 0.040" for your bore. Use any piston diameter you like (as long as it&#39;s within the factory overbore piston spec of course). :)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 12 2005, 02:16 PM
Don&#39;t be too shocked Joe, but I think we are in total agreement here. The FSM specifies the largest bore for stock size. You are allowed that plus 0.040" for your bore. Use any piston diameter you like (as long as it&#39;s within the factory overbore piston spec of course). :)

68023

haha Geo, I am not shocked, Even a blind dog can catch a squirl if the squirl jumps in his mouth.....:) This issue really came along when the crb decided the reading of forged was OK. If you were to open up the rule to be prod and allow .047 pistons then I am gonna make pistons that will fit that bore and file rings. I throw blocks out when they worn out, Blocks like brake rotors are wear items and when they are done they are done.

[Geo]

OK, to stir the pot a bit.....

If we accept that forged pistons are OK (by decree), then this is in conflict with the rest of the piston rule regarding all other dimensions being the same as stock, at least as I understand it anyway. I don&#39;t think anyone is running forged pistons with a stock piston clearance are they?

As a result of this thought, I&#39;m more inclined to accept that the intent was to allow 0.040" overbore for all piston engine cars. Why? Because aftermarket forged pistons cannot comply with the rule as written and we already know that forged pistons have been blessed. Therefore my conclusion is that the rule as currently written is what was intended, and I&#39;d further believe that it would not be interpreted as literally as stated (just IMHO, don&#39;t build a 0.040" over and blame me if you get tossed).

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 12:28 PM
... The Forged issue isn&#39;t creep IMHO but if the rules are followed, it just allows an alternate source with no performance gain. ...


The forged piston issue is EXACTLY like this one - I think.

It&#39;s my recollection that people started getting forged pistons made (perhaps when 40-over units weren&#39;t available??) before the rule change specifically allowing them was passed, and after some squawking about interpretations that "manufacturing process" wasn&#39;t a dimension controlled by the rule.

And if there&#39;s no performance advantage to be had, how come forged pistons are almost universally thought to be an improvement over cast slugs?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 03:41 PM


And if there&#39;s no performance advantage to be had, how come forged pistons are almost universally thought to be an improvement over cast slugs?

K

68028


For the same reason forged wheels are better than cast...they are stronger and lighter. But if you make them the smae weight, they are just stronger...no?

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 02:41 PM
The forged piston issue is EXACTLY like this one - I think.



And if there&#39;s no performance advantage to be had, how come forged pistons are almost universally thought to be an improvement over cast slugs?

K

68028


Hahaha......At twice the price it makes you wonder? Back to what I said before. race cars are not an investment and should not be treated as one. They are an open hole to throw money at. The next time you see somebody say..."well we changed cause everybody was already invested in it" Feel free to stick you finger right in their eye...Total BS next will be the need for .0472 over bore cause forged wears bores out quicker blah blah.

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 09:28 AM
And Rick, the rules have been the same for a while now...why would you build a .040 unit if you read the rules like we do - you must have changed your interpretation based on this thread...and that is fine too.

AB

67994


Your right. This thread did open my eyes to seeing the wording that is clearly there. We interpreted the rules assuming that we could go .040 over and use forged pistons. If we need to go back to the .020 over lump then so be it but I know I am not alone in this boat.

Just wondering. When the ITAC works through the different makes and models, have they been checking to see what each manufacure has on offer in the oversize piston department?

Should each car get reviewed everytime a Mfg produces the next oversize?

Rick

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 12 2005, 03:48 PM
Your right. This thread did open my eyes to seeing the wording that is clearly there. We interpreted the rules assuming that we could go .040 over and use forged pistons. If we need to go back to the .020 over lump then so be it but I know I am not alone in this boat.

Just wondering. When the ITAC works through the different makes and models, have they been checking to see what each manufacure has on offer in the oversize piston department?

Should each car get reviewed everytime a Mfg produces the next oversize?

Rick

68036

Basicly, I don&#39;t think the ITAC has any duty to investigate factory availabilty or options. This is one of those places that the FSM is the rule and it is not over ridden by any other rule. I think that those that can only get certain undersizes should request an option on their own spec line but I would hope even these are turned down based on a the poor precedence it would set. Complete bummer Rick but it does give you a good enduro option.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 12 2005, 06:58 PM
Basicly, I don&#39;t think the ITAC has any duty to investigate factory availabilty or options.

68037

I would think that the ITAC would have to know what pistons sizes were available for a given motor and factor that into the "formula" when classifying a new car. They are already estimating power gains due to IT prep and maximum legal overbore would be a factor in that so I would say the ITAC would be required to research that in order to be thorough. IF that is the way the rule is being interpreted.

Of course that level of detail is getting to be ridiculous but if the extra amount wasn&#39;t an advantage why are we arguing about this in the first place?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 12 2005, 05:39 PM
I would think that the ITAC would have to know what pistons sizes were available for a given motor and factor that into the "formula" when classifying a new car. They are already estimating power gains due to IT prep and maximum legal overbore would be a factor in that so I would say the ITAC would be required to research that in order to be thorough. IF that is the way the rule is being interpreted.

Of course that level of detail is getting to be ridiculous but if the extra amount wasn&#39;t an advantage why are we arguing about this in the first place?

68042



No I think you mis-understand my position. I don&#39;t believe the ITAC has any responsibilty to chase down extra sopecs or new updates to the car. I think the competitior asking for the classification better provide this kind of info when filling out the VTS sheet if they have concerns.

Matt also if you take a KA24 at a stock 89mm bore and go .020 over you get.
2415cc as opposed to a .040 coming out at 2442cc diplacement. is 27cc important? I don&#39;t know you could edge your lawn with it...(aka weedwacker)..:)

Broken down it&#39;s like 2 hp...In my case a one less jelly doughnut a day... B)

[Matt Rowe]

Joe, Okay I get what you&#39;re saying, and yes submitting that info with the VTS sheets would require the competitor do the leg work. As long as the person asking for the classification does their homework and the "formula" takes into account the maximum piston size than everything should be equal.

I&#39;d have to say 2 hp sounds about right and the average racer isn&#39;t going to notice the change. But if it&#39;s not important why are we debating it?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 12 2005, 08:11 PM
... But if it&#39;s not important why are we debating it?

Why? You aren&#39;t logged into the Betty Crocker favorite recipes web site, mon. :D

K

[Greg Amy]

The crux of the matter - seven pages later - still appears to be our interpretation of the original intent of the rulemakers. Chances are there&#39;s no longer any meeting minutes to see what "they" intended, so we&#39;re all trying to infer that from the written rule. The general consensus (although I disagree) is that the original intent was to use OEM pistons or their exact equivalent; if they didn&#39;t exist then you weren&#39;t allowed that overbore.

Well, let&#39;s toss another wrench in these gears.

The ITCS requires competitors to prepare their cars to manufacturer-approved procedures; to that end we&#39;re required to have copies of the service manuals, which lists all manufacturer-supported repairs, such as engine repair specs. Folks who support the above position state that we can only do what the shop manual says.

Well, if this is true - that we can only prepare to the service manual specifications - and the service manuals specify the allowable overbore sizes that the manufacturer supports, then why do you think the original ITCS rulesmakers felt compelled to reiterate that one particular shop manual specification - and simultaneously feel compelled to offer competitors other-than-OEM parts sources, something that until 2006 was never done on any other part - other than to make that .040" overbore allowance available to all vehicles, not just those with that offer 40-thou overbore from the manufacturer...? - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 12 2005, 08:28 PM
The crux of the matter - seven pages later - still appears to be our interpretation of the original intent of the rulemakers. Chances are there&#39;s no longer any meeting minutes to see what "they" intended, so we&#39;re all trying to infer that from the written rule. The general consensus (although I disagree) is that the original intent was to use OEM pistons or their exact equivalent; if they didn&#39;t exist then you weren&#39;t allowed that overbore.

Well, let&#39;s toss another wrench in these gears.

The ITCS requires competitors to prepare their cars to manufacturer-approved procedures; to that end we&#39;re required to have copies of the service manuals, which lists all manufacturer-supported repairs, such as engine repair specs. Folks who support the above position state that we can only do what the shop manual says.

Well, if this is true - that we can only prepare to the service manual specifications - and the service manuals specify the allowable overbore sizes that the manufacturer supports, then why do you think the original ITCS rulesmakers felt compelled to reiterate that one particular shop manual specification - and simultaneously feel compelled to offer competitors other-than-OEM parts sources, something that until 2006 was never done on any other part - other than to make that .040" overbore allowance available to all vehicles, not just those with that offer 40-thou overbore from the manufacturer...? - GA

68050


Because the "up to .040" is that max allowed FRP that can be used. Someone like Dodge would write an addendum to thier FSM for .080 or something crazy for their IT support program. The max has been established and the individual parameters are defined car-by-car.

The forged issue again, is one that has to do with the method of manufacture of the FRP - not an allowance to go to the max where a FRP doesn&#39;t exist.

AB

[Knestis]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 12 2005, 09:28 PM
... The general consensus (although I disagree) is that the original intent was to use OEM pistons or their exact equivalent; if they didn&#39;t exist then you weren&#39;t allowed that overbore. ...

So that&#39;s Kirk, Greg, and Rick who are willing to admit that their LONG-held understanding of that rule goes counter to the literal re-reading. I think there are a lot more out there. Full credit to Darin for unearthing this issue but man, what a stinker this one is...

K

EDIT - It&#39;s fun how people who truly believe that the original intent of Our Forefathers did not include having +.040 pistons whizzed out of forged blanks where no OE parts were available, are putting so much stock in the apparent precision of wording in this particular rule. Since NONE of us were actually in that meeting, we are all forced to make inferences - assuming that the original intent matters. I think it does but I have less faith in the specific words of the old testament (the c.1985 ITCS) than I do in the prevailing spirit behind them. I WAS there for that.

Anyone else wonder how the US Supreme Court deals with this kind of stuff all day long? :119:

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 10:55 PM
Because the "up to .040" is that max allowed FRP that can be used. Someone like Dodge would write an addendum to thier FSM for .080 or something crazy...
68053Nah, I don&#39;t buy it, Andy. If that were true, then why not list a whole lotta other FSM specs that the manufacturer could "cheat up" to give their cars a performance boost? Why just the bore size? Besides, 40-thou overbore has pretty much been the auto industry standard for max service limits for, oh, &#39;bout a hundred years or so; you&#39;d be hard-pressed to find any FSM that lists anything bigger (ain&#39;t sayin&#39; it doesn&#39;t exist, but I don&#39;t think so...hell, prove me wrong.)

Plus, if we take your position, it still does not explain why all the details on pistons were listed. If you&#39;re correct, and the rule was simply "...maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size" then that&#39;s that; there would be nothing to allow anything but factory oversize pistons (i.e., no provisions for aftermarket pistons).

So, riddle me that Batman: if you&#39;re correct, that this was written as an upper limit only, then why go into all the details of the pistons and offer the use of aftermarket parts where it never was before? The explanation for that is simple: to offer that .040" overbore to all competititors, even if the factory did not. There is no other logical explanation.

"Forged pistons" are a recent development in IT and a red herring to the topic at hand. The overbore pistons rule has been there from the very beginning in 1984, and it&#39;s only now, 21+ years later, that this historical "revision" (reversion?) of the rules has come about.

Kirk&#39;s right, this one&#39;s a stinker, and I think y&#39;all "literal" boys are the ones way out there reading the scoreboard from underneath... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 12 2005, 09:04 PM
Nah, I don&#39;t buy it, Andy. If that were true, then why not list a whole lotta other FSM specs that the manufacturer could "cheat up" to give their cars a performance boost? Why just the bore size? Besides, 40-thou overbore has pretty much been the auto industry standard for max service limits for, oh, &#39;bout a hundred years or so; you&#39;d be hard-pressed to find any FSM that lists anything bigger (ain&#39;t sayin&#39; it doesn&#39;t exist, but I don&#39;t think so...hell, prove me wrong.)

Kirk&#39;s right, this one&#39;s a stinker, and I think y&#39;all "literal" boys are the ones way out there reading the scoreboard from underneath... - GA

68055


Maybe the GCR has &#39;evolved&#39; to it&#39;s current wording? Can someone produce a GCR from previous years that shows something different? If not, I don&#39;t see how the intent that you guys (who I believe are trustworthy) remember to be so, could have been lost in translation.

I, too, find it amusing that people argue the literal side of the rules (and ignore the obvious intent) to gain advantages but in this case the word is thrown out because someone remembers the original intent as something different.

I have no issue changing the wording per Rick&#39;s post. The big thing right now on my mind is that there are builders building cars with .040 lightweight, forged pistons. Thier stance? No FRP exists to reference a &#39;exacting&#39; spec, so they are using it as &#39;open&#39; season. (These are guys who I believe, believe in their stance and would not knowingly cheat, even though I don&#39;t think it&#39;s legal) The hole in the rule now if you want it your way, is that you must state that the minimum weight of any non-factory replacement piston must be no lighter than a stock unit.

Greg, you have done some time on some protest committees...you see any way someone wins if I protest a .040 motor when no FRP exist? I don&#39;t. We either need to agree or we need to clarifiy the rule...right?

AB

[Greg Amy]

I used to have an &#39;84 ITCS (the category spec books used to all come separate from the GCR and you had to buy each one that you wanted). Unfortunately, it appears I lost those in a move some time ago. The oldest I have on hand is 1995; in that book ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j is exactly the same as in the 2005 GCR, except the words "Cast or forged..." have been added in front of "...equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome...". Further, there are no "revision bars" in the margins, so the rule has been there since at least 1994.

From experience I can tell you I am extremely confident the rule has been the same for the 10 years prior to that.

Andy, if someone protested you for having 40-thou overbore pistons in your Miata where the factory never offered them, and those pistons were exact equivalents of a factory standard piston in every way described in ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j except for bore, and that bore size was within +.040" of a factory maximum standard bore size, in my opinion you would pass as legal. Would the protester win on appeal using the literal interpretation of the rule? I&#39;d suggest that&#39;s highly unlikely.

However, if you tried to pass off the "no FRP exists to reference a &#39;exacting&#39; spec, so it&#39;s &#39;open&#39; season" I&#39;d bust you as being contrary to the regulations. And that&#39;s just common sense. Could you win on appeal? I guess that depends on the sense of humor of the appeals board, but I suggest not. - GA

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 12 2005, 04:45 PM
No I think you mis-understand my position. I don&#39;t believe the ITAC has any responsibilty to chase down extra sopecs or new updates to the car.


Are you sure Joe? No responsiblity whatsoever even though they are currently leading the charge to update and realign IT into the future. It is work that needs to be done for sure but wouldn&#39;t they want to go by the maximum potential that a vehicle can produce? I suspect that they have been operating to a max .040 over engine when working through the list of cars and somehow during all this Darin stumbled over the rule and here we are.

The K series engine is still quite new. I haven&#39;t researched this but there might not yet be a FRP available to the public. .020 = 2Hp, .040 = 4Hp. It is not a lot but would cetainly make a difference.


Rick

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 10:25 PM
... The big thing right now on my mind is that there are builders building cars with .040 lightweight, forged pistons. Thier stance? No FRP exists to reference a &#39;exacting&#39; spec, so they are using it as &#39;open&#39; season. ...


If by "lightweight," you mean "lighter than the original, stock diameter" then please don&#39;t include me in that list.

I have always presumed that the specification of dimensions - including weight - meant that aftermarket pistons, including oversize replacements, whether cast or forged could be no lighter than the stock parts.

Lumping those of us who believed THIS in good faith with those of the "open season" ilk isn&#39;t fair.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by 2006 ITCS
Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the
manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts.
The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement
parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather
than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not
meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the
manufacturer. I think the last part wins both protests


Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons
or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged
equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve
relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height
relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory
replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 09:16 PM
If by "lightweight," you mean "lighter than the original, stock diameter" then please don&#39;t include me in that list.

I have always presumed that the specification of dimensions - including weight - meant that aftermarket pistons, including oversize replacements, whether cast or forged could be no lighter than the stock parts.

Lumping those of us who believed THIS in good faith with those of the "open season" ilk isn&#39;t fair.

K

68062



I&#39;ll 2nd Kirk on that point. Using a lightweight piston on the basis of a lack of FRP specs would be over the top.

Rick

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 12 2005, 10:05 PM
Are you sure Joe? No responsiblity whatsoever even though they are currently leading the charge to update and realign IT into the future.
68061


completely different argument. Again you scew the argument. The issue was the difference between 020 and .040.... So if your getting a car that has not oversized listed in the FSM I wouldn&#39;t build it.

As far as the stumbling across the rule it is a proper reading of the rule and because some people got caught with it does not make the reading wrong. I have been through 8 factory manuals tonite and all of them list up to a .040....Anyone ever consider maybe there is a reason that some manufactures don&#39;t offer a .040 piston? Maybe it was felt their cylinder liners couldn&#39;t handle it. I know on the early Datsun stuff they recommended sonic testing when going to .040 on some stuff.

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 12 2005, 09:35 PM
completely different argument. Again you scew the argument. The issue was the difference between 020 and .040.... So if your getting a car that has not oversized listed in the FSM I wouldn&#39;t build it.

As far as the stumbling across the rule it is a proper reading of the rule and because some people got caught with it does not make the reading wrong. I have been through 8 factory manuals tonite and all of them list up to a .040....Anyone ever consider maybe there is a reason that some manufactures don&#39;t offer a .040 piston? Maybe it was felt their cylinder liners couldn&#39;t handle it. I know on the early Datsun stuff they recommended sonic testing when going to .040 on some stuff.

68068


I&#39;ll bet that the FRP pistons or the specs of the same are not available for half of those manuals you thumbed through.

So, you are saying that the only cars that should be built are the ones that have the .040 over FRP available because all the ones that don&#39;t offer it have been overrated when classified.

Are you being genuine in this debate?

Rick

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 12 2005, 10:45 PM
I&#39;ll bet that the FRP pistons or the specs of the same are not available for half of those manuals you thumbed through.

So, you are saying that the only cars that should be built are the ones that have the .040 over FRP available because all the ones that don&#39;t offer it have been overrated when classified.

Are you being genuine in this debate?

Rick

68069


Rick, I am abosolutely being genuine. I have the books on the shelf. Now as a guy that is intent on building legal engines the answer is this. For every type of engine I build for IT mostly Nissan I have a parts shelf with a factory .040 or .020 piston on the shelf as a sample for what ever after market pistons we may use. When the engine goes to the balance shop the stock OE piston goes as the minimum weight sample to balance to. So yes I am that anal about reading the rules. In a protest you better have a way to prove your case or somebody will prove it for you. That is why I charge money to build them cause they are fast and legal. I amsure I am not the only one that goes that far. PS I also have a stock rod for every motor I have in service also. A factory service manual should list every overbore size the factory lists pistons for includeing clearances. Sorry you got dinged in the readin of the rules but that doesn&#39;t make the rule wrong.

I am being genuine in saying that if an over bore piston is not listed for a motor I wouldn&#39;t build it without clarification. And the following is what I was directly refering to.

The K series engine is still quite new. I haven&#39;t researched this but there might not yet be a FRP available to the public What are you saying here. If they show a piston and don&#39;t sell it?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan
As far as the stumbling across the rule it is a proper reading of the rule...Joe, that&#39;s your interpretation of the rule; we all read it the same way.

Please don&#39;t hold yourself out as "The One Who Knows", because if taken in context of the history of this category, a history that many of us have been a part of since its inception, you&#39;d be wrong. We were there when the category was first introduced, and we - better than you - understand the historical context of these rules. If, by some chance, you were there in 1984 and had the same position you do now, you were being looked at quizzically.

If you continue to hold this position, Joe, I invite you to answer the questions I posted above; those have yet to be satisafactorily addressed (although I admire Andy&#39;s thought process).


...they are fast and legal. I am sure I am not the only one that goes that far.That&#39;s pretty arrogant, don&#39;t you think? Surely you&#39;re not claiming to be the only one building legal engines? Or, are you claiming that unless someone keeps a piston on the shelf for comparison - a part that, by the way, would be inadmissable in a protest situation - that someone cannot build legal engines?


...if an over bore piston is not listed for a motor I wouldn&#39;t build it without clarification.Bully for you, man, good job. You get the IT Rules Nerd Medal of "Special" Notation.

- GA

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 07:58 PM
So that&#39;s Kirk, Greg, and Rick who are willing to admit that their LONG-held understanding of that rule goes counter to the literal re-reading. I think there are a lot more out there. Full credit to Darin for unearthing this issue but man, what a stinker this one is...

68054


You forgot me Kirk.

I believe there conflict within the rule as written. To my knowledge it&#39;s impossible to use forged pistons and comply with the rule requiring the piston to be of stock dimensions since forged pistons require greater clearance. They cannot be the same diameter as a stock piston. So, as long as we are accepting deviations, I&#39;m more than willing to accept the deviation of allowing 0.040" overbore for all. If we didn&#39;t accept forged pistons I might fall in the literalist category.

I suppose one could argue that you build the forged piston to stock dimension and bore to proper clearance (thus effectively disallowing any forged 0.040" pistons), but I think that is far too great a stretch.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 13 2005, 07:19 AM
You forgot me Kirk. ...

You did such a good job of being on the fence, I didn&#39;t notice!

That&#39;s four.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 10:58 PM
So that&#39;s Kirk, Greg, and Rick who are willing to admit that their LONG-held understanding of that rule goes counter to the literal re-reading. I think there are a lot more out there. Full credit to Darin for unearthing this issue but man, what a stinker this one is...

K


68054


Add me to that list.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 11:16 PM
If by "lightweight," you mean "lighter than the original, stock diameter" then please don&#39;t include me in that list.

I have always presumed that the specification of dimensions - including weight - meant that aftermarket pistons, including oversize replacements, whether cast or forged could be no lighter than the stock parts.

Lumping those of us who believed THIS in good faith with those of the "open season" ilk isn&#39;t fair.

K

68062

Kirk,

I am not sure how you inferred that I lumped you in with the group I singled out. I didn&#39;t mean to if that is the way it came off in text. I actually thought I did the opposite. WHat I should have said was a &#39;group of pro engine builders&#39;

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am taking this on for clarification. If I have to pony up the money, I will.

Even if I read the rule like the &#39;fab-five&#39;, I would still go with my FRP at .020. Mazdacomp sells them for $40 each...and the custom .040 would be big $. I have a lot better things to spend that $600 on than 2 hp and no option to rebuild.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 13 2005, 05:05 AM
...somehow during all this Darin stumbled over the rule and here we are.


68061


Just to be perfectly clear... I rarely "stumble" over anything...

I was looking specifically for what was and wasn&#39;t allowed, as far as pistons go, and posted what I found... Had nothing to do with classifying cars...

Don&#39;t kid yourselves, guys... if the difference in HP between a .020 and .040 is only 2hp... there is NO WAY we can get within that kind of accuracy, given the resources we have... Heck, that&#39;s less than the dyno inaccuracies in most cases

Now, back to the regularly scheduled piston debacle, now in progress.... :rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

Let&#39;s take a couple of trips down Logical Lane; I think you could imagine it going something like this…

Fade to a bar some place in the outskirts of Englewood Colorado (home of &#39;the largest shopping mall west of the Mississippi&#39;). It&#39;s 1983. There&#39;s a bunch of guys discussing a new racing category that came out of the Pacific Northwest that&#39;s caught on. Michael Jackson&#39;s "Billy Jean" is blaring out of the jukebox with Kenny Rogers and Sheena Easton&#39;s "We&#39;ve Got Tonight" and Men At Work&#39;s "It&#39;s a Mistake" queued up right behind it. The Tandy TRS Model III computer was about to be released and the only computer "networking" around was an occasional dial-up connection on your new 300-baud "MODEM" to a local Wildcat server sitting in some nerd&#39;s bedroom (a scary thought in itself).

SCCA regions are ecstatic with increasing entries in this new category, and these guys in the bar have been tasked with merging a few regions&#39; slightly-differing rulesets in order to create the very first Nationally-published rules standard for a Regional-Only class, called "Improved Touring." Let’s listen in…


"OK, now we&#39;re down to engine prep rules. We&#39;ve already agreed that these cars must be prepped to shop manual specs (they called &#39;em &#39;shop manuals&#39; back then, not &#39;factory service manuals&#39;). We OK with overbores per the manuals?"

"Sure, no problem, but shouldn&#39;t we limit it? I mean, what happens if some manufacturer offers a 1-inch overbore! I&#39;d hate to have to run against a Datsun 320ZX!!" (The boys still called them "Datsuns" back then, even though "The Name is Nissan" commercials were all over the TV.)

"Yeah, good idea; let&#39;s stick to industry standards, and make it .040" max. So, we&#39;ll make the rule read &#39;Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size.&#39;"

"Sounds good to me. Hey, what if the manufacturer only offers 20-over pistons?"

"Too bad for them! I don&#39;t think we want to get into letting folks go above and beyond the shop manual. Besides, where are they gonna get pistons? We don&#39;t allow aftermarket parts."

"That&#39;s true...hey, wait a sec, here’s an idea: why don&#39;t we allow aftermarket pistons…?"

Scenario 1:

"Aftermarket pistons?!? What, for the guys that don&#39;t get to go 40-over? We don&#39;t allow aftermarket parts for anything."

"No, no, no, just as replacements for what the factory already offers."

"Why? Who cares? If the factory offers it as a repair part, you can install it."

"I dunno, maybe factory overbore pistons are expensive? Maybe them Datsun pistons are hard to get? Joe at the shop says there’s cheap sources for pistons, we can save folks some money or something." (insert WAG here)

"Sounds like a bag of worms, Clyde; we gonna allow aftermarket parts for anything else?"

"No, just pistons."

"Well if we did it, how do we make sure that they&#39;re the same thing?"

"We could make the rule read, &#39;Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used.&#39;"

"Well, so what does &#39;exact&#39; mean?"

"Uh, well, it means &#39;exact&#39; in every way." (Remember, this was before the national debate on the definition of the word &#39;is&#39;).

"Well, I think we should clarify it."

"Hey, &#39;exact&#39; means exact, man; if it matches the factory pistons, it&#39;s good; if it doesn&#39;t, it&#39;s not."

"No, we need to clarify. You know that Smokey’s gonna find a hole in there somewhere."

"OK, OK. Let&#39;s add, &#39;Equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.&#39;"

"What about specifying bore?"

"Nah, that&#39;s fine. They&#39;ll know what we mean."

"OK, we got it! The rules reads, &#39;Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used. Equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.&#39;"

"Done. Now, on to suspension bushings…"

Scenario 2

"Well, wait a sec, here’s an idea: why don&#39;t we allow aftermarket pistons…?"

"Aftermarket pistons? What, for the guys that don&#39;t get to go 40-over? We don&#39;t allow aftermarket parts for anything."

"Yeah, but it doesn’t seem fair that some guys can overbore 40-over, and some guys can&#39;t."

“True, but it sounds like a bag of worms, Clyde; we gonna allow aftermarket parts for anything else?"

"No, just pistons, and only to make sure everyone gets to prep to the same level."

"So how do we make sure that they&#39;re the same thing except for bore?"

"We could make the rule read, &#39;Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used.&#39;"

“Well, what if there’s no factory equivalent piston to compare it to? What then? I think we should clarify it."

"Hey, &#39;exact&#39; means exact, man; if it matches the factory pistons except for bore, it&#39;s good; if it doesn&#39;t, it&#39;s not."

"No, we need to clarify. You know that Smokey’s gonna find a hole in there somewhere."

"OK, OK. Let&#39;s add, &#39;Equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.&#39; Everything except bore."

"That makes sense. OK, so the rule reads, &#39;Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used. Equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.&#39;"

"Done. Now, on to suspension bushings…"


Now, you tell me: which scenario makes more sense...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Very entertaining Greg. But at this point I don&#39;t really care what anyone remembers things were like when the Chevy Citation was around. All I care about is the way the rule reads now...and apparantly has read for as long as anyone can prove.

We rarely disagree but I can&#39;t make the connection between what I read in the GCR and what we have to assume is the way things went. I think scenario #2 doesn&#39;t make sense...FRP&#39;s are FRPs. If there is no .040 size made, you can&#39;t mfg an exact match to something that doesn&#39;t exist....

No worries. I hope the rule is meant to read the way you say it is intended to. I will personally get to the bottom if it.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 13 2005, 08:05 AM
Very entertaining Greg. But at this point I don&#39;t really care what anyone remembers things were like when the Chevy Citation was around. All I care about is the way the rule reads now...and apparantly has read for as long as anyone can prove.

We rarely disagree but I can&#39;t make the connection between what I read and what we have to assume is the way things went.

No worries. I hope the rule is meant to read the way you say it is intended to. I will personally get to the bottom if it.

AB

68095

Just as a point of interest Andy I may have a ITCS from the mid eightys in my shop. I will look around for it. If you want money kicked in for a ruling let me know.

[Greg Amy]

...I care about...the way the rule reads now...and apparantly has read for as long as anyone can prove.

Andy, this statement disturbs me, mostly because it&#39;s conflicting but also because it implies there&#39;s been a change in the rule, and thus its intent, since the inception of the class in 1984. The plus side of this is that I infer you&#39;re willing to accept my logic if no change in the rule is proven; thus I hope with much sinerity that Joe can find that old ITCS (In fact, I&#39;d pay money for a copy of the 1984 or &#39;85 ITCS...)

I think I&#39;ve made my position clear, both logically and historically, and I&#39;m going to stop beating this dead horse. I also recognize that, with the notable exception of Joe, no one else has come up and said, "hey, that&#39;s the way *I* have been interpreting that rule for years!" In fact, this "interpretation" was not even considered by you until someone found out that Mazda can&#39;t provide factory 40-over pistons yet some folks were building super uber-lightweight pistons for the Miata that cost mongo bongo dollars...it was at that point that you guys got all scared about engine builders micro-word-parsing the rules to their advantage, so you chose to micro-word-parse them in response.

This is silly.

The rule is what it is, and it is VERY important that it be considered in the historical context in which it was written, unless you want the rules to be some "living document" subject to change at the whims of society, the competitors, and how others define the definition of the word "is". When these rules were written -- yes, in the days of the Citation -- micro-word-parsing was not done to the level and to the volume that it&#39;s being done today. You&#39;re simply over-thinking this; the rules meant what they said, not what a linguistics teacher would say they could mean.

I firmly believe you can uphold your position with a micro-parsing of the rules, but you cannot uphold your position using logic and history. I&#39;ve asked multiple times for anyone else to uphold your position using logic and history, and (granted it&#39;s only been since last night) no one has; the only response I&#39;ve gotten is "but that&#39;s what the rule says!" If you wish to ignore context then you win, but until you can prove otherwise I encourage folks to build their engines with 40-over pistons, regardless of OEM offerings.

The rule has been this way for 21+ years. If you want to clarify it to read better, great. If you want to change it, then let&#39;s run it through the rules change process and membership input. Until then, I&#39;m of the opinion that 40-over is good for the goose and the gander.

Greg

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 13 2005, 09:25 AM
Andy, this statement disturbs me, mostly because it&#39;s conflicting but also because it implies there&#39;s been a change in the rule, and thus its intent, since the inception of the class in 1984. The plus side of this is that I infer you&#39;re willing to accept my logic if no change in the rule is proven; thus I hope with much sinerity that Joe can find that old ITCS (In fact, I&#39;d pay money for a copy of the 1984 or &#39;85 ITCS...)

I think I&#39;ve made my position clear, both logically and historically, and I&#39;m going to stop beating this dead horse. I also recognize that, with the notable exception of Joe, no one else has come up and said, "hey, that&#39;s the way *I* have been interpreting that rule for years!" In fact, this "interpretation" was not even considered by you until someone found out that Mazda can&#39;t provide factory 40-over pistons yet some folks were building super uber-lightweight pistons for the Miata that cost mongo bongo dollars...it was at that point that you guys got all scared about engine builders micro-word-parsing the rules to their advantage, so you chose to micro-word-parse them in response.

This is silly.

The rule is what it is, and it is VERY important that it be considered in the historical context in which it was written, unless you want the rules to be some "living document" subject to change at the whims of society, the competitors, and how others define the definition of the word "is". When these rules were written -- yes, in the days of the Citation -- micro-word-parsing was not done to the level and to the volume that it&#39;s being done today. You&#39;re simply over-thinking this; the rules meant what they said, not what a linguistics teacher would say they could mean.

I firmly believe you can uphold your position with a micro-parsing of the rules, but you cannot uphold your position using logic and history. I&#39;ve asked multiple times for anyone else to uphold your position using logic and history, and (granted it&#39;s only been since last night) no one has; the only response I&#39;ve gotten is "but that&#39;s what the rule says!" If you wish to ignore context then you win, but until you can prove otherwise I encourage folks to build their engines with 40-over pistons, regardless of OEM offerings.

The rule has been this way for 21+ years. If you want to clarify it to read better, great. If you want to change it, then let&#39;s run it through the rules change process and membership input. Until then, I&#39;m of the opinion that 40-over is good for the goose and the gander.

Greg

68108


(2006 ITCS)
Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the
manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts.
The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement
parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather
than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not
meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the
manufacturer

Greg, please break down how this would not apply to the .040 argument then. If the part was never made are you not breaking this rule? The may portion of the rule is only allowing it and based on the above sentence if the part was an option from the factory. I just don&#39;t see how that is splitting hairs. It is using the book as a complete document rather than just pulling out the parts I want to use.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan
Greg, please break down how this would not apply to the .040 argument then.Easy, Joe: that paragraph was added last year on the recommendation of the current ITAC and CRB, as a way to allow the use of aftermarket parts (brake discs, drums, body panels, etc). It therefore has no bearing on the original, historical, and logical intent of 17.1.4.D.1.j.

Are you implying that this noobie addition to the rules should supercede one that&#39;s been in place since 1984? Are you implying that because of this, anything that was done in regards to the discussion at hand is now considered suddenly illegal? Fortunately, the ITAC group that put this rule in place is still with us...maybe they&#39;ll be able to tell us if this is what they intended...?

Now that I&#39;ve answered your question, Joe, where&#39;s your answers to mine from previous posts...? - GA

[Knestis]

EDIT - OOPS. Greg beat me to it.

K

EDIT EDIT - moved to a new post.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy+Dec 13 2005, 10:53 AM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan
Greg, please break down how this would not apply to the .040 argument then.Easy, Joe: that paragraph was added last year on the recommendation of the current ITAC and CRB, as a way to allow the use of aftermarket parts (brake discs, drums, body panels, etc). It therefore has no bearing on the original, historical, and logical intent of 17.1.4.D.1.j.

Are you implying that this noobie addition to the rules should supercede one that&#39;s been in place since 1984? Are you implying that because of this, anything that was done in regards to the discussion at hand is now considered suddenly illegal? Fortunately, the ITAC group that put this rule in place is still with us...maybe they&#39;ll be able to tell us if this is what they intended...?

Now that I&#39;ve answered your question, Joe, where&#39;s your answers to mine from previous posts...? - GA

68116
[/b]


Greg, your gonna have to direct me to your question again. And please i can deal with logic but historical has little bearing here or we would still be racing with basicly SS cars with interior&#39;s. I look at your reading of the rule and I would contend that the writers of these rules never pondered the FI/ECU issues anymore than they considered some cars only having a .010 overbore. That really doesn&#39;t matter what they considered for the time. They likely never considered the use of a restricter but that dosen&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t use them. My reading of the rule is different than yours so maybe a COA ruling gets the rule either opened or closed but an answer is needed I guess.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 13 2005, 10:25 AM
Andy, this statement disturbs me, mostly because it&#39;s conflicting but also because it implies there&#39;s been a change in the rule, and thus its intent, since the inception of the class in 1984. The plus side of this is that I infer you&#39;re willing to accept my logic if no change in the rule is proven; thus I hope with much sinerity that Joe can find that old ITCS (In fact, I&#39;d pay money for a copy of the 1984 or &#39;85 ITCS...)

I think you are getting this all backward. I actually was trying to say that nobody can prove that the rule has changed at all...so I am disptuting these historical &#39;assumptions of intent&#39; that you are using as the basis for your position.


I think I&#39;ve made my position clear, both logically and historically,

I disagree in both cases. Logically, I don&#39;t agree at all, and historically all you have to offer is the way 4 guys remember it.


I also recognize that, with the notable exception of Joe, no one else has come up and said, "hey, that&#39;s the way *I* have been interpreting that rule for years!" In fact, this "interpretation" was not even considered by you until someone found out that Mazda can&#39;t provide factory 40-over pistons yet some folks were building super uber-lightweight pistons for the Miata that cost mongo bongo dollars...it was at that point that you guys got all scared about engine builders micro-word-parsing the rules to their advantage, so you chose to micro-word-parse them in response.

Well the facts are simple. You have been doing this for many moons more than I. This off-season project is the first piston-based IT engine we will have built...so it is my first micro-analysis of the rules - for my benefit - in an effort to put a package together to compete with the likes of your program. In my journey, I asked Mazda for some 40-overs - sorry! 20-overs are all they make. OK, so a closer look at the rules was nessesary...what can I have made custom - and how the hell much is it going to cost me? After talks with a few people, you included, I concluded that 40&#39;s weren&#39;t legal for my application. The side issue was that there were others out there doing light stuff based on non-existant specification interpretation.


The rule is what it is, and it is VERY important that it be considered in the historical context in which it was written, unless you want the rules to be some "living document" subject to change at the whims of society, the competitors, and how others define the definition of the word "is". When these rules were written -- yes, in the days of the Citation -- micro-word-parsing was not done to the level and to the volume that it&#39;s being done today. You&#39;re simply over-thinking this; the rules meant what they said, not what a linguistics teacher would say they could mean.

Prove to me what the historical context was/is and I will ride your bandwagon. I have yet to see anything other than assumptions and hypothetical roundtables.

The ironic thing is that I am usually on the other side of these arguements. The GCR has a rule, it&#39;s intent is obvious, and some word-smith rips it to shreds with "it doesn&#39;t say that" nonsense. Double-secret irony is that my view on this HURTS the power potential of my build. I just don&#39;t read it like you do I guess. (and what scares me is that I know you are smarter than I am...:) )


I firmly believe you can uphold your position with a micro-parsing of the rules, but you cannot uphold your position using logic and history. I&#39;ve asked multiple times for anyone else to uphold your position using logic and history, and (granted it&#39;s only been since last night) no one has; the only response I&#39;ve gotten is "but that&#39;s what the rule says!" If you wish to ignore context then you win, but until you can prove otherwise I encourage folks to build their engines with 40-over pistons, regardless of OEM offerings.

See above. You have proven nothing to me other than what you THOUGHT and ASSUME. If the GCR hasn&#39;t changed since the GM X-Body, then I repectfully think that you have been reading the rule wrong for 22 years. I also think logic is fully on my side as I do not think the original intent was to allow everyone to overbore to 40-over or else there is NO NEED to reference a FRP at all. All you have to say is that you may use up to 40-over pistons with the same specs as stock. It could be that simple but it isn&#39;t. I could also be wrong about this, and if I am, a re-write of the rules is needed.


The rule has been this way for 21+ years. If you want to clarify it to read better, great. If you want to change it, then let&#39;s run it through the rules change process and membership input. Until then, I&#39;m of the opinion that 40-over is good for the goose and the gander.

I hope you are right. It will allow me to rebuild using the same block when my .020 motor pops.

AB

[Knestis]

I&#39;ve moved this down to a new post, since things zoomed along as I was pondering...

* * *

EDIT EDIT - Another historical consideration is the fact that "40 over" pistons were commonly allowed in budget-concious stock car classes of the &#39;70s and early &#39;80s. When we were working on our own IT rules in NWR (again before the National rules out of Denver but it goes to context), we had no second thoughts about allowing oversize pistons for rebuilds. It was just so much a part of the psyche of the time, and the quesiton of whether or not oversize pistons were available from the factory was never considered - because, for the cars with which were were all familiar, they just WERE.

I&#39;m really beginning to understand that what we have here is another critical benchmark in the "anachronising" of IT - it&#39;s march toward becoming the "next Production." I haven&#39;t gone looking but I wouldn&#39;t be surprised that oversize pistons are essentially nonexistent for new cars simply because technology and consumer demands have made them obsolete. My newish Civic uses some freakin&#39; sewing machine-weight oil in the crankcase and doesn&#39;t have any regularly scheduled maintenance for something like 30K miles. We turn over our cars in months rather than years and how many people would actually pay for a rebuild rather than just buy a new lump out of the boneyard?

Problem is, the bulk of IT grids are made up of cars from between the mid-&#39;80s and the early &#39;90s, when automotive technology was going through a pretty ugly pubescence. They are kind of stuck between the era when the rules were first written and that in which they are now being applied.

So the intepretation grounded in experiences of a whole IT generation are no longer rally valid, as time and technology marches on. This new context completely changes the implicit meaning of a paragraph in the ITCS, even if the explicit meaning of the individual words is exactly the same. Just like parents and little kids can now talk about how a particular movie "sucked," or the soccer team&#39;s defense "sucked," or whatever "sucked" without complicating their lives with any understanding of the root of the term - when I was a kid 35 years ago. Sheesh.

The real problem with Andy&#39;s well-intentioned solution is that any interpretation coming out of a modern protest and appeal is going to apply modern meanings made in modern contexts. Just looking at the words of the rule is NOT enough - historical memory matters. Luckily, just like it&#39;s totally OK for a mainstream comic strip character to say, "this sucks" in front of millions of kids and young mothers, I can say that what amounts to a historical re-write of the rules kind of sucks, too...

Old-ass Kirk

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 13 2005, 11:17 AM
I think you are getting this all backward. I actually was trying to say that nobody can prove that the rule has changed at all...so I am disptuting these historical &#39;assumptions of intent&#39; that you are using as the basis for your position.
I disagree in both cases. Logically, I don&#39;t agree at all, and historically all you have to offer is the way 4 guys remember it.
Well the facts are simple. You have been doing this for many moons more than I. This off-season project is the first piston-based IT engine we will have built...so it is my first micro-analysis of the rules - for my benefit - in an effort to put a package together to compete with the likes of your program. In my journey, I asked Mazda for some 40-overs - sorry! 20-overs are all they make. OK, so a closer look at the rules was nessesary...what can I have made custom - and how the hell much is it going to cost me? After talks with a few people, you included, I concluded that 40&#39;s weren&#39;t legal for my application. The side issue was that there were others out there doing light stuff based on non-existant specification interpretation.
Prove to me what the historical context was/is and I will ride your bandwagon. I have yet to see anything other than assumptions and hypothetical roundtables.

The ironic thing is that I am usually on the other side of these arguements. The GCR has a rule, it&#39;s intent is obvious, and some word-smith rips it to shreds with "it doesn&#39;t say that" nonsense. Double-secret irony is that my view on this HURTS the power potential of my build. I just don&#39;t read it like you do I guess. (and what scares me is that I know you are smarter than I am...:) )
See above. You have proven nothing to me other than what you THOUGHT and ASSUME. If the GCR hasn&#39;t changed since the GM X-Body, then I repectfully think that you have been reading the rule wrong for 22 years. I also think logic is fully on my side as I do not think the original intent was to allow everyone to overbore to 40-over or else there is NO NEED to reference a FRP at all. All you have to say is that you may use up to 40-over pistons with the same specs as stock. It could be that simple but it isn&#39;t. I could also be wrong about this, and if I am, a re-write of the rules is needed.
I hope you are right. It will allow me to rebuild using the same block when my .020 motor pops.

AB

68119



Funny I found my 93 ITCS and it has he same wording except the words exact equivalent is in bold print. I will continue to look for the earlier book or start shopping E-bay, but I owuld contend that a few people have been reading this wrong for a few years and it was never an issue until we got cars with no .040 pistons.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interesting piece of history there. So are you saying...

- When the rules were written, everything was available with a 40-over option so the need to write a specific rule was not needed.

Now that everything ISN&#39;T available .040, how do we make the leap that you can go 40-over when the rules say you must use a FRP or is exact equivilant?

While I am coming around to this logic, what other items in the GCR, should you apply it too, would you be opening up pandoras box?

AB

[Knestis]

I&#39;ll bet a six pack that the "exact equivalent" wording went into the rule after the .040 allowance was well established, but before modern times. I would guess about 1990, in response to "clever" people who DID push the rules beyond the intent that I honestly believe was in place at their creation.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 13 2005, 11:33 AM
Interesting piece of history there. So are you saying...

- When the rules were written, everything was available with a 40-over option so the need to write a specific rule was not needed.

Now that everything ISN&#39;T available .040, how do we make the leap that you can go 40-over when the rules say you must use a FRP or is exact equivilant?

While I am coming around to this logic, what other items in the GCR, should you apply it too, would you be opening up pandoras box?

AB

68123


AAndy to give you a little more to ponder. I will have to confirm the specs today but back in the day Nissan offered .060 and .080 pistons for the L24 engines. I believe the .040 was a desired maximum to prevent this much displacement increase. But that is also just guessing cause I was busy kicking Darin&#39;s butt everyday too get to work on time in 1984..... B)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 13 2005, 12:43 PM
AAndy to give you a little more to ponder. I will have to confirm the specs today but back in the day Nissan offered .060 and .080 pistons for the L24 engines. I believe the .040 was a desired maximum to prevent this much displacement increase. But that is also just guessing cause I was busy kicking Darin&#39;s butt everyday too get to work on time in 1984..... B)

68126


This piece of data would seemingly support the way I read the rule (in modern times). There is a limit and you must use FRP or their exacts.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 13 2005, 11:46 AM
This piece of data would seemingly support the way I read the rule (in modern times). There is a limit and you must use FRP or their exacts.

AB

68127


Up to a .040 max even of the factory offers more...

[Greg Amy]

I&#39;m reading along with an open mind...

Andy, the only issue I have with your last post is that I&#39;m inferring that you&#39;re assuming 40-over was removed as a result of some discretion or some rule intent change. Based on this discussion, however, I&#39;d be more inclined to believe that:

- Pretty much every car at the time this rule was written had 20 and 40 overbore pistons (Kirk)
- 40-over was set as a maximum in order to limit the amount of displacement increase. (Andy/Joe)
- Thus, the intent of the rule was to allow anyone to overbore to 40 max (Greg)
- Some time along the way "exact equivalent" was added (though I dispute this), or bolded, to clarify the intent of the rule (Joe) Remember, we assume at this point pretty much all cars could do that with factory parts.
- Modern cars, especially Japanese, started only offering 20-over pistons, putting us in the position we are now.

This seems all fine and good, but it does not explain one simple point: why allow aftermarket pistons in the first place, and why feel compelled to specify exactly which characteristics must be met on thee parts, and then not mention bore? Joe pointed out the same verbiage is in the &#39;93 ITCS, and lacking the "revision bars" we can assume it was there in &#39;92; we&#39;re now down to within 8 years of the original book.

This is where the leap of logic fails me. Up to this point, most people - myself included - have accepted the unique ability to use aftermarket parts as a signal that 40-thou overbore is open to everyone. The only rational explanation for allowing aftermarket pistons is for those vehicles that cannot get them from the factory...if you give me a reasonable answer to this, I&#39;d feel a whole lot better...

OK, so we gotta figure out where to go. My suggestion is we dump the "factory equivalent", let everyone go 040-max, and make sure the replacement parts are comparable to stock (Joe&#39;s reference to the new ITAC paragraph above may provide guidance...)

I&#39;d sure like to see some 80&#39;s ITCS books, though... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 13 2005, 01:10 PM
I&#39;m reading along with an open mind...

Andy, the only issue I have with your last post is that I&#39;m inferring that you&#39;re assuming 40-over was removed as a result of some discretion or some rule intent change.

I don&#39;t see where it was removed. It is still in there and says you may use UP TO .040 slugs. Not understanding you here.


Based on this discussion, however, I&#39;d be more inclined to believe that:

- Pretty much every car at the time this rule was written had 20 and 40 overbore pistons (Kirk)
- 40-over was set as a maximum in order to limit the amount of displacement increase. (Andy/Joe)
- Thus, the intent of the rule was to allow anyone to overbore to 40 max (Greg)
- Some time along the way "exact equivalent" was added (though I dispute this), or bolded, to clarify the intent of the rule (Joe) Remember, we assume at this point pretty much all cars could do that with factory parts.
- Modern cars, especially Japanese, started only offering 20-over pistons, putting us in the position we are now.

This seems all fine and good, but it does not explain one simple point: why allow aftermarket pistons in the first place, and why feel compelled to specify exactly which characteristics must be met on thee parts, and then not mention bore? Joe pointed out the same verbiage is in the &#39;93 ITCS, and lacking the "revision bars" we can assume it was there in &#39;92; we&#39;re now down to within 8 years of the original book.

Because you don&#39;t have to mention bore. Each spec by manufacturer is different per the factory repair manual. What are you supposed to do, write .001, .002, .003 etc? You allow FRP&#39;s with a max of .040. That is what the rule says!


This is where the leap of logic fails me. Up to this point, most people - myself included - have accepted the unique ability to use aftermarket parts as a signal that 40-thou overbore is open to everyone. The only rational explanation for allowing aftermarket pistons is for those vehicles that cannot get them from the factory...if you give me a reasonable answer to this, I&#39;d feel a whole lot better...

You are right, if you can&#39;t get them, you can have them made. If Nissan stops making .040&#39;s for your NX2000, you can source them from the aftermarket. Let&#39;s make the distinction between &#39;no longer&#39; available and &#39;NEVER&#39; available. No .040&#39;s WERE NEVER available from Mazda for my configuration.........no dice in making them from scratch.


OK, so we gotta figure out where to go. My suggestion is we dump the "factory equivalent", let everyone go 040-max, and make sure the replacement parts are comparable to stock (Joe&#39;s reference to the new ITAC paragraph above may provide guidance...)

I&#39;d sure like to see some 80&#39;s ITCS books, though... - GA

68131


That is a clarification to you because you are leaning on your historical assumptions. To me, it&#39;s rules creep. Now I have to go and spend $800 on .040 slugs to be on par with every other IT 1.8 Miata getting built when that isn&#39;t what the rules currently (or seemingly ever) say.

What is best for IT?

[Greg Amy]

(Heavy sigh...)

We&#39;re each going in circles, my friend, and they don&#39;t intersect...one last shot before I stop flogging.


I don&#39;t see where (verbiage) was removed.OK, so you&#39;re assuming, as am I, that the verbiage has not changed since 1984? Then we at least agree on that. Now we need to agree on the original intent.


Because you don&#39;t have to mention bore.If you&#39;re using "exact equivalent" pistons, you also don&#39;t have to mention dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio. If you are restricted to running pistons that are exactly the same as ones supplied by the factory, then they have to be exactly the same and then there is no need to be so specific, UNLESS...

...you are offering to let people run alternately-supplied parts that may be exactly equivalent to factory overbore pistons, except for bore, the one important characterstic of an alternate piston that is specifically not listed (the "elephant in the room").


That is a clarification to you because you are leaning on your historical assumptions.Of course I am! To do otherwise would be to allow any new guy to come around and re-interpret the rules to fit his particular situation and biases!


To me, (your position is) rules creep.On this we agree. I feel the same about your position.


What is best for IT?To not change the application of the rules as they have been done for over 20 years. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 13 2005, 01:31 PM

To not change the application of the rules as they have been done for over 20 years. - GA

68133


Then we will let others continue the debate because like Joe, I respectfully think you have been assuming something without dissecting it for a lot of years.

We will agree to disagree. I hate that because I know you Greg, and I know you are trying to run your program as I am, legal and fast. I respect you and your interpretation of the good book...how can two sane people read it so differently? Maybe the real answer is that I am f-ing crazy. Crap.

:023:

AB

[Greg Amy]

(Shrug) I&#39;ll have beer at the April School/Regional. Ugh, four more months of this...

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 13 2005, 02:29 PM
... Let&#39;s make the distinction between &#39;no longer&#39; available and &#39;NEVER&#39; available. No .040&#39;s WERE NEVER available from Mazda for my configuration.........no dice in making them from scratch. ...

Okay, if I buy the initial premise - that one can&#39;t make an exact duplicate of something that never existed - the suggestion is now that one CAN make an exact duplicate of something that might no longer exist?

Can that be documented with a part or is it necesssary to have engineering drawings to for provenance purposes?

If a part is acceptable (I&#39;m picturing the shelves in Joe&#39;s office), what documentation is necessary to make a case that the model for the no-longer-available parts is in fact correct?

This is kind of academic (because that&#39;s really where we&#39;ve collectively taken this question, at the cost of untold hours of productivity for our employers) but a few more questions, please:

If oversize pistons ARE available for a model, is is allowable to use aftermarket alternatives instead, or is the implication that this option is only a last resort?

If that is OK, and if AVAILABLE factory-available oversize pistons for whatever reason are not "identical" in all dimensions besides bore to stock-sized pistons (say they have a different valve pocket design for some reason), do aftermarket replacements have to be identical to the OE oversize units, or may they be identical (besides diameter) to the original pistons? MUST they be only one or the other?

For that matter, are the factory-available oversize pistons legal, if they are NOT identical to the originals in all respects besides bore (e.g., they have a super-secret coating, where the original ones did not)?

If diameter is a variable that can be controlled by the builder, then where factory 40-over pistons are available is it permissable to make "undersize," oversize, forged pistons that are small enough to allow them to grow into a bore that is bored .040 over?

Is it illegal - regardless of any other consideration - to bore a block +.0401"? To +.041"? There are industry conventions here, given that the spec goes to three decimal places - do they apply?

If we are going to tackle this problem by trying to set precedent in the protest/COA judiciary, we should try to get it all taken care of in one shot. It does not solve the problem to simply find one way of falling afoul of this bundle of snakes illegal and have the protest upheld.

K

[Joe Harlan]

To not change the application of the rules as they have been done for over 20 years. - GA


Haha there you go making it sound like everybody has read the rule the way you do. I am hunting for the earliest books I can find. I believe that the bold print was normally found in the second printing of a rule change. That would lead me to believe if I remember correctly that those 2 words may have been added in 1991. Again relying on memory only... NOw to the .040 deal. In domestic stuff most of the replacement pistons stopped from the factory at a .030 overbore. The import stuff didn&#39;t seam tomess around with .010 and .030 stuff. most of it was .005 .020 and .040 for replacement pistons. A little more worthless historical automotive info.

Have fun guys.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 13 2005, 01:39 PM
Okay, if I buy the initial premise - that one can&#39;t make an exact duplicate of something that never existed - the suggestion is now that one CAN make an exact duplicate of something that might no longer exist?

Can that be documented with a part or is it necesssary to have engineering drawings to for provenance purposes?

If a part is acceptable (I&#39;m picturing the shelves in Joe&#39;s office), what documentation is necessary to make a case that the model for the no-longer-available parts is in fact correct?

This is kind of academic (because that&#39;s really where we&#39;ve collectively taken this question, at the cost of untold hours of productivity for our employers) but a few more questions, please:

If oversize pistons ARE available for a model, is is allowable to use aftermarket alternatives instead, or is the implication that this option is only a last resort?

If that is OK, and if AVAILABLE factory-available oversize pistons for whatever reason are not "identical" in all dimensions besides bore to stock-sized pistons (say they have a different valve pocket design for some reason), do aftermarket replacements have to be identical to the OE oversize units, or may they be identical (besides diameter) to the original pistons? MUST they be only one or the other?

For that matter, are the factory-available oversize pistons legal, if they are NOT identical to the originals in all respects besides bore (e.g., they have a super-secret coating, where the original ones did not)?

If diameter is a variable that can be controlled by the builder, then where factory 40-over pistons are available is it permissable to make "undersize," oversize, forged pistons that are small enough to allow them to grow into a bore that is bored .040 over?

Is it illegal - regardless of any other consideration - to bore a block +.0401"? To +.041"? There are industry conventions here, given that the spec goes to three decimal places - do they apply?

If we are going to tackle this problem by trying to set precedent in the protest/COA judiciary, we should try to get it all taken care of in one shot. It does not solve the problem to simply find one way of falling afoul of this bundle of snakes illegal and have the protest upheld.

K

68144



Kirk, I would have to say that this is another part of the issues created when the CRB accepted the alternate process of manufacturing. Lets take the L24 engine since I do a bunch of them. The factory spec is 3.267 to 3.269 std bore replacement pistons with a 3.308 for .040 over size spec. The actual bore spec 3.2677 (+.0020) with a wear limit of (.0097) so my guess is the spec would be to the 4th digit in this case. SO lets add it up. 3.2677+.0020=3.2697+0097= 3.2794+.040=3.3194 max. 3.3194is the throw away point...Now for 3.308 sized piston in a maxed out bore says .0114 side clearence would be more than enough for any piston I can think of.

OH and BTW the 1970 factory manual I pulled that out of has .060 pistons as the 5th oversize listed in the FSM.. B)

[stevel]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 13 2005, 07:10 PM


This seems all fine and good, but it does not explain one simple point: why allow aftermarket pistons in the first place, and why feel compelled to specify exactly which characteristics must be met on thee parts, and then not mention bore?


Greg, I agree. Why does it mention every other characteristic but the bore size? That doesn&#39;t make sense to me either. It says factory equivalent, then goes on to mention everything else BUT bore size. I don&#39;t get it.

Andy,
I really think you&#39;re splitting hairs here man. That extra .020" of bore on a 1.8 amounts to next to nothing. Are you really going to lose a race because you have 10cc less of displacement? At NHIS no less? And to boot you&#39;re racing in a regional class. In all likely hood you&#39;re going to be running against someone who is outright cheating anyways. And you know what, if there is a guy out there (hondas/acuras are great examples) running with a .040" piston where one from the factory wasn&#39;t available, it&#39;s not lightweight and has all identical characteristics, then fine. I don&#39;t think he was trying to cheat nor do I believe that that extra .020" of bore is what helped him to beat me. So, I think you&#39;re making too much of this.

Now the business where people are making lightweight forged slugs is a whole &#39;nother story in my book. That needs to be dealt with. I&#39;m willing to bet that if you did protest someone and there was no .040" overbore available from the factory, but the weight was more than the factory STD piston, they would beat the protest based on the fact that MANY people have read the rule that way for a LONG time. Instead of trying to get to the bottom of this and waste all this time and energy, why don&#39;t we just add in some wordage to clarify the rule? Let everyone go to a max of .040" overbore. If it&#39;s not available from the factory, the replacement must weigh no less than a STD bore size factory piston.

All this other discussion is just a waste of hot air. We may never know the intent. But I agree with Greg. I believe it was meant to limit it to .040 over to keep from being more. And if .040 over isn&#39;t available, then let it be.

And in all likely hood if you do pop your motor, chances are the block won&#39;t be usable anyways. That&#39;s usually only the case if you rebuild it BEFORE somethig bad happens.

steve

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by stevel@Dec 13 2005, 02:09 PM
Greg, I agree. Why does it mention every other characteristic but the bore size? That doesn&#39;t make sense to me either. It says factory equivalent, then goes on to mention everything else BUT bore size. I don&#39;t get it.

Andy,
I really think you&#39;re splitting hairs here man. That extra .020" of bore on a 1.8 amounts to next to nothing. Are you really going to lose a race because you have 10cc less of displacement? At NHIS no less? And to boot you&#39;re racing in a regional class. In all likely hood you&#39;re going to be running against someone who is outright cheating anyways. And you know what, if there is a guy out there (hondas/acuras are great examples) running with a .040" piston where one from the factory wasn&#39;t available, it&#39;s not lightweight and has all identical characteristics, then fine. I don&#39;t think he was trying to cheat nor do I believe that that extra .020" of bore is what helped him to beat me. So, I think you&#39;re making too much of this.

Now the business where people are making lightweight forged slugs is a whole &#39;nother story in my book. That needs to be dealt with. I&#39;m willing to bet that if you did protest someone and there was no .040" overbore available from the factory, but the weight was more than the factory STD piston, they would beat the protest based on the fact that MANY people have read the rule that way for a LONG time. Instead of trying to get to the bottom of this and waste all this time and energy, why don&#39;t we just add in some wordage to clarify the rule? Let everyone go to a max of .040" overbore. If it&#39;s not available from the factory, the replacement must weigh no less than a STD bore size factory piston.

All this other discussion is just a waste of hot air. We may never know the intent. But I agree with Greg. I believe it was meant to limit it to .040 over to keep from being more. And if .040 over isn&#39;t available, then let it be.

And in all likely hood if you do pop your motor, chances are the block won&#39;t be usable anyways. That&#39;s usually only the case if you rebuild it BEFORE somethig bad happens.

steve

68148

So stevel if that&#39;s the belief then why stop at .040? Why not any factory piston or is exact equivalent. The reasoning that says all manufactures are not created equal so we should make it that way is bunked by the fact that I now have to throw blocks away at 040 when Nissan offered a 060 replacement piston in the FSM. Am I as a Nissan competitor now being unfairly treated? Where does it stop? I admire the fact that Andy wants a proper reading and will acept 020 if that&#39;s what all the Mazada&#39;s get. I have not seen him say that since nissan gets them we should also.

[stevel]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 13 2005, 09:17 PM
So stevel if that&#39;s the belief then why stop at .040? Why not any factory piston or is exact equivalent.


because i&#39;m assuming (yes, dangerous i know) that the .040" was mentioned to set a limit. I think we do need to set a limit.


by the fact that I now have to throw blocks away at 040 when Nissan offered a 060 replacement piston in the FSM.
which you have to do right now anyways, since .040 is the max? Correct?


Am I as a Nissan competitor now being unfairly treated?
I think you would be treated the same as everyone else. Bore up to .040, no more than that is allowed.


Where does it stop?
At .040 like the rule reads now. No matter what is available from the factory.


I have not seen him say that since nissan gets them we should also.
I didn&#39;t either. But sure, give everyone the same allowance. i&#39;m fine with that.

And Joe, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re going to come back with a bunch of counterpoints. I know you have a lot more experience with all this stuff than me. And I&#39;m sure you&#39;re counterpoints are going to be some good pieces of knowledge that I didn&#39;t think of or are not even aware of. I concede that you do know more than I and rightly so.

I just proposed what we could do. I say allow everyone .040" as a max, and make sure to include a hook for a minimum weight of the piston. If there are too many holes in that, let&#39;s add at least some wording to at least bring some clarity to the rule, because as it stands there&#39;s a difference in opinion. I don&#39;t think the rule is as clear as some think and it seems like I&#39;m not alone.

steve

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by stevel@Dec 13 2005, 03:22 PM
because i&#39;m assuming (yes, dangerous i know) that the .040" was mentioned to set a limit. I think we do need to set a limit.
which you have to do right now anyways, since .040 is the max? Correct?
I think you would be treated the same as everyone else. Bore up to .040, no more than that is allowed.
At .040 like the rule reads now. No matter what is available from the factory.
I didn&#39;t either. But sure, give everyone the same allowance. i&#39;m fine with that.

And Joe, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re going to come back with a bunch of counterpoints. I know you have a lot more experience with all this stuff than me. And I&#39;m sure you&#39;re counterpoints are going to be some good pieces of knowledge that I didn&#39;t think of or are not even aware of. I concede that you do know more than I and rightly so.

I just proposed what we could do. I say allow everyone .040" as a max, and make sure to include a hook for a minimum weight of the piston. If there are too many holes in that, let&#39;s add at least some wording to at least bring some clarity to the rule, because as it stands there&#39;s a difference in opinion. I don&#39;t think the rule is as clear as some think and it seems like I&#39;m not alone.

steve

68155


No actually a lot of counter points are not needed. My main point is that not every rule is gonna be equal for everyone. The allowance limits to .040 if there is a factory equal. Then add the new line I referenced in the ITCS and you have a case even if accidental for not creating a part that never existed...The other point is just because you believe it does not make it so. (even in my side of the argument) I will share may hand on this deal. When I write the protest on Andy&#39;s .040 mazda I am going to require a factory replacement .040 piston for his motor be supplied at my expense to the court as evidence. When the factory part cannot be supplied for comparison I win the protest. This is one of the reasons I keep a know good example of a factory part. The book says it will be up to the competitor to prove the legality of the protested part.

[RSTPerformance]

Joe-

In most cases I would think that the SOM&#39;s will only accept your parts if both parties agree that it is a stock part. Just an FYI, I am sure it doesn&#39;t much matter to you, as you use them in your building process... Good Idea IMO.

Greg and others with this potentialy illigal modification-

Many people seem to think you are illigal. You have spent thousands on your motor development... go in with some of the others and get a 13.9. If you are not willing to put up the $10.00 - $20.00 I would think that it would represent your fear of having illigal parts. $10 - $20 is a drop in the bucket for 90% of the people on here... $250.00 is expensive and I can understand a hesitation but this could be an inexpensive group effort and all this wasted time could be ended... As far as I am concerned you/we all have wasted far more than 10 hours on this debate; I am worth at least $25 an hour... thats the $250. I am sure most of you are worth more than I am :119:

Good luck everyone, and stop being soooo cheep... may santa bring each of us super fast motors with or without the .040 pistons!!!

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

Is it correct to add the wear limit to the total max bore size? The way I see it, it says 040 over standard bore size. To me, that would be w/in the published tolerences (3.2677 - 3.2697 in your example. So, your throw-away point is 3.3194 - 0.0097 = 3.3097. Your 3.308" piston now has 0.0017" clearence. That&#39;s a tick tight for a cast piston, and is flat out too tight for a forged piston, given that both would be 3.308" in diameter.

I&#39;m not a professional engine builder, but to me, standard bore, is standard bore, w/in stated tolerences, for a new block. The wear limit is essentially the point where you have to go to the first stated oversize. I don&#39;t think you get that, on top of an 0.040" overbore.



Here&#39;s a side question for Kirk, and anyone else that was around when this whole thing got started. How was &#39;68 determined as the cutoff year?

[pfcs49]

I don&#39;t have old GCRs to nail this down, but I can confirm that the piston rule was changed around 1987. Until it was rewritten, there was no mention about weight or ring thickness. I believe it mentioned dome configuration and pin and ring location.
Taking full advantage of this, I had forged Venolias made for my Volvo which were 25g/piston lighter tqan stock, had tapered pins and narrow (.0625" vs 2.0mm) rings. How do I remember this so well? The next year, they closed these loopholes and out came the pistons. What to do with $600 worth of esoteric stuff? Build a hot street motor for my 4 door-the one that broke a very thin piston crown (no-it wasn&#39;t detonation!) near Sacramento while towing the 2 door from Sears to PIR in 90. Switched cars, towed tow car w/racecar to PIR. Realized then that tow vehicles were uneccesary. Built 4 dr and bought a Coleman camper. Funny how thigs are connected!
PS: just my 2 cents, but my feeling is that since the original IT rules were generated (duplicate?) from 1963 production rules, and all prod cars were allowed to have .040" overbore then, that the intent was for all IT cars to have that option.Most people have always considered that if an exact equivalent piston grew .040", whether at the oe&#39;s factory, or elsewhere, it was legal. I&#39;d be pretty POd if some boneheads changed that "interpretation" and although +.040" equilavent pistons that met all other prescriptions of the rule (including weight), were readily available, and were in my motor-became de-facto illegal. That woul cause me, and many others, to basically throw away our motors.
when I had my lightweight pistons made 17 yrs ago, I KNEW I was going through a loophole, and when they closed it, It really didn&#39;t bothe me. This would.
Phil Hunt

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 13 2005, 04:20 PM
Joe,

Is it correct to add the wear limit to the total max bore size? The way I see it, it says 040 over standard bore size. To me, that would be w/in the published tolerences (3.2677 - 3.2697 in your example. So, your throw-away point is 3.3194 - 0.0097 = 3.3097. Your 3.308" piston now has 0.0017" clearence. That&#39;s a tick tight for a cast piston, and is flat out too tight for a forged piston, given that both would be 3.308" in diameter.

I&#39;m not a professional engine builder, but to me, standard bore, is standard bore, w/in stated tolerences, for a new block. The wear limit is essentially the point where you have to go to the first stated oversize. I don&#39;t think you get that, on top of an 0.040" overbore.
Here&#39;s a side question for Kirk, and anyone else that was around when this whole thing got started. How was &#39;68 determined as the cutoff year?

68164


Ah Bill I knew either you or Kirk would catch that....That presents a whole new group of issues but since my FSM shows it as part of the factory bore spec. I have to run at the moment but I will be bcak and relook at the specs. I think I have typed a min/max spec. wrong. I will get you the correct clearance.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 13 2005, 04:34 PM
Ah Bill I knew either you or Kirk would catch that....That presents a whole new group of issues but since my FSM shows it as part of the factory bore spec. I have to run at the moment but I will be bcak and relook at the specs. I think I have typed a min/max spec. wrong. I will get you the correct clearance.

68166



And Phil the converstion goes alot better without the Bonehead reference.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance
Greg and others...go in with some of the others and get a 13.9. If you are not willing to put up the $10.00 - $20.00 I would think that it would represent your fear of having illigal partsWait a sec: my lack of giving you money to "prove myself legal" represents that I believe I have illegal parts? Good try, son, but as I told Joe some time back, I don&#39;t respond to threats or dares unless it&#39;s a "triple-dog-dare-you".

This is all pretty interesting, given that you have no freakin&#39; clue what I&#39;ve done to my engine(s) or what the manufacturer offers to me OEM. You automatically assume I&#39;m arguing from a position of bias, not with a long history and interest in the class&#39;s future? I had given consideration into joining in on you and your brother&#39;s idea, but this pretty much sealed it. Good luck with your investigation(s), I&#39;ll be interested to hear how it works out. - GA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 13 2005, 07:40 PM
And Phil the converstion goes alot better without the Bonehead reference.

68167



:unsure: You lost me on that one Joe.

[RSTPerformance]

greg-

Bad assumption on my part... I assumed (made an ass out of me I guess) that you have fully developed your car to the max of YOUR interpretations, thus you had pistons that may be interpreted illigal by some. (To be honest I don&#39;t remember what you may have stated in the first 5 pages if your car offer bigger pistons or not, and or if you had any made).

I want to make myself clear in that I fully think that you are 100% well founded in your interpretation no matter what you have or have not done to your car... and I do not mean anything I said in a negative way.

I can&#39;t afford $250.00 and I don&#39;t have and I am not intending to build a .040 motor anytime soon as I don&#39;t have the funds... I would however invest a few dollars to get a clarification on the rule for the interest of everyone who is or may plan on bulding a motor as well as for folks like yourself who apparently only have an interest in the future of IT.

I think that this is an important rule that needs clarification, and it has nothing to do with my development. I would think that you are in the same boat as you state that you are interested in the future of it.

Sorry if I came across negatively sarcastic in anyway, not ment to be. This entire debate has done only one thing... prove that we need a clarification on the rule!!! I think that instead of debating we should all work together, follow the proper chanels that SCCA has set up for us, even if we like that process or not.

Sorry Gregg for any hard feelings :(

Raymond

PS: as far as my investigation(s) I am not interested for myself nor do I have $250.00 to spend on something that I would only be able to use protesting someone else (and I don&#39;t think that someone will beat me just casue they have .040 pistons and I don&#39;t), thierfor I am not investigating, but would be happy to help someone else financialy.

[ddewhurst]

***Maybe the real answer is that I am f-ing crazy. Crap.***

Andy, you&#39;ll get back to normal after the ITAC term is over. :P

[Knestis]

Originally posted by pfcs49@Dec 13 2005, 06:23 PM
I don&#39;t have old GCRs to nail this down, but I can confirm that the piston rule was changed around 1987. Until it was rewritten, there was no mention about weight or ring thickness. I believe it mentioned dome configuration and pin and ring location.
Taking full advantage of this, I had forged Venolias made for my Volvo which were 25g/piston lighter tqan stock, had tapered pins and narrow (.0625" vs 2.0mm) rings. ...


Damn. I was off by a couple years but I knew it. You are the reason they added that text. :)

K

[pfcs]

If someone spent $250 for a (possibly bonehead) ruling, and the consequence of that ruling was that any number of reasonable men, operating with reasonable (perfect?) expectations that it was legal, had built 40 over motors, would now have to spend collectively many thousands of dollars to bring their engines into compliance with this new interpretation of the rule-would that be reasonable? absolutely not! This is amateur club racing. we race for ashtrays! I always hope we can be a community. This is not the debating club (aaaaah? maybe it is!) This seems like BS to me. Advocating to make a somewhat contrived interpretation of traditionally accepted custom (everyone gets the 040 option), is counterproductive and not in the spirit of club racing (did I relly say that?!) and would hurt a large number of good guys who have integrity. All of this, just to get to be right! Maybe someone should send it in to the comp board under errors and omissions, that they never clarified this. I expect their decision would be reasonable-make no bones about it.
Phil
ps Joe-I don&#39;t think of you as a bonehead and don&#39;t know how you made that association. In fact, you seem like an OK kind of guy who&#39;s shop I&#39;d like to hang in.

[Knestis]

That&#39;s five.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Dec 13 2005, 05:15 PM


Greg and others with this potentialy illigal modification-

Many people seem to think you are illigal.
68163


For the record, I do not think Greg would build an illegal motor, nor do I even know if he has .040 slugs - or if Nissan offered 40&#39;s for his car. IMHO, he and I have been debating the letter / intent / application of this rule without a dirct link to his car, or anyones car - except the occasional reference to mine as an example.

In addition, I also believe he would spend the EXTRA money to be legal if he had too.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 13 2005, 06:31 PM
***Maybe the real answer is that I am f-ing crazy. Crap.***

Andy, you&#39;ll get back to normal after the ITAC term is over. :P

68174


:happy204:

[Bildon]

Taking full advantage of this, I had forged Venolias made for my Volvo which were 25g/piston lighter than stock
:blink: hmmmmm so I wonder what was lightened on the other end to keep the whole thing in balance, critical at 6000 RPM. Big ends of the rods or crank throws?

So after the heavier pistons were put back in :blink: then you also replaced the crank and/or rods that you have lighted by 25g each as they were now TOO light to be "only enough to balance" legal ????? :D

[pfcs]

sorry to dissapoint you, Bill, and sad you implied I was cheating.
Inline pistons (and boxers) have no need to be have a weight adjustment to any other parts except the other pistons. Only V type engines require complex balancing. Please don&#39;t impune my integrity.
ps: the motor wasn&#39;t even balanced. I&#39;ve never balanced any of my IT motors, or ground the cranks-and in my Volvo motors, even replaced an old oilpump.
I&#39;ve been doing this since 1968 and have built a few motors; I know what&#39;s important and what&#39;s not. (factory VW/Volvo stuff is very well balanced from the factory) Rings that seal are important. Legally removing 100 grams (nearly 4 oz) of weight from pistons is a signifigant improvement in acceleration and would be dumb not to do. I think some people thought that if some bozzo arrived at the track towing a camper with a 4 door Volvo and won, then he must be cheating. I don&#39;t think a lot of peple realized the thought and preparation I brought to the table. I didn&#39;t get bore concentricty good enough til my 3rd iteration honing plate!
Phil

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by pfcs@Dec 13 2005, 06:59 PM
If someone spent $250 for a (possibly bonehead) ruling, and the consequence of that ruling was that any number of reasonable men, operating with reasonable (perfect?) expectations that it was legal, had built 40 over motors, would now have to spend collectively many thousands of dollars to bring their engines into compliance with this new interpretation of the rule-would that be reasonable? absolutely not! This is amateur club racing. we race for ashtrays! I always hope we can be a community. This is not the debating club (aaaaah? maybe it is!) This seems like BS to me. Advocating to make a somewhat contrived interpretation of traditionally accepted custom (everyone gets the 040 option), is counterproductive and not in the spirit of club racing (did I relly say that?!) and would hurt a large number of good guys who have integrity. All of this, just to get to be right! Maybe someone should send it in to the comp board under errors and omissions, that they never clarified this. I expect their decision would be reasonable-make no bones about it.
Phil
ps Joe-I don&#39;t think of you as a bonehead and don&#39;t know how you made that association. In fact, you seem like an OK kind of guy who&#39;s shop I&#39;d like to hang in.

68180

Phil, You would be welcome in the shop also. My made a comment that looked like you were calling the ITAC bones heads....Had you been saying i was a bone head I wouldn&#39;t have even concerned myself...Now to the subject in bold there is nothing contrieved in the reading of the rule, It is there in plain ink. You by your own admission say you were wrong once. No chance you could see where you could be wrong today? The interesting part would be to know how many cars this really effects. DOes the volvo not have .040 pistons in the FSM?

[Bildon]

>> sorry to dissapoint you, Bill, and sad you implied I was cheating.

Aww come on! :D I wasn&#39;t implying intentional cheating. I just though you caught yourself in a conundrum, since I never assumed that anyone who would have lighter forged pistons made would also ignore balancing the engine. But I stand corrected! :023:

>> I&#39;ve never balanced any of my IT motors

Give it a whirl. Your 2nd and 3rd order vibrations will hate you for it.

[Knestis]

Okay - mental experiment. If the rule had said this since its inception...

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over standard bore size. Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

...would there be an issue?

K

[Bill Miller]

Looks good Kirk, the only thing I would add would be the following:

In the event that factory oversize pistons are not available, no replacement piston shall weigh less than a factory standard bore piston. In addition, any replacement piston shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory standard bore pistons.

I know that a 040 over piston will weigh more than a standard bore piston, but is it really going to be that significant an amount? Also, this is only allowed in the case where no factory oversized pistons are available.

[pfcs]

Joe-I wasn&#39;t wrong at all to have light pistons made-they were legal for a year.
And the club wansn&#39;t wrong or boneheaded to clean up the wording of the rule and eliminate the loophole.
I think it would be wrong and boneheaded to create a ruling that would make a lot of well intentioned and reasonable people illegal and cause them a lot of uneeded expense.
I don&#39;t know if the 140 workshop manual lists any oversizes-I sold it with the car 10 years ago when I got paralyzed.
The Bently A2 manual only lists .25 and ,50 pistons.
1.0 pistons are readily available from oe manufacturers (Kolbenschmidt. et al) and were recently advertised by Bildon. They are identical to originals in every way except diameter and weight (ie: a couple grams heavy). Would all you cheater
VW guys please raise your hands? OK then-now go throw away your engine and do over. Forget about tires-do something you really needed to do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it possible for a forged piston to weigh the same as a cast unit if all the other specs are equal? Are they not inherently lighter by design?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by pfcs@Dec 14 2005, 06:06 AM
Joe-I wasn&#39;t wrong at all to have light pistons made-they were legal for a year.
And the club wansn&#39;t wrong or boneheaded to clean up the wording of the rule and eliminate the loophole.
I think it would be wrong and boneheaded to create a ruling that would make a lot of well intentioned and reasonable people illegal and cause them a lot of uneeded expense. I don&#39;t know if the 140 workshop manual lists any oversizes-I sold it with the car 10 years ago when I got paralyzed.
The Bently A2 manual only lists .25 and ,50 pistons.
1.0 pistons are readily available from oe manufacturers (Kolbenschmidt. et al) and were recently advertised by Bildon. They are identical to originals in every way except diameter and weight (ie: a couple grams heavy). Would all you cheater
VW guys please raise your hands? OK then-now go throw away your engine and do over. Forget about tires-do something you really needed to do.

68216

Phil, I guess this is the only place we aren&#39;t going to agree. If the reading of the rule is that an FSM optioned piston size is the limit then it makes no difference to me that people had good intentions. Good intentions don&#39;t make you legal and shouldn&#39;t be considered and wouldn&#39;t be considered in a protest. If you gonna have rules then they have to be followed. You won&#39;t see me get all wacked about a washer bottle but internal engine parts make a difference.

[Bill Miller]

Phil,

The SCCA has made rule changes that have cost people a lot of money before. The ones that jump immediately to mind were the RR 3x adjustable shocks and engine coatings. At least w/ the shocks, you had a chance of getting some of your money back when you sold them. Don&#39;t think there was much of a market, outside of racing, for coated engine blocks. And maybe you&#39;d like to speak w/ Derek Ketchie about a recent example.

I really hate it when people trot out the "don&#39;t change the rule, it will cost people money" excuse. It&#39;s got to be one of the root causes of rules creep.

[pfcs49]

Andy-my super-light pistons were 25g light because they had tapered pins and a lot less material in them. They fully met the rule for legality in 1987.
I expect identical forgings to weigh almost exactly the same as cast. As the name implies, cast pistons are cast and forged pistons are struck with a die, kinda like minting coins. You can always detemine a piston NOT to be a forging if there is any overhanging material in the underside that was not created by machining it, ie: in the pin boss area between the pin and the crown (impossible to create with a die). Now I&#39;m wondering if there are any identical forgings. Whatever-the real advantage of forged in a full-blown race engine is that they are much stronger than cast. There is no need for them in the lightly stressed apps of a mildly modded, relatively low compression IT motor. Why did I use them? Because the only way to get to my (legal then!) endpoint was to have them custom made from Chevy forged blanks. A lightened flywheel would have been more effective and much cheaper but not legal.

Phil

ps Joe-my point about the reading of the rule: It&#39;s pretty clear to me that the rule can be reasonably read 2 ways. And that given the genesis of the rule, old timers have always been steered to the "40 all" interpretation, And given that taking the opposite view would be uneccesarily burdensome to many honest hard working members, then why not compromise? What I think would be best would be to outlaw ANY oversized piston. Really. It would be so much cheaper. It would be so much simpler. No honing plates needed! A Golf engine, you could build in the car (rings, rods, mains). At 81mm bore, every +.020=1.25% addtl displacement, so +020 yields 1.5hp, +040: 3 hp. (ITB Golf: 100hp at the wheels) So we&#39;re arguing about 1.25% increase. Honestly, do you really belive this is significant? Its less than the kind of error you see in serial pulls on a good engine dyno (maybe you even said this earlier, someone did). I&#39;d trade inlet air temp 10F lower for 40 over any day of the week and so would you!

[Bildon]

Andy. Yes, they&#39;re going to be lighter. Unless you spend a rediculous amount of money designing a set that are heavier than needed.

Phil !!!!
You just let the cat out of the bag. :119:

>> The Bently A2 manual only lists .25 and ,50 pistons.

The ETKA also shows only .25 nad .50 oversized as factory numbers for all Golf / Jetta engines, Golf 2, Golf 3 and 4 !

That pretty much makes most VWs in the country that are fully built illegal by some recent interpretations here.

So this illustrates my earlier point. Please just write the rule so that anyone can put .040 pistons in their car and be done with it!
:angry: <cynical rant follows> Or keep nit picking, keep pigeon holeing, keep arguing, and most importantly KEEP making the rules more and more exclusive so that IT becomes more of a pain to enter into!

Edit: After reading Phil&#39;s quote above that slipped in as I was typing...
>> What I think would be best would be to outlaw ANY oversized piston.

Yup, I would agree. Except that you&#39;d have a lot of people pissed off now. Perhaps make that an &#39;08 rule ?

[pfcs49]

Bill Miller-yes! the club sure has made rules changes that pissed people off. They&#39;ve also been trying to be user friendly. My stand is that given that it&#39;s been generally accepted that +040 was the standard for all for 20yrs (until this string, I never heard this new interpretation or imagined it), that they would be disinclined to "clarify" the rule in a way that would really hurt a lot of consumers while "fixing" something thats not broke.

RIGHT ON BILL S!!
and yeah-I have EKTA also; I just didn&#39;t want to be TOO honest. But you know something? I&#39;d bet that somewhere in the world, VW factory rebuilt engines are available with those very same 040 pistons. In the aircooled days, factory rebuilt engines had all kinds of factory oversize/undersize VW OE parts that were unavailable in the parts dept/non in parts catalog. (like +030" 1700 Bus pistons)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by pfcs49@Dec 14 2005, 08:30 AM
Andy-my super-light pistons were 25g light because they had tapered pins and a lot less material in them. They fully met the rule for legality in 1987.
I expect identical forgings to weigh almost exactly the same as cast. As the name implies, cast pistons are cast and forged pistons are struck with a die, kinda like minting coins. You can always detemine a piston NOT to be a forging if there is any overhanging material in the underside that was not created by machining it, ie: in the pin boss area between the pin and the crown (impossible to create with a die). Now I&#39;m wondering if there are any identical forgings. Whatever-the real advantage of forged in a full-blown race engine is that they are much stronger than cast. There is no need for them in the lightly stressed apps of a mildly modded, relatively low compression IT motor. Why did I use them? Because the only way to get to my (legal then!) endpoint was to have them custom made from Chevy forged blanks. A lightened flywheel would have been more effective and much cheaper but not legal.

Phil

ps Joe-my point about the reading of the rule: It&#39;s pretty clear to me that the rule can be reasonably read 2 ways. And that given the genesis of the rule, old timers have always been steered to the "40 all" interpretation, And given that taking the opposite view would be uneccesarily burdensome to many honest hard working members, then why not compromise? What I think would be best would be to outlaw ANY oversized piston. Really. It would be so much cheaper. It would be so much simpler. No honing plates needed! A Golf engine, you could build in the car (rings, rods, mains). At 81mm bore, every +.020=1.25% addtl displacement, so +020 yields 1.5hp, +040: 3 hp. (ITB Golf: 100hp at the wheels) So we&#39;re arguing about 1.25% increase. Honestly, do you really belive this is significant? Its less than the kind of error you see in serial pulls on a good engine dyno (maybe you even said this earlier, someone did). I&#39;d trade inlet air temp 10F lower for 40 over any day of the week and so would you!

68227



Phil, I agree we are not talking alot of HP, But 3HP in spec Miata would likely be the difference between 1 st and 5th. The was a time in ITS that we would kill for 3 HP in a Z motor.....Please don&#39;t lump all old timers in the.040 crowd. Stuff happens all the time in racing that is wrong. I find a lot of time it is monkey see monkey do. That&#39;s were we get good people caught in a rules issue. The problem with just saying "well so many have all ready done it" is this. once it&#39;s accepted you can&#39;t put the genie back. I don&#39;t believe based on "intent" bleh that the original writers of the ITCS ever thought you would have to stuff a Motec in a ECU to be competitive. Said ECU costs as much as a decent ITC car. Now once 4 or 5 people bought them the will to put them back was not there. So again if the rule is mis-read by me then you&#39;all are OK and shame on me for leaving 3 HP on the table. But i the rule is mis-read by the old guard then shame them for leading us all down this path. ;)

[Bildon]

>> once it&#39;s accepted you can&#39;t put the genie back.

hmm, I thought it has been accepted for many many years. :blink:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bildon@Dec 14 2005, 09:32 AM
>> once it&#39;s accepted you can&#39;t put the genie back.

hmm, I thought it has been accepted for many many years. :blink:

68238


And I thought you had to provide proof of the legality of a part....

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 12:42 PM
And I thought you had to provide proof of the legality of a part....

68239


Touche! :cavallo:
I guess this will never end.

[pfcs49]

how many SCCA nerds on the end of a pin?
I don&#39;t know, but they sure could argue about it forever.
(valued reader: this, of course, does not apply to you.)

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 07:49 AM
Looks good Kirk, the only thing I would add would be the following: ...
Let me clarify. I wasn&#39;t proposing a change. I was asking if things would be different right now, and if this conversation would be happening, if the rule had remained as [I believe] it was when IT was born.

The "exact equivalent" language was inserted as a response to some pushing of the rules, and so is not a reflection of the original intent - WHATEVER that might have been.

I had hoped to avoid it because it isn&#39;t part of the issue. Greg kind of got called out personally so, in a show of solidarity with him, I need to go on record: I am NOT going to make any claims here about what size pistons I am putting in the block that&#39;s currently at the machinist (because you will either believe me or not, based on your individual predilections) but suffice to say that (a) I made my decision AFTER this conversation began, (B) they have VW logos on them...

I hope most of you know me well enough to believe that I&#39;d be in the thick of this conversation even if I were racing a Pinto with a wrecking yard engine.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 14 2005, 05:20 PM
I hope most of you know me well enough to believe that I&#39;d be in the thick of this conversation even if I were racing a Pinto with a wrecking yard engine.

K

68284


Kirk,


You&#39;re switching to GT Pinto????? :lol:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 02:45 PM
Kirk,
You&#39;re switching to GT Pinto????? :lol:

68291


Pinto....The only IT car that should have a fuel cell required on the spec-line. B)

[Geo]

Originally posted by pfcs49@Dec 14 2005, 12:36 PM
how many SCCA nerds on the end of a pin?
I don&#39;t know, but they sure could argue about it forever.
(valued reader: this, of course, does not apply to you.)

68276


:023:

[Bildon]

From &#39;06 GCR...
The installation of a resistor is alowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. :P Going WAY back in this thread.