Diff. cooler pump

[rsportvolvo]

I am looking into using a differential cooler for my ITB Volvo 240. Diff. coolers are not in the ITCS, unless I completely missed a line in the drivetrain section. The Volvo Factory 240 Turbo's of the '80's used a Facet fuel pump and I'm not sure which flow rate to get.

Facet (square) solid state: 4-6 psi max, 15 gpm @ 3 psi, 32 gph, * AN-6 fitting size
Facet "Sliver" top (cylnder): 4-5 psi max, 23 gpm @ 2 psi, 36 gph
Facet "Blue" top (cylinder): 6.5-7.5 psi max, 35 gpm @ 2 psi, 45 gph

I am basically drawing suction from the drain plug (thru the cooler) and discharging through the filler in the diff cover. I plan on using -8 or -6 hose with an inline filter.

I'm not worried about weigh as my car has to weigh 2780# and it is going to be way under that without ballast. Not to mention this weight is low in the car.

Any recommendations?

[ITANorm]

My initial response would be, "It's illegal".

Diff coolers are not addressed. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. Volvo Turbos are not on the same spec line, so you can't update / backdate using their parts.

If you figure a way around that, there are a few bits I'd like to incorporate from the factory Supercharged MR2 on my ITA car - like the supercharger! :D (Although, ironically enough, the "optional gearset" allowed in the MR2 is the S/C set - and it's totally useless for an IT car!)

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Jan 22 2006, 01:21 AM
My initial response would be, "It's illegal".

Diff coolers are not addressed. If it doesn't say you can, you can't. Volvo Turbos are not on the same spec line, so you can't update / backdate using their parts.

If you figure a way around that, there are a few bits I'd like to incorporate from the factory Supercharged MR2 on my ITA car - like the supercharger! :D (Although, ironically enough, the "optional gearset" allowed in the MR2 is the S/C set - and it's totally useless for an IT car!)

71554


Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.

The Facet pumps are aftermarket pieces used for aircraft and race cars. It was the same brand pump used on the Volvo 240 Turbo's for the diff. coolers. Nothing to do with line items, ITCS, etc. Volvo Turbo's are not in the ITCS.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.

[Eagle7]

"Any final drive ratio is permitted provided it fits the stock
differential/transaxle housing without modification to the
housing."

Seems like that's your answer - you're fine as long as it stays entirely within the unmodified housing. Does that work for you?

[Chris Wire]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.

The Facet pumps are aftermarket pieces used for aircraft and race cars. It was the same brand pump used on the Volvo 240 Turbo's for the diff. coolers. Nothing to do with line items, ITCS, etc. Volvo Turbo's are not in the ITCS.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.

71556


I seem to remember Catman writing the CRB years ago for what I would assume would have been installation in a 240Z at the time. The response in Fastrack was the standard "inconsistent with class philosophy".

I don't think its legal under the IIDSYCTYC, but I could be wrong. I say write the letter.

[wbp]

It currently is illegal, and should stay that way I suppose. Also should be unneeded if you will use an excellent synthetic, like Redline.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
... Maybe I'm thinking about this too much and I should just pick a pump and use it.
No question - not legal, so it would be a bad idea to do this.

K

[kthomas]

Not legal, and for no good reason.

[Joe Harlan]

Not legal at all, but the answer is not need to move a lot of fluid as it needs time in the cooler to cool, I would shoot for the middle unit.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 21 2006, 08:41 PM
Illegal or not, I'll take it up with SCCA since it is not mentioned. I just wanted to know if this issue had been dealt with before.



71556


Why would you build something that was illegal? The rules DO say that it isn't legal.

"D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring
Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized
herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform
a prohibited function."

There is no allowance for a diff cooler in IT, therefor it is illegal. If you have something like this on your car - and you are fast, people are going to wonder about EVERY other aspect of your program - and your effort to be a legal racer. It's sooo not worth it.

AB

[lateapex911]

On top of that, i really doubt that its necessary at all! Are the diffs THAT weak that they can't take the modest IT hp bump?

Worse, it invites that guy Murphy into the game! Here's something thats really not needed, AND it adds unreliability to the equation. A great way to pump the diff fluid on the track AND burn up gears that would have been just fine.

leave well enough alone.

JMHO, of course!

[MMiskoe]

If the final drive system requires cooler oil than can be provided by the amount in the housing, why can't a cooler be considered part of the "final drive"? No modifications to the housing have been made. It does say ANY final drive.

I know this is a stretch, which is why I am asking, but I am curious to see the rebuttal this would get if actually brought up.

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 23 2006, 01:31 AM
On top of that, i really doubt that its necessary at all! Are the diffs THAT weak that they can't take the modest IT hp bump?

71615


The differential is a Dana 30 and can easily handle the IT power ouput. Plate style limited slips can create a lot of heat. I am thinking about solutions before the problem arises. I've already seen Volvo /Dana 30's blow at the track and heat was a factor.

As far as this modification being legal, I will take that up with SCCA. This forum is a good source of information, but our interpretaions on the ITCS are just that. A letter from SCCA removes all doubt. I'm sure many remember the forged piston and "any bushing material" debates. I don't want to argue about it or put my car in the "cheater's" arena. I'll write the letter and post the response.

Thanks to all for the input.

[Gary L]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 23 2006, 06:31 AM
I'm sure many remember the forged piston and "any bushing material" debates. I don't want to argue about it or put my car in the "cheater's" arena. I'll write the letter and post the response.

71652


David - With all due respect, the forged piston and bushing material debates had some basis with which to start a discussion... they are at least mentioned in the ITCS. Diff coolers are not mentioned in the ITCS. Therefore, by definition (if it doesn't say "yes", it means "no"), they are not allowed.

If I were you and just had to write a letter to SCCA, I'd be writing to ask whether the Volvo 240's were reviewed during the recent ITAC realignment process. Which 240 of the 3 listed are you preparing? There is at least one of those 3 (the 1975 2.0 liter) that would clearly not be competitive at the listed weight of 2780 pounds, IMHO. My understanding of how the ITAC process went down was that if no one was currently campaigning a specific model, that model was not reviewed for proper classification weight.

[dj10]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 22 2006, 06:39 PM
Not legal, and for no good reason.
71605



This is the most honest and intelligent statement I've seen. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 23 2006, 09:31 AM
This is the most honest and intelligent statement I've seen. :)

71677


Really? Why?

This would be a CLASSIC case of rules creep. No need for the modification allowance, yet it adds some performance and longevity. If we used those two factors alone for what the rules read, then you would have hundreds of more allowances. Costs go up for everyone.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 23 2006, 01:31 AM

As far as this modification being legal, I will take that up with SCCA. This forum is a good source of information, but our interpretaions on the ITCS are just that. A letter from SCCA removes all doubt.
71652


I think you should hash it out here a little before you waste your ink. What rule are you citing that makes you think it is legal?

I have a feeling that if you substituted 'supercharger' in your response where you write 'diff cooler', it would make the same amount of sense but lets give it a go.

AB

[turboICE]

I gotta ask is desiring the same things that are allowed by line in Touring to be generally available in IT now rules creep towards Production? Say there is a future T4 car that was allowed a line item diff cooler in Touring are we going to take it away from them when they move to Improved Touring? Or are we going to commit the cardinal IT sin of maintaining as an IT line spec?

How do costs go up for everybody - if there is no benefit to using a modification is everybody forced to use it? It would seem that in the end analysis it only affects those that use it - and they would make the decision if it was going to be worthwhile to do or not.

This is similar to other areas I have issue with in the IT ruleset (mostly lack of permitted mods). Going back to the what makes IT IT and Prod Prod thread what about IT makes this an unreasonable mod to permit?

I think there are a lot of things that have the potential to help costs and longevity that are excluded by "rules creep" excuses. Especially something that can be as clearly isolated to avoid unintended consequences as air cooling friction fluids.

[bldn10]

Marty and Matt, are you guys just messin' w/ us? The rule says that "Any final drive ratio" may be used. All that is talking about is gears - nothing else. Period, end of story.

And, Russell, I'm troubled by your thought process as it relates to the ITCS. As others have said, there is zero support for your contention [it doesn't even rise to the level of an argument] that a diff. cooler is legal. Based on your "reasoning" I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you have all kinds of illegal stuff on your car. I'm sorry to be so harsh but attitudes towards the Rules like yours have to be stamped out every chance we get. :bash_1_:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 23 2006, 10:42 AM
I gotta ask is desiring the same things that are allowed by line in Touring to be generally available in IT now rules creep towards Production? Say there is a future T4 car that was allowed a line item diff cooler in Touring are we going to take it away from them when they move to Improved Touring? Or are we going to commit the cardinal IT sin of maintaining as an IT line spec?

How do costs go up for everybody - if there is no benefit to using a modification is everybody forced to use it? It would seem that in the end analysis it only affects those that use it - and they would make the decision if it was going to be worthwhile to do or not.

This is similar to other areas I have issue with in the IT ruleset (mostly lack of permitted mods). Going back to the what makes IT IT and Prod Prod thread what about IT makes this an unreasonable mod to permit?

I think there are a lot of things that have the potential to help costs and longevity that are excluded by "rules creep" excuses. Especially something that can be as clearly isolated to avoid unintended consequences as air cooling friction fluids.

71690

Touring and Improved Touring are different animals. There are spec line allowances in Touring that are used to equalize cars. That is not done (with ULTRA-RARE exception) in IT. Most of the items that are allowed on the spec lines of T, are allowed in the general rules of IT. I would have no problem voting for something allowed on a spec line in T to be disallowed on the IT version if it didn't fit the ITCS.

A diff cooler DOES add performance and longevity. Certain diff designs need to maintain a certain temp to operate at peak performance. Heck - lets allow the coating of all the internal engine parts - SAME THING! CREEP.

Bottom line? If it doesn't add performance (and that haas a broad definition), why do it? If it doesn't, why allow it? You have to draw the line somewhere or else you have 4 identical classes in terms of basic prep (T, IT, P, GT) with just engine allowances as your difference.

If you want to do more stuff, go to production as a LP car. It's a legitimate option.

AB

[kthomas]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 04:13 PM
A diff cooler DOES add performance and longevity. Certain diff designs need to maintain a certain temp to operate at peak performance. Heck - lets allow the coating of all the internal engine parts - SAME THING! CREEP.
AB

71702


How does a diff cooler add performance? It adds longevity, which reduces long term cost. Remember, we are RACING these cars, and many stock parts are not designed to last forever under these conditions. Nobody is forced to use one. I agree that it would be "rules creep", but this would have saved me money long term had it been legal. Wouldn't have changed my position on the grid or the podium either.

I don't think all creep is bad. I would allow this one, and a tranny cooler. Maybe with a 20lb weight penalty or something, whatever. Not all creep is a bad thing.

Limiting lap time by having people burn up parts- many of which are only found in junkyards, sounds like a cheesy way to regulate "performance". IMHO.

[turboICE]

If a modification was such as to justify a mod only weight penalty I definitely would not want to get into those mods as being permitted that does sound like Prod. I don't think diff or trans coolers would justify them.

Trans cooler I think would be only longevity based. But there are definitely diffs that would improve locking performance if they were allowed to be cooled. I don't know that the imrpovement could be seen in any lap times given wheel and DOT tire limitations though. I would see this as primarly increasing the longevity of diffs, which are not inexpensive, and any performance benefit would be insignificant in terms of lap times.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 23 2006, 12:07 PM
Marty and Matt, are you guys just messin' w/ us?
Affirmative. :023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 23 2006, 12:12 PM
How does a diff cooler add performance? It adds longevity, which reduces long term cost.
71722


Clutch-pack designs loose effectiveness as they get hot. As will anything, keeping temp constant is an advantage. Just like nitrogen filled shocks...

AB

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by Gary L@Jan 23 2006, 10:06 AM
David - With all due respect, the forged piston and bushing material debates had some basis with which to start a discussion... they are at least mentioned in the ITCS. Diff coolers are not mentioned in the ITCS. Therefore, by definition (if it doesn't say "yes", it means "no"), they are not allowed.

If I were you and just had to write a letter to SCCA, I'd be writing to ask whether the Volvo 240's were reviewed during the recent ITAC realignment process. Which 240 of the 3 listed are you preparing? There is at least one of those 3 (the 1975 2.0 liter) that would clearly not be competitive at the listed weight of 2780 pounds, IMHO. My understanding of how the ITAC process went down was that if no one was currently campaigning a specific model, that model was not reviewed for proper classification weight.

71656



Gary,

I am builidng my car to the 1976-1981 line item. There are some nuances that I've uncovered that should make the car competitive. Don't worry, it is all in print from Volvo.

I am also planning on writing a letter about the 2780# weight. The ITCS lists the exhaust valve diameter as 37mm when it is in fact only 35mm for the B21/23/230 SOHC engines. There are some other incorrect pieces of information that I am going to correct, with Volvo technical literature to back it up. Nothing is for sure, but reducing the 240's weight to that of the 140 would be equitable, considering that they are bascially the same car behind the firewall, save some refinements and the fact that the 140 has an SLA front suspenion and the 240 has a strut. The SLA is far superior to the strut.


To all,

There seems to be a trend with SCCA, both at the club level and the Pro level and I have some experience with both. The SCCA isn't what it used to be, and never was. Some things need to change and some things don't. Modifications for the sake of having a reliable car is not an outlandish proposal. Shot-peening connecting rods is one of those things. It doesn't give anyone an edge, and depending on which cleaning method your local machine shop uses, you may get your part shot peened regardless. (for the record my connecting rods will be shot peened, protest away!). Adding and oil cooler to the engine is legal so you can keep your engine alive, why not the same solution for drivetrain pieces? Maybe my car needs it, maybe it doesn't. I am building an IT because it is affordable. Blowing up parts just because is ridiculous! And purchasing new parts is costly, if they're even available.

One thing I find strange is the blank check live axled cars get in the ITCS and no one complains about that. I can legally remove my 5-link and put in a race-spec 3-link and smell like a rose in tech. Also, IRS cars can slot suspension mounting points to adjust alignment, isn't suspension geometry part of the suspension's alignment? These are areas that introduce performance enhancing modifications, not adding a pump and a cooler to increase the life of a differential. But maybe I'm off base here.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

[kthomas]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 05:50 PM
Clutch-pack designs loose effectiveness as they get hot. As will anything, keeping temp constant is an advantage. Just like nitrogen filled shocks...

AB

71731


You're polishing turds to a high lustre. So we should outlaw nitrogen filled shocks? Keeping driver's cool is an advantage, should we outlaw cool suits? Buy a Quaiffe, set your clutch diff up for optimum effectiveness at whatever the operating temp ends up being; there's lots of ways to get your "performance" back. This is a WAY bigger longevity thing than it is a performance thing. We solved our problems eventually: chemically, procedurally, preparationally, etc. but only after burning up some diffs and puking a lot of fluid on the tarmac (actually we only have this problem at one track). All of which could have been avoided with a diff cooler. Performance was never an issue. In the end I'm at the performance level I want to operate at, and always was. I just take my diffs apart more often, spend lots of money replacing fluids and additives, stock a lot of bearings and clutch plates, and do a lot of needless labor. I could be there cheaper with a diff cooler.

Now I'm pretty sure SCCA will plead the ole " rules fit the intentions as written" on this one and diff coolers will remain illegal. But IMHO it shouldn't be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 23 2006, 02:08 PM
You're polishing turds to a high lustre. So we should outlaw nitrogen filled shocks? Keeping driver's cool is an advantage, should we outlaw cool suits? Buy a Quaiffe, set your clutch diff up for optimum effectiveness at whatever the operating temp ends up being; there's lots of ways to get your "performance" back. This is a WAY bigger longevity thing than it is a performance thing. We solved our problems eventually: chemically, procedurally, preparationally, etc. but only after burning up some diffs and puking a lot of fluid on the tarmac (actually we only have this problem at one track). All of which could have been avoided with a diff cooler. Performance was never an issue. In the end I'm at the performance level I want to operate at, and always was. I just take my diffs apart more often, spend lots of money replacing fluids and additives, stock a lot of bearings and clutch plates, and do a lot of needless labor. I could be there cheaper with a diff cooler.

Now I'm pretty sure SCCA will plead the ole " rules fit the intentions as written" on this one and diff coolers will remain illegal. But IMHO it shouldn't be.

71758


It was just an example of how it affects performance - you asked for it! Cooler diff fluid IS a performance enhancement. Should allow the internals of our engines to be coated with all the latest stuff in the name of cooling, performance and longevity? Same argument, SAME CREEP.

AB

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 10:18 AM
Really? Why?

This would be a CLASSIC case of rules creep. No need for the modification allowance, yet it adds some performance and longevity. If we used those two factors alone for what the rules read, then you would have hundreds of more allowances. Costs go up for everyone.
AB

71685

"Costs go up for everyone".
Hmmm is that like allowing the use of Motec's? This adds absoutely no performance just like short shifters. Make the stuff that has no performance values legal

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 23 2006, 03:07 PM
"Costs go up for everyone".
Hmmm is that like allowing the use of Motec's? This adds absoutely no performance just like short shifters. Make the stuff that has no performance values legal

71764


We can't look backward to look forward. You can only learn from mistakes and go from there.

I submit again that if there is no advantage, people woudn't ask for it. If your car don't 'go away' at the end of the race, would you consider that a performance improvment?

AB

[kthomas]

Let's retroactively abolish new tires. They are a performance advantage that lots of people can't afford and they go off at the end of a race! :119:

I'm just funnin' with you now, Andy, we're going to have to disagree on this one. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 23 2006, 04:40 PM
Let's retroactively abolish new tires. They are a performance advantage that lots of people can't afford and they go off at the end of a race! :119:

I'm just funnin' with you now, Andy, we're going to have to disagree on this one. :)

71773


No problem! :lol:

AB

[MMiskoe]

Am I messing w/ you. Well yes & no. I was more trying go fishing for curiosity sake. I'm "polishing turds to a high luster." (I like that phrase, can I use it?)

No where does it say you can change the tire pressures you run, however, you can run any tire so its interperted that you can run any pressure.

There are lots of things like that in IT - where does it say you can adjust front toe settings? Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see it. Camber changes aren't specifically allowed, it just gives a method of adjustment, presumably to return the camber settings to stock after changing springs & lowering the car?

No where does it say you can change Diff oil type, but it does say you can change diff gears & lockup methods. So is it also implied that you can change the fluid to match what is required by the clutch pack style diff you upgraded to? If you can change tire pressures by changing tires, then you can change oil type to match the diff system.

What was asked here was if an oil cooler can be fitted. If the diff system requires cool oil, and the only way to acheive that is w/ an oil cooler, the cooler can be installed w/o mods to the case, where's the problem? The only change is the drain & vent plugs which fall under hardware.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the items I've quoted above. I've been wrong before (that one time I thought I was mistaken). If I am wrong I'm interested to see where I went astray.

Matt

[Bill Miller]

David,



Write your letter, but keep in mind, unless you actually spend the money, and do it through a 13.9, a response stating that they are legal, is nothing more than someone's opinion, and won't necessarily stand up to a protest. You want something that you can take to the tech shed, a 13.9 is the way to go.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Jan 23 2006, 08:40 PM
......., the cooler can be installed w/o mods to the case, where's the problem? The only change is the drain & vent plugs which fall under hardware........
Matt

71798


Calling a hydraulic fitting "hardware", aka a vent cap (or drain plug) is like calling a turbo an exhaust manifold.

A plug, errrrr...plugs, a hose transports...not close functionwise!

[MMiskoe]

Sorry Jake, what I meant by the 'hardware' comment was that the only item in the case that has been changed is the plug for the drain & fill points. Those plugs are hardware which is free. Otherwise there are no changes to the diff casing which is clearly stated must remain un-altered.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 09:13 AM
Touring and Improved Touring are different animals. There are spec line allowances in Touring that are used to equalize cars. That is not done (with ULTRA-RARE exception) in IT. Most of the items that are allowed on the spec lines of T, are allowed in the general rules of IT. I would have no problem voting for something allowed on a spec line in T to be disallowed on the IT version if it didn't fit the ITCS.

A diff cooler DOES add performance and longevity. Certain diff designs need to maintain a certain temp to operate at peak performance. Heck - lets allow the coating of all the internal engine parts - SAME THING! CREEP.

Bottom line? If it doesn't add performance (and that haas a broad definition), why do it? If it doesn't, why allow it? You have to draw the line somewhere or else you have 4 identical classes in terms of basic prep (T, IT, P, GT) with just engine allowances as your difference.

If you want to do more stuff, go to production as a LP car. It's a legitimate option.

AB

71702
Funny that Touring gets brought up here...Touring only allows the stock gear ratio but does allow on a line item with proven need the use of a diff cooler.

[turboICE]

He was replying to my comment that diff and trans coolers are permitted by line in Touring and whether or not a future T4 car with it on their Touring line would lose it when they came over to IT. Apparently they would.

I guess I just expected items permitted in a more restricted modification class would work down to a higher modification class - may not have been valid but an expectation none the less.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 23 2006, 09:16 PM
He was replying to my comment that diff and trans coolers are permitted by line in Touring and whether or not a future T4 car with it on their Touring line would lose it when they came over to IT. Apparently they would.

I guess I just expected items permitted in a more restricted modification class would work down to a higher modification class - may not have been valid but an expectation none the less.

71830

See Ed that's where you get confused....Touring is a different class and nothing more. Production allows alternate compression but if I brought my EP 240sx back to IT would you care that it had 12:1 compression or should I follow the rules set for a IT (a different class)

[turboICE]

Well that would be going from a less restricted modified class to a more restricted modfication class - I don't see where anything I said suggested that.

The confusion comes from the progression of modfication level T/SS > IT > Prod > GT as communicated many times by veterans here.

If there is no relation between classes of competition and their levels of modification for preparation then no rule change risks creeping towards production as there is no relationship between IT modification level and production modification level, each ruleset is determined independently of each other.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 23 2006, 09:48 PM
Well that would be going from a less restricted modified class to a more restricted modfication class - I don't see where anything I said suggested that.

The confusion comes from the progression of modfication level T/SS > IT > Prod > GT as communicated many times by veterans here.

If there is no relation between classes of competition and their levels of modification for preparation then no rule change risks creeping towards production as there is no relationship between IT modification level and production modification level, each ruleset is determined independently of each other.

71833

Ahhhh Now I see where you are lost....That progression does not exist and never has. By the time your 240sx goes SS,IT,Prod,GT....there is nothing left of SS..The concept is good but not very real. I figured it out a long time ago. Work with the rules for the class you are in and don't even read the other set unless you are ready to move there because you will pull your hair out trying to figure it out. It's funny that I have been building racing engines for a lot of years and I still have to get the book out for each catagory including SS just to be sure.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Jan 23 2006, 09:01 PM
Sorry Jake, what I meant by the 'hardware' comment was that the only item in the case that has been changed is the plug for the drain & fill points. Those plugs are hardware which is free. Otherwise there are no changes to the diff casing which is clearly stated must remain un-altered.

71809


This is what D.4.d says: (emphasis mine)


d. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by similar
items performing the same fastening function(s).

So the hardware is hardly 'free'.

I can't believe people are actually trying to justify this as legal. Engine oil coolers are expressly called out as legal. Why would you think that this wouldn't need to be the case for a diff. cooler?

[JLawton]

We ALL agree that there are a bunch of IT rules that don't make sense!!

However, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean you can IGNORE it!!

If you think a role is stupid and disregard it, you're cheating!! Plane and simple!!

As others have mentioned, if you brag about having illegal parts, what other areas are suspect??

Don't give me that crap about not adding to performance but adding to longevity. To finish first, you first have to finish!!

[rsportvolvo]

Originally posted by JLawton@Jan 24 2006, 12:05 PM
We ALL agree that there are a bunch of IT rules that don't make sense!!

However, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean you can IGNORE it!!

If you think a role is stupid and disregard it, you're cheating!! Plane and simple!!

As others have mentioned, if you brag about having illegal parts, what other areas are suspect??

Don't give me that crap about not adding to performance but adding to longevity. To finish first, you first have to finish!!

71846


If WE all agree that some rules need revision and WE are the ones racing, why don't WE petition the revisions that keep IT affordable as an entry level class? Without racers SCCA is just a figure head. I find it strange that WE, in general, just sit back and take it. SCCA doesn't really care that much about IT or they would make it a National Class. Why not update the rules? Like I said before, SCCA racing isn't what it used to be and never was.

I was boasting about running shot peened rods. But let me ask you this, if you protest my car for the rods being illegal how can you prove that I shot peened my rods? Did Volvo shot peen the rods from the Factory? Were the rods shot peened from another rebuild by a shot that uses shot to clean engine parts? Basically this modification only increases the life of the rod by increasing the rods fatigue life. If you're going to complain abou that I feel sorry for you. Same goes for someone who would protest the use of a diff. cooler. That makes for a satisifying victory!

If you suspect my car's illegal, put up or shutup. Not trying to be rude, but if you aren't going to protest, then you're just a whiner. No one likes a whiner and you are doing nothing about keeping IT honest. Oh, and the accused is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.

I will only use a diff. cooler if it is added to the ITCS. I think that it is an oversight that should be addressed. For the naysayers, take the time to get some temp readings from you diff.'s. I think you'll be surprised at how hot they actually get.

I'm sure the VAG fans will say quit whining as they have to replace wheel bearings just about every race. Maybe they're right.

[turboICE]

I really don't see anyway in the most extreme imagination that it would be legal in the current ruleset.

I do think trans and diff coolers should be allowed as the benefit of longevity far outweighs the potential for an incremental performance improvement (which exists but I believe deminimus in IT usage).

My trans and rear end were made for power far exceeding anything IT prep can deliver to it so I wouldn't use them myself.

When I do see something that I believe I should be able to do in IT but don't feel the rules allow me to do, I may or may not discuss it here but I can guarantee you I write the CRB and make the request. Your efforts would be best served requesting that trans and diff coolers be permitted in IT than being here justifying their usage knowing they aren't allowed.

crb [atsign] scca [dot] com

[Joe Harlan]

If WE all agree that some rules need revision and WE are the ones racing, why don't WE petition the revisions that keep IT affordable as an entry level class? Without racers SCCA is just a figure head. I find it strange that WE, in general, just sit back and take it. SCCA doesn't really care that much about IT or they would make it a National Class. Why not update the rules? Like I said before, SCCA racing isn't what it used to be and never was.

That's total BS....They care enough about it not to make it a national class. Make it national and watch how fast you have to pend money to keep up. SM will prove that out. Now that it's a runoffs class the numbers will start heading south. Also it is not the SCCA that prevents the constant addition of un-needed parts. It is the IT membership as a whole not just the few that participate here. everytime you add to the cost of fielding a competitive car you decrease the ability of the class to stay alive as an entry level place to go racing. If you have a spcific need that can be documented with proof then please feel free to requst it for your application. Be sure to include photos and documents that show the serious need for the addition of the parts requested. If it's a case of melting geas because they aren't up to the task I could see adding a per car cooler. I think the 240z guys will tell you they are changing fluid every weekend and the smell will keep the dog out of the garage but they are not having failures.

[turboICE]

I have to agree I think the SCCA feels that this class is an important part of their portfolio. I can't see them going through all the aggrevation they have in the last couple years strengthening the ruleset if they didn't view it as important and worthy of their attention.

David have you written in to the CRB requesting rule changes? In 2005 I sent in several. Three are now in the GCR, one I see their point in not passing it (factory motorsport car specific wear item) and the other I haven't seen a FasTrack response to yet (concerned that one is being ignored as several have been issued since then).

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 24 2006, 09:32 AM


I was boasting about running shot peened rods. But let me ask you this, if you protest my car for the rods being illegal how can you prove that I shot peened my rods? Did Volvo shot peen the rods from the Factory? Were the rods shot peened from another rebuild by a shot that uses shot to clean engine parts? Basically this modification only increases the life of the rod by increasing the rods fatigue life. If you're going to complain abou that I feel sorry for you. Same goes for someone who would protest the use of a diff. cooler. That makes for a satisifying victory!




Pretty easy to prove, produce a stock rod from the Volvo parts dept. I could care less if they were shot peened by some other shop that uses that technique to clean engine parts, still illegal. Maybe you should talk to the gentleman (I forget his name) that lost his HP National Championship because his factoryvalves happened to be a few thou. too large?

BTW, I love these guys that try and intimidate you into allowing their illegal parts/mods. And what really makes for a satisfying victory is running a known illegal car, that you've justified in your own mind!! You're the one I feel sorry for. :018:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 10:02 AM
Pretty easy to prove, produce a stock rod from the Volvo parts dept. I could care less if they were shot peened by some other shop that uses that technique to clean engine parts, still illegal. Maybe you should talk to the gentleman (I forget his name) that lost his HP National Championship because his factoryvalves happened to be a few thou. too large?

BTW, I love these guys that try and intimidate you into allowing their illegal parts/mods. And what really makes for a satisfying victory is running a known illegal car, that you've justified in your own mind!! You're the one I feel sorry for. :018:

71886

Bead blasting is not shot peening.

[OTLimit]

Still trying to figure out how people can cheat. Know they are cheating. Win (sometimes). And then can sleep at night.

While some would say that this is amateur racing and why do you care? I care because it IS amateur racing. YOU are supposed to be honest enough to want to win a crappy trophy without cheating.

I have no sympathy for lame excuses. You picked a car, and they all have their weak spots. Race it legally or have the fortitude to race in a class where those changes are legal.

[bldn10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 08:09 PM
David,
Write your letter, but keep in mind, unless you actually spend the money, and do it through a 13.9, a response stating that they are legal, is nothing more than someone's opinion, and won't necessarily stand up to a protest. You want something that you can take to the tech shed, a 13.9 is the way to go.

71802


Bill, as I interpret and understand it. a 13.9 opinion will not necessarily "stand up to a protest." All it does is prevent penalty points from being assessed when the local SOM find you illegal despite your piece of paper from Topeka. :o

[latebrake]

If done right a diff pump and cooler can be a drysump trans. Less power loss.

[bldn10]

Matt, nothing wrong w/ being a Devil's advocate but it just concerns me that more and more people are actually making these kinds of claims w/ straight faces. The objective of any rule interpretation is to try to discern the drafters' intent - not to torture it for our own purposes.

"No where does it say you can change the tire pressures you run, however, you can run any tire so its interperted that you can run any pressure."

No where is there a spec for tire pressures and tires do not come w/ air in them so that is a matter completely w/i the discretion of the user - it is not an item even subject to regulation.

"where does it say you can adjust front toe settings? Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see it. Camber changes aren't specifically allowed, it just gives a method of adjustment, presumably to return the camber settings to stock after changing springs & lowering the car?"

Likewise, there are no mandated specs re suspension settings, so you can do what you want as long as you don't have to modify the car in an illegal way to do so.

"No where does it say you can change Diff oil type, but it does say you can change diff gears & lockup methods. So is it also implied that you can change the fluid to match what is required by the clutch pack style diff you upgraded to? If you can change tire pressures by changing tires, then you can change oil type to match the diff system."

Arguably dealt w/ in 17.36: any oil and oil additives may be used. These examples are more like the gas tank - no where does it say you can run less than a full tank; therefore, you have to. Some things just aren't w/i the purview of the Rules. So, no, I do not believe that the reason you can use some other diff. fluid is because you made an allowable change in the diff, itself. It is because you can use any fluid you want anyway.

"What was asked here was if an oil cooler can be fitted. If the diff system requires cool oil, and the only way to acheive that is w/ an oil cooler, the cooler can be installed w/o mods to the case, where's the problem? The only change is the drain & vent plugs which fall under hardware."

Absolutely not! It says you can change the diff, but it does not say you can do anything else to make it work better, or at all, for that matter. This is rules creep at its worst - first you make the argument you made, next someone argues that they need cool fluid too but they can't get a cooler in the case so they should be able to use an external cooler. Or it's simply cheaper to use an external unit. Then everyone wants an external diff. cooler. Then you say if a diff. cooler is OK why not a tranny cooler? Why not allow icing down of the intake air, or fuel for that matter? And on and on. If the IT community wants to alow some things that make our cars last longer and/or run cheaper, those may be legit changes to make, but they sould be made w/ deliberation through the rules process - not on an ad hoc basis through cheating and protests.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 24 2006, 11:28 AM
Bill, as I interpret and understand it. a 13.9 opinion will not necessarily "stand up to a protest." All it does is prevent penalty points from being assessed when the local SOM find you illegal despite your piece of paper from Topeka. :o

71902


That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

[itmanta]

I would say that it is total BS to say a modification made to keep a part alive under racing conditions is not a competative advantage in IT. That is what makes one car better than the other. No different than having better brakes or more HP. It is all part of the equation for each vehicle. I do not want to see anyone hurt, but if your parts can't hang I would be glad to see you pulled safely off track.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 24 2006, 10:32 AM
... I was boasting about running shot peened rods. But let me ask you this, if you protest my car for the rods being illegal how can you prove that I shot peened my rods? ... If you're going to complain abou that I feel sorry for you. Same goes for someone who would protest the use of a diff. cooler. That makes for a satisifying victory! ...

Dude. Seriously.

I was going to actually get involved in the substance of this conversation but I've changed my mind.

Kirk (who thinks that Chesapeake, VA is close enough to Greensboro, NC that he'll get to race against this fellow ITB competitor at VIR) :happy204:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by OTLimit@Jan 24 2006, 12:19 PM
Still trying to figure out how people can cheat. Know they are cheating. Win (sometimes). And then can sleep at night.

While some would say that this is amateur racing and why do you care? I care because it IS amateur racing. YOU are supposed to be honest enough to want to win a crappy trophy without cheating.

I have no sympathy for lame excuses. You picked a car, and they all have their weak spots. Race it legally or have the fortitude to race in a class where those changes are legal.

71896


Lesley, you are my hero!

Integrity.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by rsportvolvo@Jan 24 2006, 10:32 AM
SCCA doesn't really care that much about IT or they would make it a National Class.


Sorry, but you failed logic in school. Or debating. or you're just flaming us for giggles. The two have NOTHING to do with each other! Duh. Have you sent in request to make it National? A plan perhaps? Did the club ignore it? What possible evidence do you have to support such a statement? Please, post responsibly.


Why not update the rules?

Why not read them!? As in YOU should read them. They are updated, on a constant basis. Then again, as you have stated, your judgement trumps the rulebook, so reading them would be a waste of time for you.


Like I said before, SCCA racing isn't what it used to be and never was

71867


Don't try to out Yogi Berra Yogi Berra.

[Bill Miller]

Don't try to out Yogi Berra Yogi Berra.


Best line in this whole thread!!! :P :happy204: :023:

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by latebrake@Jan 24 2006, 12:43 PM
If done right a diff pump and cooler can be a drysump trans. Less power loss.

71911


So can an oil cooler. SHHHHHH! ;)

[bldn10]

"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 25 2006, 09:50 AM
"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.

72102

Bill, I agree about precedence except I have actually seen where the COA got it wrong in my opinion. The got it wrong on well crafted language and having no one to argue against that information. The 13.9 protest does not have both side of the issue properly represented. I believe that the 13.9 rule needs to be changed to have a committee formed that would argue the other side of the issue. Then I could see a precedence set from the ruling.

[MMiskoe]

Bill (Denton):

This is the sort of response I was looking for. Nothing more than well thought out rebuttal to me being devils advocate. That's how you learn what others are thinking & interperting.

Do I think a diff cooler is legal? Not really. Do I think it fits w/in the spirit of IT? Yes, the rest of the rules allow for changes to help longevity, otherwise oil coolers, windage trays & accusumps wouldn’t be allowed. Would I protest the guy? No. Would I be brave enough to fit one? Not after seeing that the general IT public disagrees with me. Should something be proposed for a change? Sure. Is it rules creep? Yes, but so are intake restrictors & alternate crank pulleys and those seem to have been well received.

I think you’re wrong about toe settings, I have yet to see a FSM that doesn’t define the alignment settings for the car. Tire pressures are a bit more subjective since they are usually noted as a “recommended” setting. But they are defined, therefore they can be measured, therefore the argument that they are free is wrong. Do I plan on protesting anyone about it? No. It just points out the inconsistencies in the system.

Should the rule book be tortured? Hell yes! If it wasn’t expected to be stretched, then those who wrote it were short sighted. Anyone trying to put together a competitive car will look in every direction for an edge & the rule book is the best place to start. I’m amazed that people don’t look at it this way. You can’t expect to build a car to the full extent of the class if you don’t push the limit of what the class allows. You don’t drive at 9 tenths do you?

Matt

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 25 2006, 10:50 AM
"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.

72102


Bill,

The way I read that, is that you can't have any penalties assess against you in the event of a negative ruling on a 13.9. I'm not so sure that you're correct about the 13.9 not being applicable to anyone else. It's an interpretation of a rule, and should impact any test of that rule. And where did you find the language that says prior rules interpretations are not binding on subsequent ones?

[bldn10]

"The way I read that, is that you can't have any penalties assess against you in the event of a negative ruling on a 13.9. I'm not so sure that you're correct about the 13.9 not being applicable to anyone else. It's an interpretation of a rule, and should impact any test of that rule. And where did you find the language that says prior rules interpretations are not binding on subsequent ones?"

The way it is written it can certainly be read that way. I just thought that surely that's not what they meant because why would anyone think that you would be assessed penalty points simply for asking a hypothetical question? Moreover, the immunity from penalties would furnish the return for your $250; otherwise, why bother? So, using established techniques for interpretation of ambiguous language, I am confident that a 13.9 in your favor allows you to make the mod you asked about w/o fear of being penalized for it.

As to who it applies to, first of all I was told that by the steward I referred to earlier. Also notice that it says that a compliant ruling will not even be published - no one else would even know about it so how could they take advantage of it? The local SOM would not even know about it!

There is no language dealing w/ the precedential effect of COA opinions. And, in the absence of such, the default is that there is none. It would take affirmative language to make it so, or the COA could adopt an internal rule that it would follow precedent. Cite me one COA opinion that referred back to a prededing one (other than an identical protest at the same event). I have seen 2 opinions in the same issue of Fastrack w/ contrary outcomes from different COAs on very similar issues. As far as I know, there is no indexed library of COA opinions so there is no way at present for the COA to even research issues that may have been previously decided. If anyone knows anything different, please speak up.

As I have argued before, there is zero consistency in interpretation of the passing rules, which are so vague as to be practically useless. If we had precedential rulings we could establish a body of interpretation over time that would supplement the rules and give us a much better idea of what is expected of us. (FWIW I e-mailed Randy Pobst and he completely agrees w/ me on the uselessness of our rules and the inconsistent interpretations of them.)