May Fastrack posted [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

its66

04-20-2006, 04:29 PM

Knestis

04-20-2006, 09:41 PM

Really? It doesn't resolve the single biggest mystery of whether or not oversize pistons are legal if "factory oversize replacement pistons" aren't - or were never - available, up to 40-over.

K

RSTPerformance

04-20-2006, 10:19 PM

"Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used."

Kirk-

Seems clear to me... I am sure this could be tourtured, but I know your a changed man!!!

Raymond

PS: your car looks great ;)

RSTPerformance

04-20-2006, 10:29 PM

Improved Touring
1. Clarify section 17.1.4.D.1.j. by changing to read as follows: Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over the standard bore size.
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons
shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring grove width thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight no less than
the factory standard bore pistons, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.
good move...
[/b]

Jim, next time please post accurately...

The clarification should read as folows:

1. Clarify section 17.1.4.D.1.j. by changing to read as follows: Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over the standard bore size.
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons
shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring grove width <strike>thickness</strike> and spacing, pin height relationship, weight <strike>no less than
the factory standard bore pistons, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.</strike> Piston rings are unrestricted.

Raymond "Thank you for the clarification" Blethen

Z3_GoCar

04-21-2006, 12:14 AM

Improved Touring
1. Clarify section 17.1.4.D.1.j. by changing to read as follows: Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over the standard bore size.
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons
shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring grove width thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight no less than
the factory standard bore pistons, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.
good move...
[/b]

"Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used."

Kirk-

Seems clear to me... I am sure this could be tourtured, but I know your a changed man!!!

Raymond

PS: your car looks great ;)
[/b]

Funny, I read it the other way :P

Read the first sentance first and alone, it's the only place where maximum size is stated. Even the second sentance you quoted indicates that exact equivalent doesn't extend to piston diameter. Even If you ment it tounge in cheeck, there's enough mis-information on the internet, and I regret any I may have posted.

James

Bill Miller

04-21-2006, 06:02 AM

Really? It doesn't resolve the single biggest mystery of whether or not oversize pistons are legal if "factory oversize replacement pistons" aren't - or were never - available, up to 40-over.

K
[/b]

They could have written that a lot better.

its66

04-21-2006, 08:04 AM

Jim, next time please post accurately...

Raymond "Thank you for the clarification" Blethen
[/b]

Yeah, I guess the copy/paste thing didn't pick up the formatting from the PDF file. I'll have to hire a new proof-reader for my posts...good help is hard to find :P

Jim "should have read the post after posting" Cohen
ITS66

Banzai240

04-21-2006, 09:09 AM

Guys... It looks to me like the printing of this rule clarification is all wrong... There are parts struck out that shouldn't be... etc... This isn't how we had it in our notes...

I'll see if I can get it clarified...

Basically, .040 over is suppose to be CLEARLY allowed for all IT cars, but must be no lighter than the STANDARD BORE stock piston... all other dimension requirements remaining the same... The allowance being based on the availability of "factory replacement oversized pistons" is suppose to be eliminated...

When I get home tonight, I'll look over the notes and get a letter in the the tech department to get this printing corrected, or otherwise straighten this up...

I think this is how it is SUPPOSE to read:

Improved Touring
1. Clarify section 17.1.4.D.1.j. by changing to read as follows: Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over the standard bore size.

Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent, with the exception of diameter, shall be used.

Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring groove width and spacing, pin height relationship, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons, and weight no less than the factory standard bore pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

[/b]

bldn10

04-21-2006, 11:45 AM

"They could have written that a lot better."

Isn't that usually the case? :bash_1_: Who is the "they?" I have been complaining about rules drafting for quite awhile now but nothing seems to change. BTW I don't run a piston engine so maybe I just don't know, but what is a ring GROVE?

JamesB

04-21-2006, 12:20 PM

Ring grooves on the piston holt the compression and oil rings into place. So the rule as I read it wouldnt allow you to use a thicker ring then what comes in stock form.

mlytle

04-21-2006, 12:22 PM

gee, a typo in the fastrack....shocker....

guess there isn't anyone in topeka that can proof read.

erlrich

04-21-2006, 12:53 PM

BTW I don't run a piston engine so maybe I just don't know, but what is a ring GROVE? [/b]

Isn't that where you plant a bunch of rings in long rows, then wait for them to ripen so you can pick them? :D

JamesB

04-21-2006, 01:34 PM

heh, you know I guess I must typo enough myself that I didnt even catch it, I read it 3 times as Groove.

lateapex911

04-21-2006, 01:53 PM

Isn't that where you plant a bunch of rings in long rows, then wait for them to ripen so you can pick them? :D
[/b]

Well, in ther interests of absolute accuracy, no.

That would be a ring roe...

A ring grove has the rings planted in a more randome, but grouped pattern..

And yea, not sure what happened along the way, but the rule is indeed not as we intended, nor drafted.

Basically, the goal was to eliminate the loophole that allowed you to make any piston you wanted if your manufacturer didn't supply a 40 over. The new rule will allow you to use any 40 over in any engine, but the piston must match a stock piston, (with dimensional exceptions as noted) and must not be lighter than a stock piston. Before, if you were building a car with no factory 40 over, you could legally make a piston that weighed mere ounces and was way out of the desired scope of the rule.

dj10

04-21-2006, 02:52 PM

gee, a typo in the fastrack....shocker....

guess there isn't anyone in topeka that can <strike>proof</strike> read. [/b]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! ;)

turboICE

04-21-2006, 04:23 PM

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

Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent, with the exception of diameter, shall be used.

Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring groove width and spacing, pin height relationship, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons, and weight no less than the factory standard bore pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.[/b]

I think it is definitely clear in the language that any IT pistoned car can overboar .040 inch. The piston language has gaps I believe.

If a factory oversize is available - I assume by the language an exact equivalent can still be used.

We have discussed in other places before that exact equivalent also means material and I assume method of forming said material? However, the last section would seem to have gone to quite some length to lay out all metrics which determine exact equivalent and I don't see forming method.

So could one walk away from reading that rule with the following:

A motor that has .040 over cast pistons available, can use exact equivalent as defined forged pistons instead? I think so based on the language, but do not know if it was the intent.

If it wasn't the intent, then if standard are cast and an over bore size is not available and someone is going to use e.e. pistons, then e.e. should also be defined to include forming method and the e.e. in this case should be cast as well.

But I don't think the language says that.

RSTPerformance

04-21-2006, 06:42 PM

I might not have said this before but I think "they" should have kept it simple and said that factory replacement or their exact eqivelent must be used. It would have made the cars a lot cheeper to build, and more stock. Now if I want the best motor I need to find someone to build an Audi piston that is .040 over rather than use a factory replacement .020 piston... stupid and expensive, but hey I just enforce the rules... :rolleyes:

blah, I think its stupid, but I admit I did nothing to encourage the rules to be written either way, I just simply wanted to see it clarified and spoke to a few people.

Raymond

PS: as for typo's miss spelling is ok by me, so long as I can read it still!!! lol we should have spell check and gramar check like "Word" on this forum!!!

lateapex911

04-21-2006, 07:37 PM

OK, Raymond, but how much will the 40 over get you? How much more that is, than the 20 or 30 over that you can get inexpensively?

I bet it's miniscule. That's a bit of diminishing returns....if someone wants to spend it, let them. It actually makes your job a lot easier...you won't have to figure out if the car could or could not have 40 overs...all that needs be done in a protest is procuring a new piston...of any factory size, and measuring the required items, and checking weight. I think it actually is simpler than you think.

Andy Bettencourt

04-21-2006, 09:16 PM

Before, if you were building a car with no factory 40 over, you could legally make a piston that weighed mere ounces and was way out of the desired scope of the rule. [/b]

I disagree that it was legal by ANY stretch, but admit that some have built like this who will claim "There was no spec so I can do what I want..."

:bash_1_:

AB

lateapex911

04-21-2006, 11:09 PM

Well, I guess that it would be more accurate to say there was a major grey area, and it made scrutineering a protest veeeerrry difficult. I think the goal is to make the stewards job easier by making the rule read correctly and consistently.

Knestis

04-22-2006, 08:41 AM

Argh.

"Stock pistons and rings may be replaced. Replacement pistons may be cast or forged and may be oversize in diameter to accommodate up to a .040" overbore of the cylinder, but must be identical in terms of mass, dimensions, tolerences, and configuration to the original pistons in all other respects."

If pistons other than "factory oversize replacements" are allowed, there's no point in cluttering up the wording with that term. If it's necessary to elaborate to define "exact equivalent," leave the term out and say what the heck we want the rule to mean.

If we'd quit pissing around the edges of the wording of existing rules, throw out the ones that need changing completely, and start from the beginning with clear, prescriptive language, life would be so much simpler. List the dimensions that have to match and the implication is other dimensions DON'T. Use "factory oversize replacement" in the definition and you befuddle people for whom there IS NO SUCH THING.

K

Tom Blaney

04-22-2006, 09:46 AM

What part of this verbage can't you understand.

If the rule reads that you can use .40 over pistons that must be identical in all other configurations, it seems to me (as an engine builder) that you can use pistons that are .40 overbore but can't have popup's, smaller side area, etc.

If you don't understand what the rule is saying than perhaps you sould lookup the terms and understand the technology before you complain about how the rule is worded. I suspect that anybody that knows how to build an engine understands what that rule states.

Tom Blaney

dj10

04-22-2006, 11:15 AM

Now if I want the best motor I need to find someone to build an Audi piston that is .040 over rather than use a factory replacement .020 piston... stupid and expensive, but hey I just enforce the rules... :rolleyes:
Raymond
[/b]

Wow, doesn't this remind you about the motec issue and stuffing a small unit in a factory box? Now if you want the best you can get a motec also. :D "stupid and expensive" I do believe that the piston issue is less expensive than the motec and keeps everyone equal if they choose to be. Lets face it .040" pistons don't do much for performance (from what I'm told) if the are legal.

Knestis

04-22-2006, 06:05 PM

What part of this verbage can't you understand. ... [/b]

You're reading what you want it to say, or what you think it says, rather than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

Riddle me this. The rule says:

Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used.

If someone races a car for which there have never been any 40-over "factory oversize replacement pistons," how is it possible to use an "exact equivalent" of them? An exact equivalent of something that never existed??

My point is that someone went to the trouble of issuing a clarification but didn't clarify one of the most illogical parts of the rule, unless the actual intent is that we only be allowed to go oversize on cars for which +20 or +40 pistons are available over the OE parts counter - and then, only for the size that is available.

K

Banzai240

04-22-2006, 10:51 PM

[i]Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent , with the exception of diameter, shall be used.

[/b]

Ummmm..... last time I checked... .020 or .040... or whatever factory replacement size may be available... IS a DIAMETER... so the rule doesn't really CARE what DIAMETER factory replacement piston IS/WAS/SHALL BE available... Only that the "exact equivalent, with the exception of diameter" doesn't exceed .040" over standard size...

Seems pretty straightforward to me...

And let's face the facts... the ONLY wording that some of you would except is the wording that YOU propose... Which means there are THOUSANDS of variations/opinions/etc... on how to do this that ALL would get the job done...

We are into MINIMAL wording changes, because we've learned in the past that the more words we put on a page, the MORE "Interpretation" that will go on and the more chance that some "unintended consequence" will occur as a result...

The wording now makes it "clear" that ALL cars are allowed to bore UP TO .040" over, regardless of the diameter of the factory replacement piece, and the replacement pistons must be "exactly equivalent" to the factory replacement pieces, with the exception of diameter, which obviously can be up to .040" over...

Stop bitching and GO RACING! The later is WAY more fun and fulfilling... ;)

Tom Blaney

04-23-2006, 07:11 AM

Darin and I are finally in agreement on one thing "Stop bitching and GO RACING! The later is WAY more fun and fulfilling..."

It appears to me that the ones who can't or won't put the effort into preparing a proper race car use it here to bitch about the ones that do. Cancel your web service, and pick up a few books you'll understand more and go faster than eveybody else will start bitching about you.

Knestis

04-23-2006, 08:02 AM

If that's aimed at me, Tom/Darin - it's a low blow. This is the piece of shit that I'll be dragging around this year. I pretty much just put a lowering kit and rims on it, and then post aboout it on MySpace.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/almostdone.JPG

If it comes to it, I hope that the stewards have the same basic preconceptions that you do because the words don't say what you want them to say. I just had a small hope that, when it was suggested this would get fixed, it would.

Back to the garage.

K

Tom Blaney

04-23-2006, 08:28 AM

Than if you bought that piece of shit your the only one to blame for that move.

If you decided to build it and didn't take the time to research the car's potential (i.e. power to weight, others records, parts availablity etc) than you are the one to blame for that also.

If you decided to build it because you like the car and like the challange than that should be adequate reward in itself.

But it still gets down to the fact that you wasted a lot of effort bitching about something that works for 90% of the grid. The rule book is already way to fat with the stewards responses to all the crying. It's about time to simplify the rules and focus on why you race.

Banzai240

04-23-2006, 01:49 PM

I just had a small hope that, when it was suggested this would get fixed, it would.

[/b]

Kirk,

Some pretty well respected racing peers of yours believe that the wording fixed the problem... Some fellow VW racers amongst them...

The other wording suggested is no better and no worse... just different ways of approaching the same "problem"...

I'm of the opinion that the rule was fine the way it was... people just didn't want to accept that the factory availability of replacement parts had anything to do with these rules and that .040 was a maximum, not an "allowance"... That battle being lost, the next best thing is to get the wording adjusted so as to make the allowance without opening up three more... I think this will do that, and there is a good group of people who agree (they actually did the wording... so I suppose they ought to agree! ;) ) ... Just because there are a few who don't agree..., and let's face it... that was going to be the case anyhow... , doesn't make the rule wrong and doesn't make the people who wrote it incompetent.

lateapex911

04-23-2006, 03:25 PM

Tom, relax, Kirk's one of the more devout racers out there, but he also happens to be smart enough to race, read the rulebook, AND post about it here. I'd dare say his cars are as clean, legal, and actually raced as any of yours.

The previous rule was ambiguous, and there was a very debatable section that people were taking advantage of. Do you want other cars out there racing illegal? With ultra lightweight pistons? I don't.

So it was reworded. Trouble is, the wording that was submitted wasn't the wording that was released.

Kirk has a point, and so does Darin....we'll never please 100% of the readers...but that doen't mean we shouldn't try.

Back to the writing board, we'll see if we can get the typos fixed.

Knestis

04-23-2006, 07:59 PM

Tom builds nice stuff by reputation, but is being a Dick. I don't recall ever meeting him in person, and don't quite know why I deserve it but that's how it is.

Dick.

For what it's worth, I hold the same interpretation as Dick does but, unlike him, I don't trust that some other Dick tech guy won't decide to read the rule the way it's written, rather than the way I've thought it was for the last 20 years - and that the COA in a couple years won't be made up of people who will back him up and find +.040 pistons in a Honda illegal. Or a piece of shit Golf, because they're both in the same boat there.

Kirk (who up until now has done a pretty damned good job here of arguing issues rather than being a Dick but is more than willing to play by the new rules in force here)

Tom Blaney

04-24-2006, 05:47 AM

Nice comment! What frustrates me the most with this is that there is far far too much bitchin and nit picking about the rules that are mostly meaningless. You all basically know what the principal of the rules are and what the class is about. But I flip back to this board and see these string of complaints about how the rules makers did this or that and this is not fair bla bla bla.

The spirit of the club (and I an far from a club flag waving member) is to have fun and give us a place to compete for a $6 trophy against each other just like real race car drivers. But it has become so bent on tweeking the rules so you can (or think you can) get an advantage over the next guy that the fun has gone away. (I imagine the rules makers must be a whole lot more fed up with the bitchin than I am).

So again I repeat, (for the sake of improving the information exchange that this board was also famous for in the beginning) STOP Bitching about washer bottle changes, rent some track time, and try and figure out why the guy who beat you into the breaking zone at the last race did that and LEARN something.

Tom "Dick" Blaney

Tristan Smith

04-24-2006, 07:46 AM

Bill Miller

04-24-2006, 08:02 AM

Hey Darin, I put in a classification request for an IT Nissan SER-R Spec V months ago. I have yet to see any ruling on that. Has it made it's way to the ITAC folks yet, or is it lost in the bureacratic quagmire of SCCA HQ?
[/b]

Tristan,

Isn't that car only 2-3 years old? If so, it's got a couple more years to go before it's eligible for IT.

Andy Bettencourt

04-24-2006, 09:13 AM

Tristan,

We have discussed it and it will get in for 2007 as the first year was 2002 IIRC.

AB

Tristan Smith

04-24-2006, 11:21 AM

Andy, Thanks. Yes, it was my thinking 2007 would be the first year of eligibility. Since I am a Nissan guy I was looking for the next project car, but want to see what the car gets weight-wise before I jump whole heartedly into a build. Also, now that ITR may become a reality, the 300zx is also floating around in the back of my head. But thanks for the heads up. I just wasn't sure anything was ever received since I had heard nothing since I sent in all the paper work.

ShelbyRacer

04-25-2006, 11:22 AM

Wow, doesn't this remind you about the motec issue and stuffing a small unit in a factory box? Now if you want the best you can get a motec also. :D "stupid and expensive" I do believe that the piston issue is less expensive than the motec and keeps everyone equal if they choose to be. Lets face it .040" pistons don't do much for performance (from what I'm told) if the are legal.
[/b]

Well, there is a "real" reason to use that big of an oversize- suppose that you have a lot of prep work done to a block, or the block is very specific or difficult to get. In that case, allowing the additional oversize gets you a few more seasons out of that block before you have to bite it and buy a fresh one...

For those with a large supply of good blocks it may not seem like a big deal, but for some, it's the difference between $150-200 overbore and cleanup and a $1000 or more block prep job.

And anyone who goes .040 over for the performance gain deserves what they get... (a fool and his money are soon parted...) :023:

Banzai240

04-25-2006, 11:43 AM

And anyone who goes .040 over for the performance gain deserves what they get... (a fool and his money are soon parted...) :023:
[/b]

Well... There may also be a slight benefit if the valves are particularly shrouded... Moving the cylinder walls out can help flow in this case...

I'm with you, however... I think the gains are minimal. It's more of a 'rebuildability' issue as far as I'm concerned...

Knestis

04-25-2006, 07:51 PM

...and if someone doesn't take full advantage of that extra 2% of displacement (my example), then they get railed on for not being serious and building the car to the maximum allowed by the rules - therefore surrendering their right to complain. ;)

K

Catch22

04-25-2006, 08:19 PM

beat you into the breaking zone [/b]

I'm a big fan of avoiding the breaking zone altogether.

Thank you, thank you. Please tip your waiters and waitresses.
I'll be here all week.

Doc Bro

04-26-2006, 08:27 AM

:023:

...and if someone doesn't take full advantage of that extra 2% of displacement (my example), then they get railed on for not being serious and building the car to the maximum allowed by the rules - therefore surrendering their right to complain. ;)

K
[/b]

That is the crux of it.....you've got to do these things otherwise your stance is purely conjecture. As a competitor you have to be the 10/10ths guy otherwise your prep level will always be scrutinized and your arguments are viewed as anecdotal.

Either be the 10/10ths guy and have a right to complain or not be and keep quiet. A $2000 no gain exhaust might as well be modern art. Same as $750 no gain one off pistons.

I guess you can always fall back on the "racing ain't cheap or easy" midset.

I have to safeguard against the 65k Z3 that someone may build. I would say, however, that guy would need a prescription more than a race car. :D

R

ShelbyRacer

04-26-2006, 10:29 AM

You know Kirk, you always make me think. And probably not in a good way.

Now we have another factor to put in the "formula". On my car, .040 gives me 2.3%. Actually, as an easier way, we could spec overbore as a percentage of cylinder diameter, rather than a standard size... Hell, if you're making custom pistons anyway...

Combine that with the unshrouding of the valves that Darryl(?) mentioned...

Actually, I wonder how much friction is added by the 1.3% increase in circumference?

I wonder how many other things we can think of?

--BTW Kirk- you know I'm not being a butthead to you, just being a butthead in general :rolleyes: --

I guess you guys are right. As the Eagles sang, "Take it to the limit..."

turboICE

04-26-2006, 10:47 AM

I haven't seen a response to this and am curious.

Prior post:

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

Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent, with the exception of diameter, shall be used.

Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring groove width and spacing, pin height relationship, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons, and weight no less than the factory standard bore pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.[/b]

I think it is definitely clear in the language that any IT pistoned car can overboar .040 inch. The piston language has gaps I believe.

If a factory oversize is available - I assume by the language that an exact equivalent can still be used used instead of the factory piston.

We have discussed in other places before that exact equivalent also means material and I assume method of forming said material is a part of material? However, the last section would seem to have gone to quite some length to lay out an inclusive list of all metrics which determine exact equivalent and I don't see forming method listed.

So could one walk away from reading that rule with the following:

A motor that has .040 over factory cast pistons available, can instead use exact equivalent as defined forged pistons? I think so based on the language, but do not know if it is the intent.

If it wasn't the intent, then if standard are cast and an over bore size is not available and someone is going to use e.e. pistons, then e.e. should also be defined to include forming method and the e.e. in this case should be cast as well.

But I don't think the language says that.

Banzai240

04-26-2006, 10:55 AM

Combine that with the unshrouding of the valves that Darryl(?) mentioned...

[/b]

It's DARIN... DAR---IN...

On a 155hp motor... 2.3% increase is about 3hp... that's about 38lbs of weight on a typical ITS car classification... The Process can't possibly estimate HP potential to that granularity, but it is considered when it gets down to splitting hairs on what we think a car can make...

Like it or not... if you have rules, then you have limits... unless you are pushing those limits, you really ARE NOT fully developed. However, I don't recall anyone... at least on the ITAC, disregarding someones arguement because they weren't "fully developed"... Rather, I'd say it simply puts the argument in context...

You don't really expect us to classify/adjust/spec cars based on the middle of the road do you??

I haven't seen a response to this and am curious.

Prior post:
I think it is definitely clear in the language that any IT pistoned car can overboar .040 inch. The piston language has gaps I believe.

[/b]

Just a quick update guys... THIS is the wording as it was SUPPOSE to have read, and as has been submitted again to the CRB and Tech department to correct the previous Fastrack release:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over the standard bore size. Factory replacement pistons or their equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring groove width and spacing, pin height relationship, and weigh no less than the factory standard bore pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

[/b]

I'll leave it to you guys to figure out what was added and what was omitted...

Hope this helps...

pfcs49

04-26-2006, 01:24 PM

ShelbyRacer

04-26-2006, 01:47 PM

It's DARIN... DAR---IN...
[/b]
Damn, I knew I screwed that up... I didn't go back and look.

On a 155hp motor... 2.3% increase is about 3hp... that's about 38lbs of weight on a typical ITS car classification... The Process can't possibly estimate HP potential to that granularity, but it is considered when it gets down to splitting hairs on what we think a car can make...

Like it or not... if you have rules, then you have limits... unless you are pushing those limits, you really ARE NOT fully developed. However, I don't recall anyone... at least on the ITAC, disregarding someones arguement because they weren't "fully developed"... Rather, I'd say it simply puts the argument in context...

You don't really expect us to classify/adjust/spec cars based on the middle of the road do you??
Just a quick update guys... THIS is the wording as it was SUPPOSE to have read, and as has been submitted again to the CRB and Tech department to correct the previous Fastrack release:
I'll leave it to you guys to figure out what was added and what was omitted...
Hope this helps...
[/b]

Sorry if I didn't make my poor attempt at sarcastic commentary more clear.

Non-sarcastically speaking-

I agree that it will make some minute difference, and that "fully prepared" means taking full advantage of every possible may to make an improvement.

I also do NOT expect the "formula" to take these "granular" (great word BTW) items into account. I personally subscribe to the philosophy that IT gives you a place to run, and doesn't guarantee competitiveness.

Let me also say again that I totally appreciate what the ITAC has done and is doing to fix inherited issues. A year ago, I was going to skip IT and go straight to Prod in a few years when I'm ready. I'm convinced at this point that IT is the place to be and I'm already making plans to build an ITA car in the near future, especially since my foundation vehicle just made itself available yesterday (water pump died and killed the Timing belt- crash motor).

So anyway Darin- it was not my intention to try to make something like that an issue, but merely to parody those who do...

turboICE

04-26-2006, 02:09 PM

Thanks Darin, my read on the final language is that any IT pistoned car can bore .040 over and use a forged equivalent piston. Irrespective of whether a factory cast .040 over piston is available or not. In essence forged pistion equivalent replacements are permitted in all IT pistoned cars.

lateapex911

04-26-2006, 03:22 PM

Let me also say again that I totally appreciate what the ITAC has done and is doing to fix inherited issues. A year ago, I was going to skip IT and go straight to Prod in a few years when I'm ready. I'm convinced at this point that IT is the place to be and I'm already making plans to build an ITA car .....[/b]

So, just maybe the line in your sig. could stand a revision?
;)

planet6racing

04-26-2006, 04:21 PM

what is the difference between "exact equivalent" and "equivalent"?
what is the difference between a nerd and an SCCA nerd?
what is the distinction between a nerd and a bozzo?
what is the meaning of life?
if you exist to argue do you argue to exist?
these are serious issues; I'm so glad I have this esteemed community for support. phil
[/b]

1) Spelling! :D
2) The SCCA Nerd doesn't have taped up glasses. Just a taped up rulebook (from over use)! :D
3) What's a Bozzo? Is that like a Bozo? If so, then the difference is that Bozo could actually toss the ball into the buckets in the Grand Prize Game. A nerd would still be calculating the proper trajectory... :D
4) Why, 42 of course! :D
5) Let me rephrase that question. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck? :D

lateapex911

04-26-2006, 04:56 PM

Good to have you back, Bill!

zracre

04-26-2006, 05:05 PM

5) Let me rephrase that question. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck? :D
[/b]

Ok that depends on the size of the woodchuck, age and class of woodchucking competition. Then it would depend on the size of the woodchuck and the pax index you rate the woodchuck on. Is this a Regional or National woodchuck competition...there are different rules...

planet6racing

04-26-2006, 05:31 PM

Good to have you back, Bill!
[/b]

I've decided to take a different approach to all the silliness.

Plus, I got to drive on track this weekend. Sure, I was instructing my students and was just in my street car, but it is amazing what rain tires and Hawk Blues do to the performance of a street car!

DavidM

04-26-2006, 05:46 PM

Ok that depends on the size of the woodchuck, age and class of woodchucking competition. Then it would depend on the size of the woodchuck and the pax index you rate the woodchuck on. Is this a Regional or National woodchuck competition...there are different rules...
[/b]

It also depends on how "prepped" is your woodchuck. Is it an 8/10ths woodchuck or a 10/10ths woodchuck? Is the woodchuck experienced at chucking wood? An experienced 8/10ths woodchuck could probably out chuck an inexperienced 10/10ths woodchuck.

David

dickita15

04-26-2006, 05:50 PM

4) Why, 42 of course! :D
[/b]

:023:

planet6racing

04-26-2006, 05:51 PM

Well, it also comes down to what your definition of "chuck" is. The older "chuckers" will remember the original intent of "chucking" and note how the modern version of "chucking" has ruined the original intent...

Also, the more recent "chuckers" are allowed to use electronic equipment (heart rate monitors, laser sites, trajectory computers) that aren't available to the older "chuckers"...

:D It's a beautiful day today. I think it is about time I fired my car for the first time this year!

Knestis

04-26-2006, 07:44 PM

4) Why, 42 of course! :D
[/b]

Didja ever wonder?

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/summit0506.jpg

K

ShelbyRacer

04-27-2006, 07:31 AM

So, just maybe the line in your sig. could stand a revision?
;)
[/b]

Well see, it's kinda like this.

A few years back, it seemed like the standard answer to ANY proposal made to CRB about IT came back with the stock response of *doesn't fit class philosophy* or *doesn't follow the intent of IT* or whatever (obviously not direct quotes, but you get the idea).

Combine that with the golden quote of, "Ain't nothin' stock about a stock car."

My best friend did just that. It was a great quote, so I just had to use it.

Perhaps though, it may be time for a change. I think you might be right on that.

BTW- I like your sig line.

I hope you guys never took it personally, because it was never a cut on the current or recent ITAC, but more a commentary on the general stonewall attitude that *used to* be the norm.

In all these years of being on the 'net, I still have never mastered the inflection key. And if you ever met me in person you'd see that I'm not the butthead that I come of as on here. I'm a completely different kind of butthead.

I'll get to work on thinking up a new cheesy sig line.

Jake-

Better?

(I am disappointed that it went back and changed all the signatures in my old posts though...)

philstireservice

04-27-2006, 09:53 AM

Didja ever wonder?

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/summit0506.jpg

K
[/b]

I love having my name attached to the "meaning of life"........ :cavallo: Go Kirk !!!

OTLimit

04-27-2006, 10:20 AM

One comment, and then I'm back out of here.

Chris and the rest of the committee spent a lot of time on the wording only to have it botched when it was printed. After discussions with a lot of people besides the committee, and days (literally) of agonizing over the perfect wording, someone called him to complain about it 10 minutes after it was posted.

And as per usual, some of you still can't figure out what the rule means. :dead_horse:

Small wonder I don't spend time here anymore.