ITR legality question about hub.

[Crashtest]

So I have a S2000 and we have been chatting over on s2ki.com about a rear hub issue with this car.
they tend to break under heavy stress and can loft the car in the air if it happens at the wrong time.

I understand that the ITR class was designed to keep cost low but.....

There is someone in the bay area that has found someone to make a replacement hub for us
I wanted to know what you guys think and why it would be illegal if it was.
I think Josh thinks it may be but its not a performance part or anything to make the rotating mass less.

let me know if that all makes sense.

[JeffYoung]

You have to use stock parts or their aftermarket identical equivalents.

What makes the new hub stronger and more durable the the stock one? That -- whatever it is - is what makes this illegal.

I saw a rear hub break on a 325 in a 100 mph corner at Roebling. Bad accident. Certainly want to avoid that, but the way we have to do it in IT is to simply replace hubs on a frequent basis if they are a known weak oint.

[Joe Harlan]

You have to use stock parts or their aftermarket identical equivalents.

What makes the new hub stronger and more durable the the stock one? That -- whatever it is - is what makes this illegal.

I saw a rear hub break on a 325 in a 100 mph corner at Roebling. Bad accident. Certainly want to avoid that, but the way we have to do it in IT is to simply replace hubs on a frequent basis if they are a known weak oint.
[/b]


I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.

[ddewhurst]

***There is someone in the bay area that has found someone to make a replacement hub for us***

***I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.***


ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtainr eplacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacture.

100% ILLEGAL by rule ^.

Have Fu ;)
David

[JeffYoung]

Now now Joe! No you wouldn't, you'd argue the opposite! Trying to stir the pot on Christmas, shame on you! lol......



I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.
[/b]

Sky's not falling though. Read the rule (not the piston specific one):

Stock replacement parts maybe obtained from sources other than the manufacturer profided they are teh exact equivalent of the replacement 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.

David is right. You can't go to the local machine shop have someone make you a (lighter and stronger) billet hub. Illegal per teh words and intent of the rule.

Happy holidays!

[Joe Harlan]

Now now Joe! No you wouldn't, you'd argue the opposite! Trying to stir the pot on Christmas, shame on you! lol......
Sky's not falling though. Read the rule (not the piston specific one):

Stock replacement parts maybe obtained from sources other than the manufacturer profided they are teh exact equivalent of the replacement 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.

David is right. You can't go to the local machine shop have someone make you a (lighter and stronger) billet hub. Illegal per teh words and intent of the rule.

Happy holidays!
[/b]


Guys come on. Dimensions are the same and material is steel. PROCESS IS NOT A SPEC! Just like the piston rule cast v forged. Jeff didn't stop in to stir anything up. Before the replacement rule was put in I would have agreed with your take. There is nothing to stop it now. Even the autoparts rule does not stop it. Prove that I didn't buy it from carquest? Now lets look at the other art of that section you guys want to quote.


It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined
by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified.
Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. 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.[/b]

If an aftermarket part meeting all the criteria of the replacement rule for material and dimension can be found or made then it is legal.

Merry christmas to you all.

[Ron Earp]

If an aftermarket part meeting all the criteria of the replacement rule for material and dimension can be found or made then it is legal.

Merry christmas to you all.
[/b]

So........

The valve springs I just picked out are made of steel and have the same exact dimensions as the OEM springs. They happen to have twice the seat pressure. Legal? I think not.

While the manufactured part may not have a physical aspect that is as easy to measure as spring pressure, if it doesn't have all the same characteristics then it is illegal.

If the stock uprights are cast pieces then it is illegal to replace them with parts machined from billet (a solid block of material). If the stockers are steel, then it is illegal to replace them with aluminum, or, a higher grade steel.

My money is on the stockers not being billet pieces. And, if they aren't then replacing them with billet pieces is going to have someone writing some paper up over your car.

But, these are just my opinions and I'm sure other opinions will vary.

[Joe Harlan]

So........

The valve springs I just picked out are made of steel and have the same exact dimensions as the OEM springs. They happen to have twice the seat pressure. Legal? I think not.

While the manufactured part may not have a physical aspect that is as easy to measure as spring pressure, if it doesn't have all the same characteristics then it is illegal.

If the stock uprights are cast pieces then it is illegal to replace them with parts machined from billet (a solid block of material). If the stockers are steel, then it is illegal to replace them with aluminum, or, a higher grade steel.

My money is on the stockers not being billet pieces. And, if they aren't then replacing them with billet pieces is going to have someone writing some paper up over your car.

But, these are just my opinions and I'm sure other opinions will vary.
[/b]

Ron,

Your brighter than the seat pressure arguement because the pressure (rate) would be a considered fact and would be illegal because no legal part (aftermarket) shall perform an illegal function. Cast forged or billet are all processes. Processes have be proven to not be a dimension considered in this arguement (pistons) I would even go as far as to say that by opening up that rule you have also allowed alternate cranks meeting all the correct deminsions. (good intentions you know) Kinda like the old ECU rule and how it got away. I would venture to say that the parts on the S2000 are machined from forged steel parts and there for machining from a billet piece of the same grade of steel would be completely legal as hardness would not be considered in the protest. If hardness becomes an issue then I will venture to say there are a bunch of brake rotors and pistons that all the sudden become illegal parts. I hope Greg AMy chimes in on this one to show me how far off the mark I am...:)

Ya,all have a couple on me....:)

[ddewhurst]

Merry welded in Spherical bearing to you Joe, if you haven't fallen through the thin ice your atempting to skate on & drowned. :018:

[Joe Harlan]

hey David, I didn't say I liked it. I said it was legal. Remember I bought a tube framed GT car this year because at least the rules are consistant.....(Spend Money) IT is not the grand old girl she once was and every poorly written new rule just adds to the mess. You may think you know what the rule was supposed to do but once put to paper is can cause things you never dreamed of...:)

[Ron Earp]

hey David, I didn't say I liked it. I said it was legal.
[/b]

That is your opinion that it is legal. Mine differs and I'd file against you in a race situation. I like you and all, nothing personal, just my interpretation of the rules is different than yours.

Regardless of what you and I think the proof will be in tech/steward interpretation at the track.

Crash, my advice would be to ask tech and stewards in your region, and last but not least, a couple of your competitors. For example, I'm sure the 944 S2 (ITR car that there are a few of running around) guys would love to replace their lower arms with some billet bits. Haven't seen that done yet though in the paddock. However, if it does pop up I'd fully expect someone to write paper over it, at least in the Southeast.

Ron

:114:

[Joe Harlan]

Ron,
Opinion can be based in fact also. Look back to the gret piston arguement when I was all about factory process. I have since learned my lesson. I would be fine with you protesting me even if you didn't like me cause thats how rules get fixed. As far a the 944 balljoint issue goes if they can figure out a way to have an aftermarket OEM replacement made that is stronger and meets the wording of the current rule them more power to them. I have to laugh because this class was built on limitations but once you open a door it is open. In this case it was a rule that was supposed to allow brake rotors and clutch discs and the like but in the end could allow rods,cranks,valves, ect if it is available in mass production and in the oem supply chain. Remember nobody ever thought an IT racer would stuff a Motec in a factory case either.

Finally ROn the stewards and tech will have nothing to do with it in the end. It will go through the COA and they will rule on the issue as the rule is written.

Merry Christmas and we will be glad to have you all in GT soon.....:)

[dickita15]

I have to agree with Joe that asking local officials is a waste of time. Very few think about the IT specific rules anywhere near as much as the regulars on this board.
While I do not agree with some opinions on this board we do a very good job of exposing the different arguments pro and con and give a racer the different sides of the argument need to evaluate such a decision.
How the COA would rule is a crap shoot.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am confused as to how the piston rule plays into this. The different mfg processes are specifically called out as legal.

[Joe Harlan]

I am confused as to how the piston rule plays into this. The different mfg processes are specifically called out as legal.
[/b]

They weren't before we argued the piston rule about 5 years ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK,so as suspected, the piston rule is not pertinant to the conversation. HOWEVER:

I agree with Joe in a practical sense, by probably not in application. Here is why...A forged widget of identical exterior dimensions to a cast widget should weigh less by nature...making it illegal to the replacement part rule.

IF you could match the stock part in every dimension - and weight is included in that, then I agree with Joe that the method of manufacture is not dictated by the rules...but are there really dimensionally identical parts out there that are forged that weigh the same as cast (stock)?

[Joe Harlan]

OK,so as suspected, the piston rule is not pertinant to the conversation. HOWEVER:

I agree with Joe in a practical sense, by probably not in application. Here is why...A forged widget of identical exterior dimensions to a cast widget should weigh less by nature...making it illegal to the replacement part rule.

IF you could match the stock part in every dimension - and weight is included in that, then I agree with Joe that the method of manufacture is not dictated by the rules...but are there really dimensionally identical parts out there that are forged that weigh the same as cast (stock)?
[/b]


Funny because that is the exact argument that was made between cast and forged pistons. You may choose to question how it pertains but it cleary does.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...wtopic=2600&hl= (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2600&hl=)

[JLawton]

How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)

[Joe Harlan]

How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)
[/b]


Exactly but the COA does not rule on intent.

[Bill Miller]

How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)
[/b]

I wasn't going to go there, but since Jeff opened the door....

I find it the ultimate irony that Andy doesn't think this is legal.

As far as the piston rule goes, it sounds as if Andy felt that forged pistons were not legal prior to the additional language being added to the ITCS. Is that a correct assumption Andy?

I agree w/ Joe, the way the rules are written, these would be legal.

[JeffYoung]

What about:

aluminum flywheels?

Carbon fiber body panels?

Ceramic brake rotors?

The piston rules specifically allows forged pistons for reasons I don't honestly remember. No where else is anything other than an exact OE equivalent allowed. If stronger or lighter, or heavier or weaker for that matter, illegal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wasn't going to go there, but since Jeff opened the door....

I find it the ultimate irony that Andy doesn't think this is legal.

As far as the piston rule goes, it sounds as if Andy felt that forged pistons were not legal prior to the additional language being added to the ITCS. Is that a correct assumption Andy?

I agree w/ Joe, the way the rules are written, these would be legal. [/b]

Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?

[Joe Harlan]

What about:

aluminum flywheels?

Carbon fiber body panels?

Ceramic brake rotors?

The piston rules specifically allows forged pistons for reasons I don't honestly remember. No where else is anything other than an exact OE equivalent allowed. If stronger or lighter, or heavier or weaker for that matter, illegal.
[/b]

Come on Jeff, you can argue better than that, Those Items would be different material under any ruling




Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?
[/b]

I would say making a billet hub or crank of the same weight a dimension will be no problem, When you consider stock manufacturing differences it is very possible. Billet Miata cranks balanced perfect would make for a nice starting piece. Connecting rods no problem.

Do I want all this? Nope but this is what happens when you get just a little bit knocked up.

[JeffYoung]

True dat. Too much holiday spirit.

[ddewhurst]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

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 manufacture.


Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.

[Bill Miller]

Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?
[/b]

So Andy, alternate parts have to weigh exactly the same as stock parts. What do you use as your standard? Do you think stock brake rotors all weigh exactly the same? Heck, stock rods don't all weigh the same (if they did, there would be no need to balance them). What's the allowable tolerance? And I seriously doubt that you'll find a factory spec on something like brake rotor or hub weight. BTW, I believe the piston rule states that the forged pistons can be no lighter than stock (not 100% sure w/o pulling out the book).

As I said, I find it the ultimate irony that you take such a strict constructionist stand on something like this, when you trampled all over the rules w/ your own ECU. You claim that you feel that what you did was legal, and that when you asked others, they agreed w/ you. Point of fact is, it was never actually put to the test via the protest process or the clarification process. And there have been enough people just on this board that are not convinced that it was legal. You used a modification that you claimed was legal, but was never actually vetted, as justification for a rule change. What's even worse, is that by your own admission, it was not consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (others have stated that they didn't feel that it met their interpretation of the intent either). You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the IT ship, leading the charge for rules creep, in what is arguably the biggest departure from the IT philosophy that we have seen to date.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Come on Jeff, you can argue better than that, Those Items would be different material under any ruling




I would say making a billet hub or crank of the same weight a dimension will be no problem, When you consider stock manufacturing differences it is very possible. Billet Miata cranks balanced perfect would make for a nice starting piece. Connecting rods no problem.

Do I want all this? Nope but this is what happens when you get just a little bit knocked up. [/b]

Again, just asking questions:

Billet is a term that refers simply to a part machined out of a bar of metal. As long as that type of metal is the same type as what you are replacing - and you create the EXACT part as stock, I see it as legal. No?Again, the same as stock. I guess we could go back to 100% stock replacement parts..........

[Bill Miller]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

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 manufacture.
Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.
[/b]

David,

The use of e.g. does not limit one to only auto-parts distributors. It uses auto-parts distributors as an example of a standard industry outlet. Explain to me how a shop that fabricated custom hubs would be any less of a 'standard industry outlet' than say a place that fabricates custom pistons (e.g. J-E or Wiesco)? They are both operations that fabricate components to customer specifications. Unless of course, you don't think that people are allowed to use J-E or Wiesco pistons in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy, alternate parts have to weigh exactly the same as stock parts. What do you use as your standard? Do you think stock brake rotors all weigh exactly the same? Heck, stock rods don't all weigh the same (if they did, there would be no need to balance them). What's the allowable tolerance? And I seriously doubt that you'll find a factory spec on something like brake rotor or hub weight. BTW, I believe the piston rule states that the forged pistons can be no lighter than stock (not 100% sure w/o pulling out the book).

As I said, I find it the ultimate irony that you take such a strict constructionist stand on something like this, when you trampled all over the rules w/ your own ECU. You claim that you feel that what you did was legal, and that when you asked others, they agreed w/ you. Point of fact is, it was never actually put to the test via the protest process or the clarification process. And there have been enough people just on this board that are not convinced that it was legal. You used a modification that you claimed was legal, but was never actually vetted, as justification for a rule change. What's even worse, is that by your own admission, it was not consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (others have stated that they didn't feel that it met their interpretation of the intent either). You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the IT ship, leading the charge for rules creep, in what is arguably the biggest departure from the IT philosophy that we have seen to date. [/b]

Bill, you just don't get it. All I was doing was agreeing with Joe that the method of mfg is not specified in the rulebook. Flaw in the rules? Certainly up for debate.

On the ECU thing, I won't debate it anymore. You refuse to read the posts so it's like discussing a book with somone who hasn't read it. Some think it was legal, some don't. I can accept that 100%.

[seckerich]

Certain Hondas that will go unmentioned have used replacement hubs for 10 years. A cast steel hub will actually be lighter than a billet piece. No performance advantage there weight wise. I will stay out of the intent part. Once it is machined you have zero chance of telling the difference.

[Joe Harlan]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

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 manufacture.
Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.
[/b]

David my friend you can cry all you want I did not write the rule. I promise if I want a billet crank I can by a scat through any autoparts chain I want. This is just a function of an open rule set. I am playing in a different pond now but the facts are that a question was asked an bad info was given. I

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you just don't get it. All I was doing was agreeing with Joe that the method of mfg is not specified in the rulebook. Flaw in the rules? Certainly up for debate.

On the ECU thing, I won't debate it anymore. You refuse to read the posts so it's like discussing a book with somone who hasn't read it. Some think it was legal, some don't. I can accept that 100%.
[/b]

No Andy, what you said was that they had to be EXACTLY the same, including weight. I simply asked you what you would use as a standard.

As far as the ECU thing goes, no, I don't refuse to read the posts. In fact, I think I've read most, if not all of them. You used unsubstantiated legality as justification for a rule change. Say what you want, but that's what you did. And you're ok w/ people thinking that you cheated, especially after you admitted that you didn't feel that what you did was consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (and didn't seek any kind off official position)? That speaks volumes.



So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....
[/b]

Not sure why you feel that a solution is necessary. Some feel that it's legal, some don't. I'm surprised that your not 100% ok w/ that.

[ddewhurst]

If we ALL are to understand the rules like a few have shown in this thread we can now make any part we want as long as it's identical/equivalent/whatever. Capital BS all the way. While at the same time some of you called the subistituted Dewhurst lower links ILLEGAL. Please select which side the fence you want to play on & stay there. :D

Nuff of this BS for me.

Say By ;)
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Andy, what you said was that they had to be EXACTLY the same, including weight. I simply asked you what you would use as a standard.

As far as the ECU thing goes, no, I don't refuse to read the posts. In fact, I think I've read most, if not all of them. You used unsubstantiated legality as justification for a rule change. Say what you want, but that's what you did. And you're ok w/ people thinking that you cheated, especially after you admitted that you didn't feel that what you did was consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (and didn't seek any kind off official position)? That speaks volumes. [/b]

I would use the stock part. It would be up to a PC to determine if they thought there was enough of a difference to warrant a penalty. I am not sure how this differs from anything that there is no spec for in any car - of which there are hundreds.

You read most? Hey, thanks a bunch! It's nice to know you are willing to come on here and sling the crap with most of the information!

I am never ok with people thinking I cheated. That could be the single stupidest statement you have ever made. What I am ok with is that what I did I believe was legal (and has been done in many parts of teh country), as do others I respect as well as race against - two of whom own ARRC winning cars - but some think it is not. I am prepared (as should everyone) to present my car as legal to any PC in the country. If I lost a protest at the highest levels, I would lick my wounds, suck it up and take my punishment...as well as being pretty embarrased.

We all know that 'MoTec in a box' is outside the orginal intent. HOWEVER, since this rule has been out for years that intent has moved completly over to the acceptance that it is legal. Sucky, but legal. Those who wrote the original rule screwed it up. We aren't talking about a 'new' grey area where the intent is being tortured (like the shift lever discussion), we are talking about something that many are doing - because it SAYS YOU CAN. The intent horse on this rule is so far out of the barn it's laughable. And if you expect me to run a stock ECU while others are taking advantage of something that is clearly legal, you have the wrong guy. I am out to win just like the next guy. I voted against SB's as bushings...but I have them now.

Now if you are pissed at me for the APPLICATION of my 'MoTec in a box', no sweat...like I said, I was always prepared to defend myself as what I had I believe to be legal.

And for the record, even the most hardened, anti-creep guys in the ITAC voted in favor of the ECU rule change given where we are in technology, price, the old rule and the ability to go backward.





Not sure why you feel that a solution is necessary. Some feel that it's legal, some don't. I'm surprised that your not 100% ok w/ that. [/b]

There is a shocker, you didn't even take the time to understand what topic that comment was made for.

The question for you Bill, is simple: Do you think the replacement part rule is bad? If you do, what do you want to do about it instead of just complain?

So now I am 100% done. It's obvious to me you don't want to see my opinions on topics in an open debate, you want to pound me personally. That is a signal to step back and let some others lay it on the line. Don't take my ignoring you as a white flag.

[Bill Miller]

Geez Andy, talk about taking things out of context. I said 'most, if not all' (guess you missed the last part). I phrased it that way, in the off chance that I may have missed a post or two. You keep saying that I don't read the posts, when what you're really saying is that I don't read them like you want me to read them.

You're the one that said you were ok w/ some people thinking what you did was illegal, not me. To me, that says you're ok w/ some people thinking that you are cheating. And I can't believe you use the 'but everyone else is doing it' argument. You also keep talking about how the MoTec-in-a-box has been legal for years. Once again, the point of fact is that creating a new vacuum circuit to feed a MAP sensor, inside the stock housing, has never been put to the test, protest-wise (if it has, please cite the case and I will admit that I am wrong and make a public apology to you). You use invalid logic when you say that just because it was accepted and that a bunch of people did it, that it was legal. That's about the same as saying it's not cheating until you get caught.

As far as the last comment, I think it's you that doesn't understand. That comment was made in response to your comment about the replacement part rule. I don't see a problem with it. I think it allows the alternate hub that the person that started this thread is considering using.

What I find ironic here is that you seem to think that if a replacement part is not 100% identical to a stock part, including how much it weighs, than it is not legal (even though there is no weight spec, and that stock parts themselves won't weigh exactly the same), yet you were ok with something that you felt was outside the intent of the rules, but was legal because a bunch of other people did it.

You can use all the anecdotal justification that you want, bottom line is, it was never put to the test. If it was just me saying that it was illegal, it would be one thing. But, you've got enough other people, just in this forum, who don't feel that it was legal. That's pretty much the way the spherical bearing discussion went. I find it interesting that you applied a different standard to the spherical bearings than you did to the ECU.

And please stop w/ the melodrama Andy. I'm not trying to 'pound' you. You've known me long enough to know that I'm a fact-based person, and that's the position I operate from. You claim that your ECU mod was legal, when in fact, it was never proven to be so. Your approach reminds me of the time that our local mayor said, in an open town meeting, that because there was such a low voter turnout, most people agreed w/ the proposed budget, even though those that did vote, voted it down. You can't effectively debate this issue because you are to close to it, and can't be objective about it.

[JLawton]

Exactly but the COA does not rule on intent.
[/b]


Yup, but I was trying to simplify it for James in his original post. Obviously much discussion on whether it's legal to the letter of the rule. But keeping to the INTENT of the rule, I can't see arguing that it's not legal.

I guess I'm a black & white person. I try to follow the intent or spirit of the rules.

Bill Miller. My ECU comment was just some joking around, not meant to stir the pot (sorry Andy). I think your view has been well voiced, it's not going to change, but we are moving WAY off the original discussion. Poor James thought he was asking a simple question and was probably looking for a simple yes or not. Healthy discussion is cool, but I think "we" are moving away from it...........

[Joe Harlan]

So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....
[/b]


Andy, I don't see lots of bitchin. I see people looking at the rule and how it will be applied. There is no reason to even kid about going back to stock parts because you know the ITAC and the CRB don't have the will to take anything away. My suggestion is to break the rule down to the types of wear items that the rule was intended to cover. Hub breakage issues have been around since the begining of IT and I would not want to see billet custom parts allowed because not everone could have access to them. Hubs are a service cycle part just like pistons and rotors and brake pads. We all know what the rule was supposed to cover and allow but like a lot of things it stopped short of its goal.

[Crashtest]

Well guys sorry I was away for Xmas hope everyone had a good one.

I have read everyones replies and the discussions about the ecu and such. I was one for the open rule because there is no chip or reprogramming for the factory ECU on my car.

I do see both sides to the story and really want to upgrade my hubs not because it will give me a competitive advantage but because it may save my car.

I know the "Intent" of IT is to keep cost low and make a place for anyone to come play and I am one of the lower income brackets in that group. So with that its not like I am some guy going out with millions to try and build a perfect hub. I am just the guy trying to make it stronger so I don't have to repair a car after it comes apart.

As for it being service item I do understand that it is just that but changing a 200 dollar piece that would also need new bearings throughout the year is way more costly than just getting a better hub that would last the year or two or more....

I can see the "vote" is about split on legality so I guess I will just talk to my competitors and see what he or they think...I am sure he has read this post so we will see what his opinion is....

I really do thank everyone for the input.
James :114:

[JeffYoung]

I would talk to your competitors. Notwithstanding the above, I think the initial reaction you are going to get from most every IT racer other than those on this board is that they are illegal.

For what it is worth, hubs and bearings are a serious issue on my car as well. Bearings get changed pretty much every weekend. Hubs once a year. My wear issue is unusual, I think anway, the hub wears and I get lots of play on the axle. New bearings and races don't help.

You can argue about technical legality but I think the clear intent here is that you use stock hubs, or an "OEM" equivalent replacement that you get at an Autozone. It was not the intent to be able to and whittle a stronger hub from a hunk of metal, but so it goes.

[Crashtest]

I would talk to your competitors. Notwithstanding the above, I think the initial reaction you are going to get from most every IT racer other than those on this board is that they are illegal.

For what it is worth, hubs and bearings are a serious issue on my car as well. Bearings get changed pretty much every weekend. Hubs once a year. My wear issue is unusual, I think anway, the hub wears and I get lots of play on the axle. New bearings and races don't help.

You can argue about technical legality but I think the clear intent here is that you use stock hubs, or an "OEM" equivalent replacement that you get at an Autozone. It was not the intent to be able to and whittle a stronger hub from a hunk of metal, but so it goes.
[/b]

I hear ya on all accounts.
on the s2k the hubs need a annual replacement. so at worst case I would be looking at changing them half way through the season. not too big of a deal....

[seckerich]

I always use the not so common "COMMON SENSE" judgement on these matters. If my competitor gained no advantage, and did not roll his car in a ball, I consider it chicken s%$& to protest these items. I knew of plenty of E36's with the repaired rear subframe mounts and had no problem with them. If they have a billet crank that lets them rev 1000 rpm higher we have a problem. Talk to your fellow racers and go have some safe fun. :D Reminds me of the idiotic plastic timing gears in a racecar. :rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

And James, props to you for asking and discussing it first rather than just doing. Good luck with your racing next year.

[JohnRW]

Let me spin this in another direction:

James, why do you think that a piece made by a local machinist would be stronger than the stock piece ?

I know several machinists who are also racers. Not to be too much of an azzhole (although I'm good at it), but all of them suffer badly from the "I CAN MAKE IT BETTER" syndrome. Build their own gearboxes, make their own wheels, etc. Guess what ? Very quick and dramatic failures. In one case, over the course of 3-4 years, we'd bet on how many laps one guy would go before he came in "on the hook". Generally, if you picked a number higher than "3", you'd lose.

Do not confuse beautiful craftmanship with sound engineering.

Many race cars have "short maintenance intervals" on items - A1 VW front hubs, Neon front hubs (HA!!! Won a lot of enduros because of that !!!), etc. Racing ain't cheap, and sometimes you just have to feed the parts monster.

[Ron Earp]

Many race cars have "short maintenance intervals" on items - A1 VW front hubs, Neon front hubs (HA!!! Won a lot of enduros because of that !!!), etc. Racing ain't cheap, and sometimes you just have to feed the parts monster.
[/b]

I agree with John. You've only sort of looked at the tip of the iceberg with maintenance. Lots of racers have items that need replacing a few times in a season. Jeff's hubs/calipers I've seen replaced a lot. On my Z car there are a number of wear items - valve springs, rotors, motor mounts, etc. - all things that need to be checked frequently.

I imagine you'll discover many more items on the S2000 besides hubs that will need attention under racing duty. How long are those valve springs going to last with the 8000 RPM redline? Brake calipers with repeated race use? Ball joints? And so on. Hard to really know until you get out there and start breaking stuff.

R

[Doc Bro]

If my competitor gained no advantage, and did not roll his car in a ball, I consider it chicken s%$& to protest these items. [/b]


Couldn't finishing a race be considered an advantage? Maybe not to you if your ahead of 'him' but I'd bet to the guy behind 'him' that part that is no longer prone to failure is an advantage.....

The culture of legality starts and ends with each one of us.

R

[erlrich]

Couldn't finishing a race be considered an advantage? Maybe not to you if your ahead of 'him' but I'd bet to the guy behind 'him' that part that is no longer prone to failure is an advantage.....
The culture of legality starts and ends with each one of us.
R [/b] Rob - not picking on you, because I've heard this argument quite a few times in discussions about legality of certain parts, but since you made the point I have to ask: do most of you guys feel if you finish ahead of someone who broke that you "beat" them? Just wondering if maybe I'm a little weird, but I personally hate to see guys I'm racing against break down. IMO if I didn't pass you because my car was better prepared and driven, then I didn't win squat. My thinking is more in line with Steve's here; if it doesn't make you faster (or less safe), I don't much care. I do understand the need for rules and boundaries, but this is amateur racing after all.

[benspeed]

If a part can be substituted for safety and provides no performance advantage I wouldn't protest. The 944 control arm is the example I always point to - let them switch to something stronger and safer - I wouldn't protest that.

But where do you draw the line? Guys who race are tremendously gifted in rationalizing reasons why they do things - you got to be good at that, otherwise it's tough to justify racing :D

[Greg Amy]

...feel if you finish ahead of someone who broke that you "beat" them?[/b]


If a part can be substituted for safety and provides no performance advantage I wouldn't protest.[/b]
Because it leads to:

But where do you draw the line? Guys who race are tremendously gifted in rationalizing...[/b]
DING, DING, DING!!!

Cheating is cheating, regardless of "why" it's done. If we overlook it for one reason, we've got to overlook it for all.

[JeffYoung]

It's the line drawing that is not safe. My brakes fail - the caliper seals melt and I lose front brakes. IF I don't manage them and IF I don't spend big dollars and time on a ducting set up that works.

Should I be allowed as a result to use bigger calipers or vented discs because it is a safety/reliability issue? Clearly no.

I am, perhaps unfortunately, part of the culture of tolerance that lets a lot of illegal stuff go. I don't find it fun or interesting to protest people. But on the last couple of items we've discussed here -- billet hubs, these "control arms," etc., I probably would. I've worked hard, and spent a lot of dollars, on maintenance and on legal "fixes" to bad situations on my car. Illegal shortcuts? Not a lot of sympathy here from a guy who rebuilds his calipers and replaces hubs and bearings on a way too frequent basis.

EDIT -- and no knock on James for asking the question in an area that I thought was cut and dried but that Joe correctly identified as having some gray. Just because it is clear to me, doesn't mean that it is.

[Doc Bro]

Rob - not picking on you, because I've heard this argument quite a few times in discussions about legality of certain parts, but since you made the point I have to ask: do most of you guys feel if you finish ahead of someone who broke that you "beat" them? Just wondering if maybe I'm a little weird, but I personally hate to see guys I'm racing against break down. IMO if I didn't pass you because my car was better prepared and driven, then I didn't win squat. My thinking is more in line with Steve's here; if it doesn't make you faster (or less safe), I don't much care. I do understand the need for rules and boundaries, but this is amateur racing after all.
[/b]


No offense taken. We constantly hear on this BB "warts and all". Well a wart for one car (ie Neon) may be the hub. Yeah, if Joe doesn't finish because of a hub then I BEAT HIM. His game wasn't as good as mine that day....he didn't do his homework. It's the same as the guy with an underprepped car who's a Bondurant instructor. He beats me becuse his game is better than mine; he's a better driver. IT's the TOTAL package. ALL factors add up to a sucessful performance not just one. Tackling less than reliable parts in a LEGAL way is part of that TOTAL package. I'm sorry but I just don't see it any other way. Turning your back on questionably (marginally) legal parts to solve a problem is allowing a short-cut to development and preparation. It negates the efforts of the truly prepared.

R

[Joe Harlan]

No offense taken. We constantly hear on this BB "warts and all". Well a wart for one car (ie Neon) may be the hub. Yeah, if Joe doesn't finish because of a hub then I BEAT HIM. His game wasn't as good as mine that day....he didn't do his homework. It's the same as the guy with an underprepped car who's a Bondurant instructor. He beats me becuse his game is better than mine; he's a better driver. IT's the TOTAL package. ALL factors add up to a sucessful performance not just one. Tackling less than reliable parts in a LEGAL way is part of that TOTAL package. I'm sorry but I just don't see it any other way. Turning your back on questionably (marginally) legal parts to solve a problem is allowing a short-cut to development and preparation. It negates the efforts of the truly prepared.

R
[/b]

Rob I completely agree, A win is a win. SOme are better than others but its still a win. On the T2 350z we put new hubs on the every 3rd weekend (including the bearing) We never had a failure because we determined it was a service part. Based on the amount of factory grease that would bleed out of them from excessive brake heat we knew it would be a problem. Like it or not amatuer engineering is ever bit as much a part of racing as the driving is.

[lateapex911]

.............. I have to ask: do most of you guys feel if you finish ahead of someone who broke that you "beat" them? ........ [/b]

I'll flip this around....

When i'm sitting at the side of the track, or in my paddock space when the race is still happening, you're darn right I feel they beat me..and that I beat myself.

And reading the results confirms it.

We chose our rides, and accept the vices and warts that come with them.

[benspeed]

Yup - picking the right car is a big part of this game. Why do I love racing so much? Because the game is huge and much of it is played off the track - Rob is totally right - your car breaks - I beat you because my prep is better.

The only thing I compare to racing is yaughting, another form of racing. There is so much that goes into the game plan even before the start - just like cars.

But I do have sympathy for the safety parts...there is a level tolerance on my part for that so maybe I unfortunately contribute to that bad culture of "working around the rules" mindset.

[trhoppe]

I think that some people are missing the point others are trying to make.


If a part can be substituted for safety and provides no performance advantage I wouldn't protest.[/b] That right there is an OPINION of one person. HE wouldn't protest. Doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't either. Doesn't mean the part is LEGAL.

What it means is that the person running/using the ILLEGAL part deemed that he thought it just improved his safety, but not performance, so he decided to use the ILLEGAL part. He KNOWS its illegal, but said "screw it, I think my chances are good that I won't get protested". The likelyhood is that people won't protest, but if someone felt like it, they could.

If someone threw paper against this part, and won a protest on it, then its not "chickenshit". You were running an illegal part, and someone didn't like it. They protested you, won, the end. Sucks for you.

-Tom

[Joe Harlan]

I think that some people are missing the point others are trying to make.

That right there is an OPINION of one person. HE wouldn't protest. Doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't either. Doesn't mean the part is LEGAL.

What it means is that the person running/using the ILLEGAL part deemed that he thought it just improved his safety, but not performance, so he decided to use the ILLEGAL part. He KNOWS its illegal, but said "screw it, I think my chances are good that I won't get protested". The likelyhood is that people won't protest, but if someone felt like it, they could.

If someone threw paper against this part, and won a protest on it, then its not "chickenshit". You were running an illegal part, and someone didn't like it. They protested you, won, the end. Sucks for you.

-Tom
[/b]

Tom I completely agree, on the flipside we shouldn't just settle for poorly written rules either. Hub failure is caused from heat cycling and rotor temps. clearly the limits of some cars having too much brake for the other parts supporting them. Sometimes one GOOD protest will fix a poorly thought out rule.

[JLawton]

My car is a perfect example of the rear hub issue. Although mine is a hub/bearing assembly. I change them out every other weekend. They cost about $220 a pair. I've never had a dramatic failure and I plan on keeping it that way.

So let's call it a safety issue and I make some titanium hubs.......Now I can spend that exra money on buying new tires more often.........To me, it now becomes a performance issue.......


Winning isn't just driving fast. It's money, it's prep level, it's experience and a lot of luck. anyone who says prep level isn't in the top three for winning probably hasn't won much...........

[trhoppe]

I guess I don't see the rule as poorly written. If you can custom make something out of the SAME MATERIAL, SAME WEIGHT, and that has the SAME SPECIFICATIONS that works better then the current part, go for it. Thats the same thing as buying the AutoZone rotors instead of the OEM rotors.

If it is not the SAME MATERIAL, but titanium instead of steel, then BZZT way illegal. If its the same material, but forging it instead of casting it makes it better and stronger, but otherwise the same (good luck with that), go for it.

I think everyone in a honda uses the "heat treated" or "cryoed" or whatever other hardened hubs that companies out there make. They last longer, but are the same material. Why would you use anything else? Same as cryoing your brake rotors. They last longer. At $15 or whatever Honda rotors are, its not worth it, but when I had the STi, and $300 rotors, the $25 each for cryoing was worth it, even if it made them last another session or two before cracking.

Maybe the guys that are having hub issues rather then bearing issues can try that. Heat treat, cryo, rub magic potion on it, something. If you are having bearing issues, maybe try repacking with Redline grease instead of the OEM stuff.

-Tom

[Bill Miller]

One of the important things that has come out of this thread, is that a self-policed environment just doesn't work. Look how many people in this thread have said "I wouldn't protest xxxx if he didn't beat me" or "I wouldn't protest yyyy if I didn't think it gave Joe Racer any kind of advantage". It's the same as asking the guys you race w/ if they feel something is legal. You're probably going to ask your friends as asking someone you don't get along with is probably going to say that anything is illegal, regardless. Your friends would rather sort it out on the track. And point of fact, is that too many people think protesting someone is chicken-shit. Couple that w/ the fact that it's a coin flip if the system is actually going to work (read "A Protest Story" if you don't think so).

People's hesitation to protest, coupled w/ other people's propensity to push the envelope, is what leads to rules creep. Things get overlooked for so long, and so many people end up doing it because "the other guy did it", that it becomes the accepted norm. And then you've got people writing the rules that really screw it up (alternate rear hubs/brakes on GM Quad-4 cars).

I forget exactly where I read it (I think it had to do w/ some mod in A-Sedan), but a proposed mod, that was designed to increase longevity, was shot down on the basis that increased longevity was in fact a competitive advantage (some have alluded to that in this thread).

Bottom line is, as long as you have the kind of mindset that some (many?) have voiced in this thread, self-policing will never work. Make the officials the bad guys, not the racers. It's been brought up many times, that some random item should be checked at every race. Do it on a category basis and announce it at the driver's meeting.

[Joe Harlan]

All well and good Bill, do we add a 10 dollar tech fee to all IT cars now too? There has to be a willingness to follow the rules first. Second there has to be clear and well worded rules. Third there has to be a willingness to enforce the rules as written by the competitors and the officals. A lot of times people wont protest cause the rule is grey enough in their mind to not be willing to loose the money. When given the opportunity at the runoffs to give notice to a group of cars that were doing something illegal, The chief steward elected to force me to protest rather than to give the competitor a 72 hour notice to stop. Had I have done what was suggested the 4 cars would have been held on pregird until the problem was resolved. I don't win races like that. The officials should have been willing to deal with the problem rather than become of a part of the problem. The Chief stew of that event is now a BOD member. Nobody...(not even me) wants to have to be a dick over something like a washer bottle but the fact is it is part of the rules. Look at the control arm thread. We all know the intent but the only rules that can be enforced are those that are written.

[Bill Miller]

Whatever it takes Joe. Bottom line is, self-policing doesn't work. And when you have fiascos like "A Protest Story", it makes you scratch your head and wonder, even if you think you have an airtight case. And it shouldn't be up to the racers to enforce the rules. Or, if you're going to do it that way, let the protest be heard by a panel of racers, not officials.

[lateapex911]

Whatever it takes Joe. Bottom line is, self-policing doesn't work. And when you have fiascos like "A Protest Story", it makes you scratch your head and wonder, even if you think you have an airtight case. And it shouldn't be up to the racers to enforce the rules. Or, if you're going to do it that way, let the protest be heard by a panel of racers, not officials. [/b]

I'm not sure I'm completely comforatable with the racers as judge and jury approach. Sure, some would be great. Others though, jeeez. We'd miss the "justice" mark by a wide margin. Just read some of the opinions here. Lots of racers wouldn't even accept the position...not enough time.

Protesting takes time, and working a protest can be a full time job for a few days for a few officials.

Remember, we don't pay stewards to officiate, at least not enough that they actually make money. (i know Matt-berg (I'm sure he has an netbot set to search his name, LOL) will be swooping in here citing facts and figures to show how being a steward in SCCA is actually a very profitable retirement plan, but I digress...)

I think the system can work.....BUT..like any muscle in our body, it requires exercise.

[JohnRW]

Remember, we don't pay stewards to officiate, at least not enough that they actually make money. (i know Matt-berg (I'm sure he has an netbot set to search his name, LOL) will be swooping in here citing facts and figures to show how being a steward in SCCA is actually a very profitable retirement plan, but I digress...)
[/b]


Let me assure you, despite what the racing sociopaths might claim, that being an SCCA Steward is a totally negative-sum proposition. I've yet to find the funded retirement plan, the clothing allowance and the keys to the shrimp-mobile. I can race a Regional at Nelson Ledges for about $100 more than it costs me to be a Steward at LRP for a weekend (fuel + tolls + motel + entry fee). Really.

[JeffYoung]

I was wondering if some of you guys with Nationals experience could chime in on a question I have.

For me, the group of ITS drivers in the SEDiv is generally a very good bunch, we all know each other for the most part, and we are all probably loathe to protest anything unless it is just obviously and blatantly illegal. In fact, I'm not aware of a mechanical protest of any type since I started in 03.

Is it different on the National level? With guys traveling more, and I guess at least on teh surface higher "stakes" are there more protests? Are people more willing to do it?

I guess the point I am driving at is that perhaps the regional culture, while very competitive, is perhaps more club like resulting in less protests?

[Joe Harlan]

Nope Jeff, not much different except in SS classes.

[x-ring]

Well, Jeff, I've been working Tech for a few years; I only work Nationals (if its a Regional I race), and I'm still waiting to see the first mechanical protest (other than at the Runoffs) from a competitor.

OTOH, I have had a lot of people come up to me and whisper in my ear that I should have a look at so-and-so's car, because he's clearly cheating. Bull$hit. I don't do witch hunts. Need a pen? Here you go. I've got forms, too. Wanna use my table and GCR while you write that up? Help yourself.

Is anybody aware that the items that will be checked in impound are (or are supposed to be, anyway) agreed to by the chief of tech and the chief steward before the first car hits the track Saturday morning?

That isn't to say that, as an official, I can't write that paper myself, for any infraction I see. But tell me, why would I, if that person's fellow competitors don't care? Around here anyway, tech is usually pretty short staffed; rarely are there more than two scrutineers working. The only thing I've ever written up are things that I come across, in the course of checking something else, that normally couldn't be seen by another competitor. Something I see while I have it apart, in other words.

[seckerich]

I think you hit a very important point Jeff. The people I race with are almost all good friends. We tend to overlook things unless they get out of hand. We have to resist the usual urge to "do it if everyone else is" because most did not get the "cheating memo" and are getting screwed. It is almost always handled over a beer with a gentle reminder to get it fixed by the next race. After that I will write paper on blatant cheating. I am sure I am part of the problem because I only pay attention as a driver to those that are beating me. As a scrutineer it is different because it is my job to look at everything.
Check is always the same either way.

[Greg Amy]

Nope Jeff, not much different except in SS classes.[/b]
+1. Same-ole, same-ole, different letters on the side of the cars. That's why I get such a giggle when folks get a hard-on to go National racing...

JohnRW, you're my Internet hero. You know that, right...?

[Joe Harlan]

Well, Jeff, I've been working Tech for a few years; I only work Nationals (if its a Regional I race), and I'm still waiting to see the first mechanical protest (other than at the Runoffs) from a competitor.

OTOH, I have had a lot of people come up to me and whisper in my ear that I should have a look at so-and-so's car, because he's clearly cheating. Bull$hit. I don't do witch hunts. Need a pen? Here you go. I've got forms, too. Wanna use my table and GCR while you write that up? Help yourself.

Is anybody aware that the items that will be checked in impound are (or are supposed to be, anyway) agreed to by the chief of tech and the chief steward before the first car hits the track Saturday morning?

That isn't to say that, as an official, I can't write that paper myself, for any infraction I see. But tell me, why would I, if that person's fellow competitors don't care? Around here anyway, tech is usually pretty short staffed; rarely are there more than two scrutineers working. The only thing I've ever written up are things that I come across, in the course of checking something else, that normally couldn't be seen by another competitor. Something I see while I have it apart, in other words.
[/b]


You would and you should ty because even as a volunteer you should know your stuff better than most competitors. If you are not willing to write paper then (as I have done) a friendly chat about the item in question is always warranted. Sometimes you as a tech official get to see things other competitor may not ever see and may also not see because as you know being in competition is a whole diffferent situation than tech. I do feel it is up to all of us to enforce the rules even when it is our friends. I have friends that are customers also and they all know the deal to be in my shop. Anyways Jeff part of th problem is the bonding process (I don't have a better solution) I put together a group of guys once and gave them all the specs on a Bimmer running non-spec cams. I wrote up the paper for them and the whole deal. Once they saw the cost of the bond even though they knew they had the goods there was no will to take a chance on loosing the money.

From time to time we do need an actual witch hunt that is telegraphed all over the country. The other part of the deal should be cheaters that are caught should get more than a little slap on the hand and the parts taken away.

[x-ring]

You would and you should ty because even as a volunteer you should know your stuff better than most competitors. If you are not willing to write paper then (as I have done) a friendly chat about the item in question is always warranted. Sometimes you as a tech official get to see things other competitor may not ever see and may also not see because as you know being in competition is a whole diffferent situation than tech. I do feel it is up to all of us to enforce the rules even when it is our friends. I have friends that are customers also and they all know the deal to be in my shop. Anyways Jeff part of th problem is the bonding process (I don't have a better solution) I put together a group of guys once and gave them all the specs on a Bimmer running non-spec cams. I wrote up the paper for them and the whole deal. Once they saw the cost of the bond even though they knew they had the goods there was no will to take a chance on loosing the money. [/b]

I may have left you with the wrong impression, Joe, and rereading my post I can see why.

If I see something non-compliant on a car it has to be pretty obvious. In other words, I'm not likely to 'see' non-compliant cams on a formula ford, or an out of spec head on an SM. If, OTOH, someone has done something that's right out there in front of God and everybody, or even if it is halfway hidden and I come across it during a post race or annual inspection, they will get either a friendly word, or paper, sent their way. If it's a warning, it gets marked down in my accounts receivable column for another look later on.

What I won't do is ask a competitor for their cams on the basis of the whispered words of someone else.

[ddewhurst]

As long as the conversation is about more or less legal/illegal/questionable stuff I'll ask a question that it seems many of you along with terch inspectors shy away from.

At first time for a roll cage inspection or at anual inspection (which is to be a safety inspection) why are so many illegal roll cages given a number/book & sent on their way as A OK.

I made a similar comment in the Mazda forum with no comments from anyone. Folks, if it's illegal, IT'S ILLEGAL.

It's time for tech inspectors to note some log books with a :D

I have a letter that has been sent at this time & I'll bet -ya I can write the response that I'll receive because no one in offical dume wants to offend anyone or has the balls to write notes in a bunch of log books. Roll cages are something that IMHJ SHALL be to rules........................... If something as out in the open as roll cages ain't legal how the hell is anyone going to do anything about the items that can't be seen.

& now I'm :cavallo: off that soap box.

Happy Next year ;)
David

[x-ring]

From time to time we do need an actual witch hunt that is telegraphed all over the country.[/b]

Talking with Jeremy and John at the runoffs, that's sort of what is planned to do with the SM compliance money, or part of it anyway. They want to get the message across that you had better have a compliant car when the team shows up, because they'll be looking.

Now, how do you spread that across all classes?

I know that when Bill P. took over as NA of Tech a few years ago, he sent a letter to the CRB telling them what he felt the problems were in the specialty. High on the list was the 'professionalism' and work ethic of the tech crews in some areas. We don't just need volunteers, we need hard working, knowlegable volunteers.

I've been to races where there was one scrutineer, and maybe one steward, working their a$$es off, just trying to get the GCR mandated items checked.

I've also been to races where the tech crew (sometimes five or more) maybe weighed the winners, checked their fire bottles, and sent them on their way. More a social event than an impound.

Fortunately, the latter is the exception rather than the rule.

So what to do about it? We have, in RMDiv, ONE regular working scrutineer who isn't also a racer. She's a pretty hard worker, and competent too, but I digress. Other than her, we're all drivers, and what other pool would we draw from? So what does it take to get drivers, who would be good working tech, to volunteer?

Send me a half dozen drivers who actually know something about their cars, not the arrive-and-drive kind please, and who are willing to work a couple of weekends per year, maybe when they aren't racing, and I can turn them into good techies.

If I had four (good) scrutineers at a race, instead of two, how much easier do you think it would be to run down some of the 'everyone is doing it, I might as well' guys?



The other part of the deal should be cheaters that are caught should get more than a little slap on the hand and the parts taken away.
[/b]

Hmm, now there's an idea...

[JohnRW]

At first time for a roll cage inspection or at anual inspection (which is to be a safety inspection) why are so many illegal roll cages given a number/book & sent on their way as A OK.

I made a similar comment in the Mazda forum with no comments from anyone. Folks, if it's illegal, IT'S ILLEGAL.[/b]

OK...you've made these same comments in several places, and gotten no traction. There are are several licensed scrutineers who frequent IT.com, and several others (like me) who have passed the written SCCA-SFI (gasp) Technical Inspector exam. And (tah-dah !) there are a bunch of people here who have SM's. Hell...even I've got one.

Sooooo....what is it that you're seeing that screams "ILLEGAL" to you ? Forward hoop members welded thru the dash tube ? OK...we know now that is illegal. Missing door bars ? Cut out convertible top mounting points ? What ?

Greg - you wanna see me in tights ? Oh....I guess you didn't say "super-hero", did you ?

[lateapex911]

Greg - you wanna see me in tights ? Oh....I guess you didn't say "super-hero", did you ? [/b]

Ackkk.......althouuuuuuggghhh...............you might bear a slight resemblence to Clark kent due to the glasses...
;)

(leave the tights at home, thankyou...)

[Crashtest]

Hey everyone I just wanted to say thank you for all your input on this and the GCR as a whole.

I am going to be trying to get more info on the hubs and take it from there.
worst case I will just use that set of stock ones I have coming.

O an Happy New Year!!!

[ddewhurst]

***Sooooo....what is it that you're seeing that screams "ILLEGAL" to you ?***

JohnRW, when someone fabs a roll cage & in the process tourches out the welded in chassis box members that attach between the "A" pillar & the cowel IMHU of the rule that's ILLEGAL. There are other items that are modified when implementing this particular over the counter roll cage which slide down the illegal scale a bit, but still illegal. Would you like to visually know how to identify when these chassis box members have been tourched out without having to pulling the dash? Hey, I don't have an issue with people doing things to the as you call it the dash tube. The local Hall Mazda dealers part fish calls the tube a "insturment panel frame", the down load from Mazdaspeed calls the tube a "frame" & in the owners manual I can't find the tube & Mazda calls the panel a "dashboard".

Happy Next Year ;)
David

[JohnRW]

...& in the process tourches out the welded in chassis box members that attach between the "A" pillar & the cowel IMHU of the rule that's ILLEGAL.... [/b]

What you describe, if I understand it, is illegal. Did you point this out to the Scrutineers ?



Hey, I don't have an issue with people doing things to the as you call it the dash tube. The local Hall Mazda dealers part fish calls the tube a "insturment panel frame", the down load from Mazdaspeed calls the tube a "frame" & in the owners manual I can't find the tube & Mazda calls the panel a "dashboard".
[/b]

You might not have a problem with it, but it's clearly illegal, and has been ruled so up thru the COA.

Soooo....Others did something with the cage at the cowl/downtube that you viewed as illegal. Somebody else does something with the dash bar that you view as "OK". Both are likely illegal. Sum = zero.

See how opinions can be at odds with the rules ?

[ddewhurst]

***You might not have a problem with it, but it's clearly illegal, and has been ruled so up thru the COA.***

JohnRW, after it was ruled what were the car or cars required to do because of the alledged non-compliant instrument panel frame?

JohnRW, the tourched box member issue is in many Spec Miata cars (maybe some ITA cars). My question to you is, how do WE stop cars with these illegal issues from getting a number stamped in the roll cage?

Happy Next Year ;)
David

[JohnRW]

***You might not have a problem with it, but it's clearly illegal, and has been ruled so up thru the COA.***

JohnRW, after it was ruled what were the car or cars required to do because of the alledged non-compliant instrument panel frame? [/b]

It not just "alledged" to be non-compliant. It WAS non-compliant. They were required to saw it out, and this affected a bunch of cars. This wasn't a 'schmoe' builder, either...it was a well-respected SM builder in the NE who has been around since the birth of SM.


JohnRW, the tourched box member issue is in many Spec Miata cars (maybe some ITA cars). My question to you is, how do WE stop cars with these illegal issues from getting a number stamped in the roll cage?[/b]

Scrutineers are fallible. If you see a car that has a non-compliant cage, point it out to the Scrutineering team, or protest the car. All it takes is a pen and $25, which you will invariably get back, if your protest is "well-founded".

Opinions differ about any rules-set. You yourself would have given your "seal of approval" to one cage design that is clearly illegal. If you're an SM owner/builder and you aren't even up to speed on these items, can you really bust hard on a Scrutineer who is looking at 30+ classes of cars on a given weekend ?

[ddewhurst]

Way to go John, shove the Scrutineer job back to the other car owners. Maybe the part your not looking at is that the roll cage of each car should be closely inspected BEFORE the number is stamped into the cage. How many NEW roll cages per year will a surutineer inspect? Lets think outside the box. Maybe there is a rule or two that people use as a licence to do as they please that need some attention. What excause did this non 'schmoe' builder use to justify what he/she did? Maybe at the initial inspection a same marquee owner should be present to support the scrutineer.

[lateapex911]

David, with respect, this is a much more multi layered issue than might first be apparent.

1- The club is not super healthy when it comes to new racers and new blood.
2- The club doesn't have a surplus of people wanting to spend dozens of weekends getting their scrutineer chops and stamps of approval
3- The GCR is chock a block full of categories and models.

Reality: A billion Spec Miatas have rolled up for inspection, and I'd bet many did it at an event, with their run group going out in the next hour. Should it happen like that? nope...but it does. IIRC one of my cars got it's annual under similar conditions. And those tech lines are long. Scrutineers are stuck between a rock and a hard place: Know everything about everything, do an hours work in 10 minutes, make sure everybody in the tech line...the "Customers" , get on the track on time, make sure everybody is safe and make sure everybody is legal and meets the specs of their class. That's a daunting list, and one that is nearly impossible. Some people will not get their way, and I can tell you there have been people who missed their run groups because an inspecor was tied up discussing the legalities of a cage with someone further up the line.

Should such cages be turned away? Not sure on that. If the car has obvious illegalities, and its a school car, I'd suggest a "fix by next event" notation be added to the logbook. If it's an experienced racer then the "Fix by" is a bare minimum.

But, in any case, some will slip through the cracks. Thats where competitors come in. An illegal cage is an illegal cage, whether it has a logbook or not.

I imagine you feel that there are some cages that have been given logbooks (without notation) by tech people who knew the cages were illegal. I don't have any first, or second hand info on that, but if it happened, I'd be disappointed.

[ddewhurst]

***I imagine you feel that there are some cages that have been given logbooks (without notation) by tech people who knew the cages were illegal.***

Jake, I (EDIT, I stutter & sometimes forget to insert words. Sorry :D )never have & never will (I hope) blame tech people for KNOWINGLY issuing a cage number that had an illegal roll cage. :023: I understand every thing else you stated within this post. ;)

[JohnRW]

Jake, I have have & never will (I hope) blame tech people for KNOWINGLY issuing a cage number that had an illegal roll cage. [/b]

???

Yes, the inspectors should be sticking their heads under the dash and poking about in dark stinky places when initially inspecting a cage and issuing a logbook. They likely do this with every car. My point (which you seem to be avoiding) is that not every inspector will be fully fluent with each class & make of car.

As I've pointed out several times now, YOU would have given a cage incorporating the dash-bar a "PASS", even though it's been previously ruled illegal. You do seem to be outraged that an inspector might have looked at a different cage design and consider it legal. You're looking for "malfeasance" where "misunderstanding" is the likely issue. You OWN an SM and "misunderstood"...why can't someone who might be looking at 30+ classes of cars during a weekend ?

You didn't point the problem out to the Inspector. Why not ? Would you protest the car if you competed against it ? If not, why not ?

The GCR makes clear that competitors bear a significant responsiblity toward rules compliance. Until that changes, competitors have to step up to this responsibility.

Any compliance program that is outside the "competitor action" arena will have costs. In SM, that will now include a $10 surcharge on each race entry. How this money will be allocated and spent by Topeka is still unknown. It won't trickle down to Regions holding races. While many wonder why Stewards and Scrutineers don't regularly "tear-down" cars for compliance checks, it's really a simple issue - cost. Regions don't want to/can't bear the costs of tear-down bonds. They likely operate on thin margins as it is, and don't want a "contingent liability" hanging over their racing budget.

So...if that is the case (and it is, actually), then the costs of extra compliance programs will come from only one place - competitors. How much are you willing to pay to have a REAL compliance program in place at every race ?

[ddewhurst]

QUOTE(JohnRW @ Dec 28 2007, 05:25 PM)

Greg - you wanna see me in tights ? Oh....I guess you didn't say "super-hero", did you ?

QUOTE(Jake)

Ackkk.......althouuuuuuggghhh...............you might bear a slight resemblence to Clark kent due to the glasses...

JohnRW, altho I have never met you might these two posts including one by you give a slight description of yourself. :D

***not every inspector will be fully fluent with each class & make of car.***

Thanks John, do YOU think maybe that's why previously within this thread I threw out that it might be good to have car marquee owner support the Scrutineer when the original inspection came about. :D

***outraged, malfeasance***

John, these ^ would be words you used for whatever reason. Maybe you think the words add some razzel dazzel to your post.

***why can't someone who might be looking at 30+ classes of cars during a weekend ?***

John, get over yourself with this 30+ classes of cars per weekend. :dead_horse: I'm talking about roll cages.........I'll bet you don't see 30 NEW cars per year to check the new roll cages on in YOUR divison & I'll bet you don't do a SERIOUS annual roll cage check on any cars that all ready have a number stamped in the roll cage. After the start of your season at a Regional race I'll bet you don't check roll cages period.

I have all ready stated on this site that my belief is that the Spec Miata $10.00 fee per Regional or National race is nothing more than filling the Topeka coffers for 100% benefit for the National Spec Miata racers. :mad1: < even that is not outrage. Topeka has all ready stated that they will check at 15 races per year. Duh, do ya think Regionals are included.

[JohnRW]

At first time for a roll cage inspection or at anual inspection (which is to be a safety inspection) why are so many illegal roll cages given a number/book & sent on their way as A OK.

I made a similar comment in the Mazda forum with no comments from anyone. Folks, if it&#39;s illegal, IT&#39;S ILLEGAL.

It&#39;s time for tech inspectors to note some log books with a :D

I have a letter that has been sent at this time & I&#39;ll bet -ya I can write the response that I&#39;ll receive because no one in offical dume wants to offend anyone or has the balls to write notes in a bunch of log books. Roll cages are something that IMHJ SHALL be to rules........................... If something as out in the open as roll cages ain&#39;t legal how the hell is anyone going to do anything about the items that can&#39;t be seen.
[/b]

Hey...they&#39;re your capital letters. Is it "outrage", or do you think our vision is bad ?