Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
Classic.
Joe is arguing with Greg when they appear to be saying the same thing.
Tom accuses Darin of Nissan favoritism without any evidence.
People argue against using a non-allowed part to do an allowed thing, on the grounds that unscrupulous indivdiduals do an illegal thing that they can current do with the ALLOWED part.
The only reason that I know to go to the Mercedes parts desk to buy offset keys to correct the timing on an 8v Golf - legal, legal, legal - is because it was common knowledge among people who ran SS versions of the same car.
There are two arguments here - at least - and mixing them up is NOT helpful.
K
If any of you knew anything about how a honda worked you would know that the "camkey" is part if the pulley and cannot be replaced" SO, as I have stated before (and some seem to want to ignore the fact) If you allow a modification than that modification should be allowed by ALL competitors. If the Nissan has 3 holes or a VW has a removable cam key that can be replaced with a offset key that can be filed to fit to adjust the cam timing, than the ability should be allowed to all cars. If the rules "imply" that the cam timing is not suppose to be modified to improve performance than the "assumption" should be that if it is checked than it should be at the factory stock specification (not may, not might). Otherwise how is it fair for the VW to replace the keys when the Nissan cannot rotate the cam gear and the Honda cannot. The argument is that the engine is suppose to be stock with the exception to specifice modifications. If the modification causes one motor to be "illegal" and another "legal" then why have the rule. If one motor can get back into specification within the rules and the other can't because the rule didn't account for all the motors that the rule is broken and should be fixed, otherwise the rule provides an unfair advantage to one or the other.