Printable View
Maybe I'm missing something in the STCS, but I'm not sure what "is" a chassis? Is it seperated by vehicle style, sedan/coupe/convertible/roadster? Or would it correspond to GM's x-body/j-body/f-body ect.
Why ask this question: well what if a chassis was built from 1992 to 2002 but one varient of that chassis (say a sedan built from 1996-1998) had access to say a throttle body. Would all the other varients (say a coupe built in 2000) have access to that throttle body?
No one has any idea??
Alright, so how do I get this clarified? Other than a letter to the CRB, are there any other ways?
Don't overthink it, don't overanalyze it. It's a BMW Z3, or an Acura Integra, or a VW Golf. If you want to get technical, the chassis is the part that all the drivetrain and suspension bits attach to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Yes, if you swap in the entire engine and intake that this throttle body was attached to. But if you're asking if you can take a throttle body from "this" engine, attach it to an intake manifold from "that" engine, bolt it to the head from "another" engine, and bolt that to a block from "that other" engine, then install it all in "that" car, then the answer is no. Frankensteins are not allowed.Quote:
...if a chassis was built from 1992 to 2002 but one varient of that chassis (say a sedan built from 1996-1998) had access to say a throttle body. Would all the other varients (say a coupe built in 2000) have access to that throttle body?
GA
Gee Greg... it says "chassis" not "model" that implies that if the four door came with intake manifold A, and the two door coupe or even station wagon didn't, you could mount A on the motors of the coupe or the station wagon as they are the same "chassis". Since ST doesn't have a vin rule then any version of that "chassis" should be able to use any part that was used on the same "chassis". Frankenstein's are already allowed when the intake manifold can be from either the swapped motor or the "chassis", the horse has already left the barn so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
You're overthinking it. You should go work for Red Bull. But send in a "clarification request" if you feel the need. We'll change...sorry, "clarify"...the regs accordingly.
GA
P.S. New entries into the world of SCCA wonder why the GCR is 752 pages - and counting - long. This is why. Did you know the GCR was originally something like 42 pages...? No, really.
Sorry, I understand that the reg's have grown because of questions like mine, and the "over the motor" solo story Josh Sirota re-told a few years ago.
I can say this latest "hair brained" idea came from you though :023: from our little exchange about the Z3 already being spec'ed in STO becuase it's an e-36. But, the only e-36 that came from the factory with the S54 motor was the Z3...
I don't mean to be a pain. I recently had a Belbin team roles test, and my second team role was as a "plant." Combine that with my "perceving" personality, and you get someone who's really primed for ideas. Hey, I think you've got some of this too, what with your take on port-matching :D Stoke of genius...
STO:
GCR 9.1.4.1.E.1
E. Engine
1 Intake Requirements: All cars shall use the stock or approved air throttling device (e.g., carburetor, throttle body) and intake manifold for the installed engine, unless noted otherwise.
STU:
GCR 9.1.4.2.D.2
- All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.
If I'm going to have to make my motor competitive agianst what the turbo guys are putting out, I'm going to have to be "Red Bull" creative, and use everything allowed by the rules. Rotory guys get the periphal port motors, what do N/A piston guys get? I can't use more cam, I can't even use the max cam limit that we have now.
G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicleand
engine are the same ....
The chosen engine must retain its original cylinder head and intake
manifold. Competitors must have in their possession a copy of the
factory shop manual for both the drivetrain and chassis for use
by scrutineers. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is
installed in a rear wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds
may be considered. The long block assembly of the alternate
engine must remain within the engine compartment with no modifications,
however the firewall may be modified to provide clearance
for intake manifolds and/or engine accessories. It is permitted
to use the OEM intake and throttle body for either the chassis or
the installed engine. If needed to allow the intake manifold fit on
the engine, an adapter plate between the engine and manifold is
permitted. This adapter plate must be no more than 1.0 inch thick
and must be made of the same material as either the head or intake
manifold.
while I agree the assumption of chassis to be limited to the specific year / make / model / body style when that "platform" might be under many models and myriad body styles is a bit fast and loose witht he language, a simple 1 or 2 sentance definition of chasis in the general ST regs can make it all better.
so, if I'm understanding the STCS paradigm correctly, you will be able to swap the throttle body and intake from one body style or chassis to another as part of the alternate engine, but the coupe won't have access to the TB of the sedan or vice versa when a alternate motor never installed in that "chassis" (wide definition) is used.
actually rather clean concept (though I'd argue the value of it) but I agree on the need to make the wording clear lest it get to a level where that decision is made by a third party - i.e. the COA.
I'm not clear what Christian Horn....er, James is trying to get away with, mostly 'cause I don't know jack about the BMWs. But divorce yourself from what engine came in what chassis/make/model; it's irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
Let's say James wants to install the SX48 engine from the BMW 486i sedan into his BMW Z3. Compliant. He has to take the entire engine assembly from the 486i sedan - including intake manifold/TB - and stuff that into his Z3. He's allowed to use whatever IM/TB came on the SX48. alternatively, he can install the long block from the SX48 and use the IM/TB from his Z3; to make that fit he can create an adapter plate per the regs.
Aside: the intent of that alternate IM/TB allowance was PRIMARILY for FWD/RWD swaps. I suggest we could have done a better job with the wording. The reason for the adapter plate came from a guy wanting to install a K24 into an S2000; the FWD intake would not fit in his car.
In the end, the results of both of these regs are that you can swap in whatever family engine you want and you can use either the donor engine's intake or the donor car's intake. If the desired IM/TB combo came in your car originally, you can use it, regardless of the engine you install. If the desired IM/TB combo came on the engine you're installing in your car, you ca use it instead. But what you CANNOT do is take pieces and parts from different engines and cars and install those on a totally different engine in a totally different car.
Capiche?
GA
I completely understand what you WANT to allow, but I agree with James that IF chassis X had 2 body styles or varients - say a coupe and a wagon - and the coupe came with a larger TB on what is otherwise the same engine as the wagon, the rules as written might allow him to swap a motor into the wagon (not the factory installed type) and use the TB/intake from the coupe, being as it's the same chassis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I think "your" definition of chassis is more inline with the IT concept of year (range)/make/model/body style while the general term "chassis" is often synonymous with "platform" and James is exploring that definition (to a non-absurd degree IMHO). define chassis, close potential loophole. btw, it's a stupid rule if he can't have the coupe TB in an othwerwise identical wagon to continue my example. it would deserve a line item allowance at minimum.
The regs do allow that. Explicitly. Unless I'm totally missing what you're trying to say...and in the end, so what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
GA
You do realize, don't you that the STO spec line for the e36/46 is the M3 not the Z3. Use a 3l or smaller and run in STU at 3300#.
We're adding the Z3. Z4 too, probably, and any other BMW you may have an interest in racing in STO against the Vipers, Corvettes, and Porsche 996tt. - GAQuote:
Originally Posted by jhooten
I think his example is Z3/3XX series car with 2 different motors with 2 sizes of TB. he wants one car, the TB from another, motor from a 3rd. "chassis" as in "platform" is the same between those cars. up until the above comment, I believed your intent was that a Z3 and 3 series were different by rules, so this would NOT be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
"in the end," the STCS places restrictions on component swaps for some sort of regulation ability. I get that even if I disagree with it (should be displacement/cam/compression etc.. and go). but all it means is that certain combos can't play or that 2 otherwise equal engines are held back by chassis choice. I don't see how that's a win for anyone.*
* and I see where a Z3 might be seen as a superior platform to a wagon, and performance balanced accordingly with all else being equal. but that's not the topic here, it's part swaps within a platform that might not be "legal" by some readings of the rules, and a request for clarification.
I'm confused, but I just don't know these cars. But, as far as I am concerned, a BMW 345 wagon is the same car as a BMW 345 sedan is the same car as a 345 coupe, so you're free to swap parts all you like between them. The tuning philosophy of Super Touring allows - encourages - that. - GA
On edit: personal commentary, the BMW Z4 really isn't a good platform for this kinda stuff. I remember getting up close to Rob's ITA Z3, and that rear suspension is pretty basic; comes from the E30 chassis, doesn't it? The E36 was a much better rear suspension as I recall, and I'm sure the E46+ is even better...but I'm waiting for Eric to jump in here and clarify this muddiness...
yes Z3 = updated E30 but Z4 I think is E46 gen 1 and E92 gen 2. I'm sure james knows the part in question, I was just trying to clarify what I believed his point was, as I don't think it's very clear either. of course, I'd have never put a VW engine in a 944, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Ugh, that one still sticks in my craw. Not that I disagree with our response - I'm generally ok with VW and Porsche being "same family" - but I see that whole thing in hindsight as us falling prey to someone's cruel prank. We avoided that pitfall with some subsequent letters this year (Toyota engines in Loti, Chevy engines in some British crap, etc) but unless someone shows me a Golf-engined Porsche 944 entered in STU somewhere I'll wear away more of my teeth each time I see that reference... - GAQuote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
And hopefully soon this slow POS:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...n/DSCN0540.jpg
E36 and E46 are pretty much the same multilink rear suspension as I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Z3, E30, and E36 Bobtail Ti all use the same semi-trailing arm rear suspension.
remember that:
The rules require that the:
Intake manifold must be from either the installed engine or the chassis. (allowed for motor swaps*)
and
Chassis must be/ have been available through the US dealer network
and
Engines must have been available in North America.
the S54 engine, installed in the E46 M3 Chassis, had ITB's
The S50B30, installed in the Canadian market 1994 E36M3, had ITB's.
So if someone wanted to run ITB's on their 2.5L egine, they could theoretically run an M54 (E46 325 engine) in an E36 M3 chassis.
If the ITB from the S50B30 are to be used it would have to be as a complete engine at 3.0L regardless of which chassis it's installed in.
Since the M54 came in the E46 chassis, the stock ITM would have to be used.
Also note the S54 engine is 3248cc, which is larger then the 3.2L limit of the class.
Note I am NOT saying this IS LEGAL, not am I saying it IS NOT or it SHOULD NOT be legal. I am saying that's how it looks like the rules read to me.
How about relationships that used to be? Ford owned the majority stake in Mazda for many years then sold that off. Ford motor in a Mazda legal? Mazda motor in a Ford legal? Ford owned Volvo. Volvo motor in a Ford okay? VW/Porsche are the "same family now", but what if Porsche suddenly sold off VW? Or Audi? How long does the "in the same family" last after the companies diverge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Personally I believe the "in the family" rule to be a bunch o shit. Want to run a 2L Mopar in your Honda? Do it up. The class has displacement/weight rules, who cares what company makes the engine?
Just to add to the BMW confusion ... James is arguing that a Z3 is an E36, because internally, BMW calls it an E36 (specifically, an E36/7 for the convertible). It *is* an E36 forward of the firewall, with different bodywork. It does have an E30 suspension bolted into the back.
To make matters worse, '99+ Z3s were part E36 (main chassis), part E30 (rear suspension), and part E46 (engine & electronics). The chassis is a variant of the E36 chassis by BMW's own nomenclature. I think his question is valid.
In layman's terms, he wants to use a Z3 chassis with an E36 325i intake manifold (not available in any Z3) with an E36 328i engine (which was also available in the Z3). This engine/intake combo would clearly be allowed in an E36 sedan or coupe unibody, but is unclear if it's allowed in a Z3 unibody.
Fixed that for you. VAG owns Porsche.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
NOW RON!
GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
- Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.
If you don't stop straining you are going to give yourself a rupture.
Haven't we played this game already, Ron?
Still no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Earp
Still no.Quote:
Mazda motor in a Ford legal?
Still no.Quote:
Volvo motor in a Ford okay?
Still no.Quote:
Want to run a 2L Mopar in your Honda? Do it up.
I would say "no", for the same reason I cannot run a Del Sol intake (same as the Type R) on my 1.8L Integra engine: that intake was not available on either the Integra's 1.8L engine or in any Integra chassis. Yet if that Integra 1.8L engine was installed in the Del Sol, the superior intake would be compliant...Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
See? Even Super Touring has "warts and all"...so choose wisely.
GA
Bingo, Josh has got what I want to do, use the OBDI manifold which is available on all e36 varients on my e36 based 2.8 liter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
But, does Honda and Acura call the both the Integra and Del-Sol a VK chassis? All the other e36 variants get to do this, why not the Z3 e36 variant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Nope, but does SCCA publish the allowed "chassis" as "E36", or do they publish it as "M3" or "325"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Maybe there's your answer.
GA
In STO, it's listed as an e36. In STU it's not listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Yes, but almost every other precedent in the ST regs - STL, STU allowances and STO classifications - all reference make/model versus internal chassis codes. That, and/or it specs a particular year of chassis by further spec'ing the internal chassis code (e.g., "E46 M3").Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
So I suggest we've taken the long route to come around to answering your question of "what's the chassis" as "BMW M3", or "BMW E46 M3", not just "BMW E36".
GA
On edit: just took a gander at existing STU/L/O classifications to verify that. STO lists things such as "BMW E46 M3 & E36" and "BMW E46 M3" and "BMW M3 E92". The only STU allowances are in World Challenge, and appear as "BMW E36 M3 (95-99)" and "BMW E46 3 Series". The implication of these listings is that the internal chassis codes are secondary clarifiers to the make/model being classified, using those codes instead of years; in other words, what's being classified is, for example, the "BMW M3, 1992-1998"(?), shorthanded to "BMW M3, E36." The implication of that usage is that the "chassis" is defined by "BMW M3" and is clarified by "E36", not the other way around. Thus, this allowance/restriction applies only to the BMW M3, not to any chassis code that's an E36 yet is not an M3.
Now, all that said, I suggest if you wish to have the other cars applied to that allowance, the CRB would likely approve it if requested. Or, they may choose to say "whatever, if it's an E36 it applies" and change the line so that it removes the "M3".
As Ford / mazda actually use the same motors in many cases, this is BS. WRX turbo engine in a BRZ OK but in an FRS not? why? Genesis turbo eninge in a Forte (ignoring that its cousin is in the optima)? why or why not? if not, then B17/18 acua motors in hondas should be strictly dissallowed. the line is VERY fuzzy at times. obviously mopar in honda is cut and dry within the same manufacturer swap rules, but I think it demonstrates the extreme view nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
and to summarize the original problem - so if the NAME OF THE CAR and the chassis code are the same, part swapping is OK (various civic EGs), but if the chassis codes are the same with different model names (328 and Z3 E36s) then it is not?
No it's not. It's the same situation that was clarified two Fastracks ago in regard to the Panoz, Lotus, and TVR a few Fastracks ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
"Vehicles delivered with engines from other manufacturers (e.g. Morgan, Panoz, etc) may only use the originally installed engine, or another engine manufactured by the chassis manufacturer (e.g. Lotus Elise may use the Toyota ZZ engine, or any other Lotus manufactured engine that complies with the class rules, however a Lotus Esprit may not install a Toyota ZZ engine)."
If you want to put any engine into any car and put any body on it, you can do that...in GT. Knock yourself out.
GA
FRS / BRZ type scenario requires additional clarification. it's not a subaru motor in a toyota chassis, it's the same car with different sheetmetal sold under 2 brands. effectively the same as a Rio/accent or mazda6/fusion. so can I use a WRX engine in the FRS?
Of course it doesn't need to be "clarified", Chip, it's all there in black and white! Read the rulez, newb...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
The Subaru version can run its engine or any Subaru engine; the Toyota version can run its engine or any Toyota engine. If you want to run "any" Toyota engine in that car then guess what: start with the freakin' Toyota version! Or convert the damn Subaru into the damn Toyota version using all the right bits and pieces (no VIN rule...)
Now you're just being difficult...intentionally. Not biting. "Still no".
GA
not being intentionally difficult, I think the rule is wonky at best. tomayto tomahto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
There is one spec line for BMW E46 & E36 in STO and it says M3 not Z3.
If we're gonna allow alternate engines - and we want to - there's gotta be some kinda limit. This ain't GT. So short of having to approve and list *each and every allowed engine combo* this is the compromise we have to have, as tomato-ey as it is. And no matter how many ingredients we toss in there, there's gonna be some outliers that don't fit the mold. That sucks, but that's the way it is, and at least you know that in advance of going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
If you've got some ideas for un-wonking the regs I'm all ears... - GA
Sorry Jerry, Greg has it correctly: e46 M3 & e36. To me that implies that the e46 must be the M3 version and the e36 could be any version with the S54 motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by jhooten