Cam Timing

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Yep, I am in touch with the JH Preservation society here and an Lotus engine builder in the UK. Since I run www.gt40s.com, and most of the GT40s are in the UK, I've got a lot of sources in racing/street stuff/concours, etc. That is why I know I can turn a set up sooner or later. But, someone still needs too look at that ruling. There are Lotus only cams that are within 0.015" of lift of the stock JH cam and with the same duration which are available now, off the shelf.

It is just the JH cams were used no NO Lotus motors, that is in a proper Lotus, and since JH only built the cars for 2.5 years in low volume you can see the problems. Lots of Lotus cams fit the motor, but those are not correct.

I appreciate the problem. Well maybe not quite as much as you, but here's the quandry... When opening up IT to non-stock parts it opens a HUGE Pandora's Box and most think such an opening is a fast track to being in the situation Production is in. The only way (that I see) to accomodate such a move is to open cams up in some way. Perhaps sticking to stock lift and duration? Or opening them up completely? I don't know the answer.

Oh, and just for you....




------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[lateapex911]

Ron, you are actually in an enviable position. Seems that you have some connections across the pond...culture those, and make a trip. Stop in and talk to the blokes in Lotus. Find the old guy in the back in charge of the "heritage" (as they have probably renamed it now) department. Make sure you get him at the end of the day, and take him out for a pint after work. Make sure the waitress dotes on him, and by the 3rd pint you will have a letter to the SCCA from Lotus, "superceding" the NLA cam with one of your choosing...

Make your choice a good one, but not too good!

OK, it's not quite that simple, but I can't think of a better maunufacturer to be doing business with in a situation like this. Perhaps a letter to Jeremy, the SCCA tech representative, is in order to help guide you through the system.

And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

So, Darin, if you like the situation as is, don't say anything, because I have seen loopholes like this closed before!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited September 23, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

So, Darin, if you like the situation as is, don't say anything, because I have seen loopholes like this closed before!

The funny part of this is that I'm one of Nine voices that will help clarify the rule and come up with the wording!


And, to address NLA parts and the lack of availibility of stock replacement pieces... If I recall correctly, one of the items going before the BoD was one that would allow "other than oem" replacement pieces meeting the exact stock specifications... In other words, reground or otherwise aftermarket stock cams would be legal to use...

Of course, now we get into base circle dimension arguments, etc...

There is DEFINATELY no way to write a perfect rule... Unless, perhaps, you just don't allow ANYTHING... Seems like everytime you write an allowance for a single item, you open the door for three others...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

Bill... It's also no suprise that you'd take my answer and turn it against me for your own gain...

Darin, my own gain?? Exactly what would that be? Talk about pulling shit out of your ass!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, my own gain?? Exactly what would that be?

I'm not exactly sure... for some reason, you seem to like to follow me around the internet, trying to discredit me at each turn... Get's a little tiresome...

But then, I know you feel that's your duty, because you used to hound Basil the same way...

You must get something out of it, or you wouldn't do it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
And.....Geo, I bet YOU a Shiner Bock that YOUR letter asking for cam timing clarification comes back as "Adjustable cam gears that were fitted as stock shall be set to factory specs"....AND that the rule book gets the word "may" changed to "shall" with the other explanatory language next year.

Jake, you're on!

You going to ARRC this year? If I'm still on the bread line I'll be going as a PITA, er, I mean as a fan.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
There is DEFINATELY no way to write a perfect rule... Unless, perhaps, you just don't allow ANYTHING...

No buts. Even SS used to have some serious issues.

How many Runoffs SS races were decided in the tech shed? I remember one year the eventual winner was someone who didn't even make it through tech because all the impounded cars were DQ'd! They weren't subject to impound and by the time they were done with the impounds the eventual "winner" had already left!



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Geo:
Jake, you're on!

You going to ARRC this year? If I'm still on the bread line I'll be going as a PITA, er, I mean as a fan.

Yup...making plans now.

You WILL go..I will have Shiner in the trailer if thats what it takes!

Email me off list, ok?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm not exactly sure... for some reason, you seem to like to follow me around the internet, trying to discredit me at each turn... Get's a little tiresome...

But then, I know you feel that's your duty, because you used to hound Basil the same way...

You must get something out of it, or you wouldn't do it...

Darin,

Don't flatter yourse3lf, you're not that important. And I don't have to try and 'discredit' you, you do a fine job of that yourself.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I'm one of Nine voices that will help clarify the rule and come up with the wording! </font>

I suggest that a partisan comment on a public board that implies - despite the smiley - that "your will be done" because you're in a unique position of power is not something that you or your peers should find particulary amusing or appealing. I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.

Again, I note the smiley, but it's not a flattering comment to make in public, Darin.

GA

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...one year the eventual winner was someone who didn't even make it through tech...</font>

I was racing SSA during those years, and in fact I picked up quite a few Runoffs places as the winners were tossed.

If we're referring to the same examples, George, I believe Tech would have had to impound all the way back to 7th or 8th in order to get the eventual winner. Hell, if you want to be 100% you'd have to impound the whole field and go through them one-by-one; unfortunately, there's just not enough time or space to impound four (back then) Showroom Stock classes all the way to, say, 10th place (where in Tech are you going to put 40 cars for three days?)

The smartest move I ever saw was in 1991 (?) when one guy, who finished 7th on the track I think, drove his car right after the race directly into his trailer and pulled it out of Road Atlanta (they impounded top-6). After the top 3 or 4 cars were tossed Tech went calling for him to show up in impound for tear-down. Paged him for 2 days, as I recall, before they finally gave up. He eventually went home with a Silver or Bronze and never had to turn a wrench on the car...

GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
I suggest that a partisan comment on a public board that implies - despite the smiley - that "your will be done" because you're in a unique position of power is not something that you or your peers should find particulary amusing or appealing. I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.

Again, I note the smiley, but it's not a flattering comment to make in public, Darin.

GA

GIVE ME A BREAK! If you can find even ONE example of ANY instance where I've used my position to get ANYTHING that benefits me personally, I'll... Well, what difference does it make what I'd do... You aren't going to find ANYTHING!

All I was commenting on what the silly notion that I would be writing the letter ASKING A QUESTION (is cam timing open, blah, blah, blah...) and then I'd be on the committee to answer it.

You guys are REALLY struggling to find a conspiracy, aren't you?

By the way, ask ANYONE on the ITAC how I conduct myself... or how ANY of them conduct themselves, in matters that could be construed as a conflict of interest, and you'll find that we treat those matters with the utmost respect for our membership. If you can't figure out what that means, it means that if an issue arrises that could be construed as a conflict of interest (i.e.: about a 240SX for instance...), we voice our opinion, but remove ourselves from any voting that might take place...

It's ABSURD that you'd even suggest something like this... especially after we've shown you all a willingness to be here in public, available to all to attempt to answer questions and generally participate in discussions, opening ourselves up to the kind of crap that Miller and others continually feel the need to deal...

Whatever... I'm glad to know, based on feedback we've received, that these aren't the majority opinions...

It's no wonder those that came before us were so unwilling to discuss this stuff in public...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Greg Amy]

Hey, Darin, do me one favor: read what I write fully. Then, read it again before you select the reply option. This is the second time in only this one thread that you have pulled something of mine out of context that wasn't there.

Did I accuse you of anything? Nope, all I said was that writing such comments on a board that will be perpetually available and reviewed can be misconstrued, is not flattering, and is not in your best interest.

If you cannot handle criticism on what you write in this forum, especially given that your individual writings will *always* go through a fine-tooth comb (much finer than what any other non-ITAC member will be subjected to) I suggest you retire the keyboard. Otherwise, you will be perpetually frustrated.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
This is the second time in only this one thread that you have pulled something of mine out of context that wasn't there.

Originally posted by grega:

I would prefer to believe that our ITAC representatives are of open mind and are always considering not only their own desires but those of the membership, and are always keeping in mind the base spirit and philosophy of the class.

Greg... when someone tells me that they would "prefer" to believe something, it usually means they currently believe the opposite, or are at least leaning that way... sorry if I misunderstood and that isn't what you were saying, but that's how it reads...

Regardless... any discussions the ITAC has in which I'm involved almost always start out with "what do YOU guys think about this"...

So please, spare me the "if you can't handle the critisism" line... You sound like someone else I know...

I frequent this board because I know there are a majority of the members out there who appreciate the honest and open communication. I'm not about to shy away just because of a few people who are perpetually unhappy with the situation and find any opportunity to point that out.

If you guys can't handle an innocent comment, where someone sees an irony with a situation and pokes fun at it, then perhaps I'm not the one who should retire their keyboard... I can be professional and still have fun.

Sorry, but I find it rather silly that I'd have to write a letter to "myself" (or, more appropriately, the ITAC) to get any kind of official action. One would think I could just bring it up...

How about lightening up a bit and seeing all the good things that we are being accomplished? Last time I checked, the ITAC was on YOUR side... ALL OF US!

OK, enough of this... The RUNOFFS are going on right now, with racing LIVE timing and scoring on the Internet ( http://leaderboard.vfx.com/SCCA/RunOffs/Li...ming.asp?Class= )

Go enjoy some top-notch CLUB RACING!!

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 24, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

(sigh...)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
(sigh...)

I agree... If you don't mind, please e-mail me your phone number... I would like to talk to you in person.

banzai240 "at" Yahoo "dot" com
Thanks,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[lateapex911]

FWIW, Darin, I read that comment too, and saw your point, but thought to myself..."Hmmmm...he shoulda thrown in a line like: 'But of course I would recuse myself from such discussionnsa and votes except for providing factual information'.. "

I agree that the situation you present does show an amusing conflict of interest, but many who read the board don't understand the mechanics of the actual discussion, and the proper protocol. (Which I am sure you guys follow)

In essence, maybe you should try to think of the newbie or the uninformed who read the board and add a comment for them...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Ron Earp]

In essence, maybe you should try to think of the newbie or the uninformed who read the board and add a comment for them...
[/B]

No doubt. I just asked a question if I could use my stock timing gears to good effect and this sort of went off into something I basically don't understand.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Banzai240]

You guys are right... I've become a little too "spring loaded" (thanks GA...) lately.

I'll see if I can unwind a bit and we'll keep trying to keep the communication open for those that want to hear...


As for the Topic at hand... and more specifically to Ron... You may need to decide for yourself on this one. There are good arguements on both sides of this, and as I have clearly shown in my posts, I believe that if you are allowed an adjustable part, as you are, you are also allowed to adjust it within it's range of adjustment. That sounds logical to me and my interpretation of the rules supports that position.

Others see it differently and have supported their opinions with equally respectable interpretations...

I think what we've found out is that this rule is truely not completely clear, and could perhaps use some clarification to alleviate the confusion. In a couple of the recomendations the ITAC has made in the past year, we have started adding statements of intent to the rules to help make the intent more clear. This might be one of those cases where this needs to be done.

Anywant want to write a letter to the CRB??



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[apr67]

Darrin. Would it be legal in It for me to put a motor together with the timing off a tooth? I can't think of many motors that would benefit from this, but who knows?