electrical wires

[Geo]

Originally posted by itmanta:
There are many parts and dimensions on all vehicles that do not have "specs" available to the general public. This does NOT allow you to modify them as you please.

If you can prove a RX-7 rear axle is out of spec, go for it. The problem is you can't. Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a spec. Last time this holy war came up I strongly advocated that the CB should set a spec. But until is does, I ask you how you could find one to be illegal? If you are going to do that you'd better have some methodology to do so. At the moment it does not exist. You can be as philosophical as you like, but as a practical matter, there is no way to find it illegal.

Originally posted by itmanta:
Just another example of inconsistent interpretation of the rules by the ITAC and the CB.

The ITAC and the CB do not interpret rules. The stewards and the COA do this. The CB writes rules and the ITAC advises.

Originally posted by itmanta:
"Now you could say if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Doesn't apply. No spec. "

I would suggest that the first strongly supercedes the latter.

Please explain how you would protest someone with a bent axle and expect them to be declared illegal.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
Please explain how you would protest someone with a bent axle and expect them to be declared illegal.

If that axle was obviously bent to provide extra camber, and because there is no provision for bending axles, I would have expected you to be declared illegal and told to gain camber through shims or eccentric bushings as the rules allow.

Establishing a spec on camber is wholly unnecessary - camber is free ITCS 5.Chassis d.1.-2. ...may...decamber wheels... .I hope.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 04, 2003).]

[itmanta]

I have been a proffesional automotive technician for over 15 years. I have never encountered a rear wheel drive solid rear axle vehicle where the rear camber from the factory was not supposed to be 0. Very minor variations can be found on new vehicles and certainly variations can be found on used vehicles. But when you walk through the paddock and find multiple RWD solid axle vehicles with evenly decambered rear wheels there is absolutely no other explination than the axle tubes were purposely bent. Why should I even have to create a protest. The cars should be found out of compliance during random post race impound inspections.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
If that axle was obviously bent to provide extra camber, and because there is no provision for bending axles, I would have expected you to be declared illegal and told to gain camber through shims or eccentric bushings as the rules allow.

And how would you prove that with no spec? I'm not exactly trying to be argumentative here. This is a very real example of a grey area. Regardless of any provision for bending axles or not, without a factory spec, you absolutely 100% cannot prove anything. One way or the other actually.

Just step back and open your mind for a second. I suggest if a protest were lodged it would go down this way (might have to go to the COA to get there, but none the less...):

Protestor: This axle is cambered. It's illegal.

Tech to Protestee: Let's see your FSM.

Tech to Protestor: There is no spec. Now way to determine legal camber.

Again, how do you prove it's in spec or out of spec with no spec?

Originally posted by grjones1:
Establishing a spec on camber is wholly unnecessary - camber is free ITCS 5.Chassis d.1.-2. ...may...decamber wheels... .I hope.

Actually, reading through sections 1-4 it talks about camber but does not mention solid axles.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I think it's a really good example of a grey area. Common sense would tell you it should be zero. Reality is, people have measured their rear camber on these cars and they have been all over the place. So is everyone out of spec or only those who good camber? See what I mean.


------------------
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 itmanta:
I have been a proffesional automotive technician for over 15 years. I have never encountered a rear wheel drive solid rear axle vehicle where the rear camber from the factory was not supposed to be 0.

Peter, check out a FSM for the gen I RX-7. You won't find a spec. Check out the MOOG suspension catalog (I have one in the bookcase next to my computer - I used to be the inventory accounting manager for Big A Auto Parts). There is no spec, not that an aftermarket parts catalog is an official spec. What you assume or think it should be is not official. Sounds like I'm being stupid and just won't listen to reason, but we're talking the letter of the law here. It doesn't have to make sense.

Originally posted by itmanta:
Very minor variations can be found on new vehicles and certainly variations can be found on used vehicles. But when you walk through the paddock and find multiple RWD solid axle vehicles with evenly decambered rear wheels there is absolutely no other explination than the axle tubes were purposely bent. Why should I even have to create a protest.

You can't prove it. So, somehow there must be a way to establish legality. There is none. What you think you know and what you can prove are two different things. And is it the only explanation? When this subject last came up there were reports of RX-7 axles having all sorts of different camber. Just because an axle has favorable camber doesn't mean someone bent it. People build balanced and blueprinted SS engines from parts bins and no machining. Again, what you think you know and what you can prove are two different things.

You can argue that the car owner must prove legality. True. But with the lack of a spec you can prove either way.

Originally posted by itmanta:
The cars should be found out of compliance during random post race impound inspections.

Based upon what pray tell? Your opinion?


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

[lateapex911]

And, to take it to another level, let's say geo is right. (And technically, he is. Morally is another arguement.)

So we have cars out there with whatever the camber has wound up being through wear and tear. Like mine. Lets say that my left has .5 degree and my right 1.5 degree. Then there is my CA buddy who is very efficient, lives for racing and working on his car, and his is 1.5 on both sides. Maybe he took it to a press to even things up...I can't remember.

All other cars that have adjustments built in are allowed to adjust, and lets say the CB has been aware of the issue but, as it has better things to do, and because most of the rest of the class gets to adjust, they have decided to let it be.

But a request comes through the door, and now they HAVE to do something. So, they decide to set a limit on what is "normal" as there is no factory spec. They decide 1 degree will be the line in the sand, and then add a fudge factor. The final rule reads "First generation RX-7 must have <1.5 degrees camber in the rear". Less than... .

Now we have a problem. We have created criminals where before we had none. I read the new rule, raise my eyebrows, and go out to the garage to measure. I am shocked to find that while yesterday I was squeaky clean, today I am a cheater. And those folks who read the rule, identified the loophole and took advantage of it in an effort to keep up with the cars that could adjust are too.

We all have work to do, and if we don't get it done we risk the actions and penalties that could arise.

It's tough to put the genie back in the bottle.


Back to our Opel friend. If I look in his car someday and see just a few wires, and it is obvious that the factory harness is gone, ( for wahtever reason , I shake my head and lament the lack of respect he has shown for me and the rest of the competitors. But if he has left the harness, retaped it, perhaps cut some wires that weren't needed, and maybe added some for reliability, I walk away applauding his effort.

In the end, it is the competitors choice to race and if the car he chooses has issues such as these, or poor parts availability, he has put himself in a bad way, but that was his choice.



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

[SilverHorseRacing]

And if the poor soul ever just uses the existing power and ground wires and the speaker wiring to run the mic and earphone for his two-way radio, which is legal, he kills two birds, one stone, is totally legal, and doesn't worry one lick about you guys and your protests or your opinions. You wanted facts....

1) You can add two-way radios
2) You can remove original stereo equipment
3) You can re-use the wires left in the harness to power the new radio
4) Go race, have fun.

And Bill, do you know what would happen if we unleashed a smartstick*™ around here?

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com

[cherokee]

"Back to our Opel friend. If I look in his car someday and see just a few wires, and it is obvious that the factory harness is gone, ( for wahtever reason , I shake my head and lament the lack of respect he has shown for me and the rest of the competitors. But if he has left the harness, retaped it, perhaps cut some wires that weren't needed, and maybe added some for reliability"

Thats what I am going to do, cut it back to where there is ins. on all the wires and just re-run them...I am going to a one wire alt. But I am going to run all wires for the external regulator...Don't want to modify that holy harness.

Geo, I don't eat sleep and breath SCCA regs...I have a life, I am done with this...after the car gets in primer it is going to have the cage installed...I will let you know what the Tech Guy says.

one more thing I am not passive agressave...it is so hard to tell intent on the written word and wanted everone to know I was not being nasty or hostile or whatever, this is not worth getting pi$$ off over...I save that for important things.

[itmanta]

"Sounds like I'm being stupid and just won't listen to reason"

Not at all, I understand completelty the point you are making. I just have trouble swallowing it. I have done thousands of alignments on solid rear axle cars. I have never seen a vehicle that has not been in an accident deviate more than .5 deg in camber. So I just do not buy it.

So if my car has a rear camber spec of say
-1.5 - +1.5 I can legally adjust my rear camber to any where in that range. Or if no spec exists I can be legal and do nothing or I can perform a modification that I am not supposed to do and get away with it. Am I correct? The ITCS seems to actually refer to front suspension types and independent rear suspensions only except for the ambiguous point chassis/5/d/2 "on other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings"

Sorry Cherokee this thread got seriously hijacked. I forgot the GT's had French wiring. After Bob L. made his post I took a good look at my 30 year old harness and found it to be in great condition still. I would not worry about what you need to do with your harness. Just make it safe and reliable and do not worry about being legal, your conscience should be clear.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[Geo]

Originally posted by itmanta:
Not at all, I understand completelty the point you are making. I just have trouble swallowing it. I have done thousands of alignments on solid rear axle cars. I have never seen a vehicle that has not been in an accident deviate more than .5 deg in camber. So I just do not buy it.

OK, this is a great place to start. So, you can find variance from 0. So what is the allowable spec? Don't forget, you and I don't get to just make one up. Of course, the CB can. And should IMHO. But as Jake said, that is also a minefield.


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

[grjones1]

[Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I think it's a really good example of a grey area.

[/B][/QUOTE]

George,
OK George, let's be friends. You've come around to where I wanted us to be originally: there are grey areas.
Now I would ask only that you pay close attention to the point: I've been around long enough to know that the camber issue was resolved a long time ago in production when I beleive someone's camber was protested at the run-offs and it was indeed decided that camber changes can occur during a race. The protest was disallowed because all drivers had to do was bounce off a few curbs and whatever their camber was it was legal. That's why national decided they could not enforce camber settings and it has pretty much been free in all classes since (even showroom stock). Now, in IT I would argue as I said that the means you achieve a desireable setting may be in question. In your case you have a reasonable argument, your axle may have been damaged during the race and your camber changed. Again, the camber setting is not the issue. The bent axle is the issue and you need to straighten it (repair) and it should be noted in your logbook, technically. I personally could care less as a competitor - set your camber wherever and however you choose, but please realize my right to interpret badly written rules to my advantage also. I would go so far as to say if the rules say I can decamber to whatever degree, then I must be allowed whatever means are available to accomplish the decambering, or I won't have the same advantage as my competition. See how that works?
And yes guys we all pay when the rules are changed such as the fact that the internal coating rule made illegal the repair on my cracked Fiesta head (we used an internal porcelain coating to fill porosity cracks). And I had to find a legal head (and I'm trying to have FF heads legalized because they don't crack). The process continues and we all face it, and we do the best we can and try to retain clear consciences;however, none of us should ever assume that someone else might not have a better idea, solution, or interpretation.
G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[Knestis]

The fact that Toyo Kogyo or its OEM supplier built the components and final assembly of the third member in question is proof that there IS a specification. Nothing gets made using the processes required without tolerances having been defined for it.

The truth is out there somewhere.

The ITCS requires that, to "establish the originiality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..." Further, "proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and or/portestee" - they have equal rights and responsibilities in any action, even if this abrogates the club's or officials' responsibilities. But that's another matter.

Interestingly, the book further allows that, "an aftermarket shop manual will be accpete with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer." The lack of any particular specification in the factory manual is proof prima facie that said number is not available from that source - duh - making a specification published by any aftermarket source an acceptable alternative.

The absence of a factory-published source defining a rear camber figure is NOT evidence that there is no specification. It is permission to use another source. If one were to protest a decambered axle and pesent any published figure as evidence to support my claim, it should be upheld.

Now, to find it...

K

EDIT - this really isn't that big of a highjack: The lack of replacement parts and accurate specifications are both results of cars getting older. Further, old car owners might want to consider the possiblity that the practice of "not repairing" "damaged" wiring harnesses might disproportionately benefit NEWER cars. I'll bet I have more pounds of wiring in my 1996 Honda - that becomes "useless" in IT trim - than even the most heavily optioned Opel came with.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 05, 2003).]

[grjones1]

[).][/B][/QUOTE]
K,
#@$%^ K, In IT as the rules are written, camber is free, and no amount of legalese is going to change that!

And George on solid axles not being mentioned: on Rabbits for example shims are provided originally for adjusting rear camber on their beam axles so I'm reading "other forms of suspension" to include solid axles. And I know technically the axle may not be considered "suspension" but if the suspension settings can be influenced by geometry on the axle I would think they meant to include axle treatment.

The factory specs on my Fiesta camber because of an original "negative scrub radius" geometry shows camber settings at +3 to +1 tolerances. Are you trying to tell me that I'm expected to run positive camber on a road racer. Where in the world did you get the idea that supension settings had to be within factory specs. And why would we be allowed camber plates and the like if all had to be accordingly. We could simply use the original set up and save a great deal of money. Use your heads. The rule says I can "decamber" which in no amount of misinterpretation could mean anything else but setting to negative. Don't be ridiculous!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

QUOTE "The factory specs on my Fiesta camber because of an original "negative scrub radius" geometry shows camber settings at +3 to +1 tolerances."

This is exactly what all the VW and Honda guys would have you believe, the fact that IRS cars can adjust camber any way they please and the solid axel cars cant is yet another example of the comp board side stepping legal issues. They know its wrong to allow only some to run camber but if they SAY you can, on your solid axel car and you lose a bearing and crash they can be sued. the answer is to put in the ITCS "ALL CARS RUN -+.5 degrees". but so far the board just moonwalks the issue, like the intent, a failing set of class rules.

[Knestis]

With respect, Mr. Jones - I completely understand that camber value is free. The method allowed to adjust camber to that free value is NOT and there is no provision in the rules to allow bending the third member.

I am not arguing whether there should or shouldn't be an allowance to do this - only that it is not. You really don't need to unleash any special keyboard characters on me.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Again, the camber setting is not the issue. The bent axle is the issue and you need to straighten it (repair) and it should be noted in your logbook, technically.

Based upon what? Don't think of this so much as an argument, as a challenge to find something in the rule book that would (or should) invoke this. It simply doesn't exist.


------------------
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 Knestis:
The fact that Toyo Kogyo or its OEM supplier built the components and final assembly of the third member in question is proof that there IS a specification. Nothing gets made using the processes required without tolerances having been defined for it.

Manufacturing tolerance is not the same as acceptable variance in use which is what the FSM should cover. For another example pulled out of the air... A timing chain has one manufacturing tolerance and another for being acceptable for use. Two different things.

Originally posted by Knestis:
The truth is out there somewhere.

Mulder and Scully have been retired.

Originally posted by Knestis:
The ITCS requires that, to "establish the originiality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..." Further, "proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and or/portestee" - they have equal rights and responsibilities in any action, even if this abrogates the club's or officials' responsibilities. But that's another matter.

Interestingly, the book further allows that, "an aftermarket shop manual will be accpete with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer." The lack of any particular specification in the factory manual is proof prima facie that said number is not available from that source - duh - making a specification published by any aftermarket source an acceptable alternative.

The absence of a factory-published source defining a rear camber figure is NOT evidence that there is no specification. It is permission to use another source. If one were to protest a decambered axle and pesent any published figure as evidence to support my claim, it should be upheld.

Kirk, for a rules nerd, I'm shocked. The rule does not read that in absense of a factory spec, another can be substituted. It reads if a factory service manual is not available, an aftermarket manual will be accepted with proof of non-availability. Those are two very different things. If the FSM does not spec rear camber, and someone has the FSM you have zero basis upon which to look elsewhere.

Furthermore, I have a MOOG suspension parts catalog and it does not spec a rear camber for the RX-7 anyway, not that it matters.

Originally posted by Knestis:
EDIT - this really isn't that big of a highjack: The lack of replacement parts and accurate specifications are both results of cars getting older. Further, old car owners might want to consider the possiblity that the practice of "not repairing" "damaged" wiring harnesses might disproportionately benefit NEWER cars. I'll bet I have more pounds of wiring in my 1996 Honda - that becomes "useless" in IT trim - than even the most heavily optioned Opel came with.

I couldn't agree with you more Kirk. We should all examine rules we would like changed for one reason or another for unintended consequences (and the ITAC doubly so).


------------------
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 grjones1:
Where in the world did you get the idea that supension settings had to be within factory specs.

Never said that. Ever. This only came up in relation to the discussion of bent live axles and how you would prove one to be illegal.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
With respect, Mr. Jones - I completely understand that camber value is free. The method allowed to adjust camber to that free value is NOT and there is no provision in the rules to allow bending the third member.

I am not arguing whether there should or shouldn't be an allowance to do this - only that it is not. You really don't need to unleash any special keyboard characters on me.

K

Mr. K,
That is exactly what I was attempting to impart to George and you. You keep referring to the FSM for camber "values" and the FSM camber specs are not germane to the issue {camber is free). Whether or not you can bend the axle is the issue. And I assume, and maybe I was wrong, that axles on most cars are supposed to be straight except where shims or eccentric bushings allow the axle stub to be set at an angle. [And 7's RX or whoever, VW Rabbits use a rear beam axle, and I don't consider that IRS (but again I may be wrong). Oh the limits of the written word, Mark Twain had it right.

Respectfully,
G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited October 05, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Whether or not you can bend the axle is the issue.

Yes and no. Axles get bent all the time. The real question is how do you determine legality? The practical answer is you can't.


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