Air Dam question

[jc836]

As to the rotors-I seem to have an incorrect interpretation based on the simple fact that many folks use parts from the aftermarket (ie. autozone for example). I agree that there is no specific rule permitting any rotor other than OEM in the ITCS since it only mentions "manufacturer's specifications" for truing.
I have no problem with people using replacement parts from an alternate source due to cost or scarcity. For example a stock CRX hood sells for $250 new and the aftermarket piece is $129. They are identical so far as I can tell yet the rule would suggest this to be an invalid choice just as it would for the bumper cover with or without the airdam attached. The CRX Si airdam is a bolt-on and thus should not be molded into the cover.


------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

[Knestis]

Originally posted by grjones1:
...I cannot nor can you replace OEM brake rotors with Brembo or anything else but an OEM brake rotor because nowhere in the ITCS does it say you can.

Sounds like we agree...

Now, I NEVER said that this makes sense. That strand about "stupid little rules" bears on this issue. Some of these things really should be either (a) clarified, or ( enforced.

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Sounds like we agree...

Now, I NEVER said that this makes sense. That strand about "stupid little rules" bears on this issue. Some of these things really should be either (a) clarified, or ( enforced.

K
K,
I'm pleased if we are in agreement that we can use other than OEM parts. But this edited quote misrepresents my side of the argument in that it implies agreement with your original statement.

I earnestly believe the intention of the original ITCS writing was to permit aftermarket replacement within specs. That's why no rule states that parts must always carry OEM part numbers. Do we remain in agreement?
GRJ

[megmeyer]

If you visit the site, you will see that they offer an "SCCA ITS/ITA legal" airdam, thereby implying that the mode 4 is NOT SCCA ITS/ITA legal.

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I'm pleased if we are in agreement that we can use other than OEM parts.

Oh, I doubt Kirk would agree with that statement. That's pretty tortured - especially since I imagine Kirk would say the rules say exactly the opposite.

Originally posted by grjones1:
I earnestly believe the intention of the original ITCS writing was to permit aftermarket replacement within specs. That's why no rule states that parts must always carry OEM part numbers. Do we remain in agreement?

Excuse me, but when did interpreting the intent of the rules become your job?

There is zero need to require parts carry OEM part numbers because the rules only allow alternate parts where specifically spelled out in the ITCS.


------------------
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:
Excuse me, but when did interpreting the intent of the rules become your job?

Ans. I don't consider it a "job" - as a 20-year dues- and entry fee-paying member and driver in the SCCA, I consider it a right! And I must add whenever anyone builds a car for SCCA competition he is in the position of having to interpret the rules. When his interpretation is challenged then it becomes the "job" of an appointed board to judge his interpretation. Hopefully he will always be allowed to interpret just as hopefully he will always abide by the judgement and he will always have the right to suggest when the rules need correction.

There is zero need to require parts carry OEM part numbers because the rules only allow alternate parts where specifically spelled out in the ITCS.

ANS.
Then we're back to my original point, we can't use aftermarket brake rotors because it's not spelled out in the rules, and that is an absurd situation. Nothing "tortured" about that logic.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 06, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 06, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I don't consider it a "job" - as a 20-year dues- and entry fee-paying member and driver in the SCCA, I consider it a right! And I must add whenever anyone builds a car for SCCA competition he is in the position of having to interpret the rules.

You've carefully avoided answering the question. I never asked about interpreting the rules, just interpreting the intent of the rules. As racers we are all required to interpret the written rules. Intent does not factor in. It is up to those who write the rules to make sure the written rule follows the intent. It's not your or my job to interpret the intent of rules that are already written. Futhermore, I've seen COA rulings where the COA sided with the competitor because he/she followed the written rules while it was seemed clear the intent was something else.

Originally posted by grjones1:
Then we're back to my original point, we can't use aftermarket brake rotors because it's not spelled out in the rules, and that is an absurd situation. Nothing "tortured" about that logic.

I agree with this statement. There is zero provision in the ITCS for aftermarket brake rotors of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't use them. It just means that if they do, technically they are illegal.

It's a rule that should be changed IMHO.


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

[Bruce]

Forgive me if I've missed something here. I believe that the car in question was a gen 1 RX7 the last time I looked the bumper was seperate from the body work. The gen 2 is one piece. In that case Air dam specs change and the body deterimines to location and dimentions.

[steve s]

just want to answer the original question .the front spoiler assembly is fiberglass so it's illegal. if it was urethane as the original cover then it would be legal if all the dimensions were the same.the spoiler isc sells attaches to the original cover at the wheel centerline's height so it fits the rule hence its legal. buy the soiler from isc.

------------------
steve saney
it-7 /it-a #34

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
I agree with this statement. There is zero provision in the ITCS for aftermarket brake rotors of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't use them. It just means that if they do, technically they are illegal.

It's a rule that should be changed IMHO.

I apologize to those wishing to resolve the airdam question for diverting the discussion, but I feel the diversion is germane to the discussion. Please indulge me.

Geo,
When one reads a rule he assumes he must grasp the intent of the rule and he hopes his inferences are accurate according to the intent. Semantics are playing a big role here; however, I am not avoiding the question. Most COA decisions I've read appear to side with what the court finds in their judgement was the original intent so we differ in our perception there.

In any event, what I'm trying to say is that if the rule is not clear or not founded on sound reasoning, and much of the time common sense, it must be revised and made to fit reality. And the problem is that if we go too far in the strict adherence to unsound rules we find ourselves mired in unresolvable quandries where no one is really satisfied but the official winner of the race.
I think we can justifiably consent to using aftermarket parts that meet factory specifications whether or not we agree the rules allow them (and I think they do because the ITCS does not require part numbers). Brake rotors, wheel bearings, and the like (any routine maintenance item) and yes even airdams molded to new bumper covers should be allowed from any source if for no other reason than availablity. But yes, if the new bumper cover with airdam provides an unfair competitive advantage (lighter) than the original bumper cover then another should be found. But again let's not be so petty as to disallow a solution because the rules don't spell out every possible circumstance, we'd have to deal with an encyclopedia. Do we concur on any of these points?
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 07, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 07, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I apologize to those wishing to resolve the airdam question for diverting the discussion, but I feel the diversion is germane to the discussion. Please indulge me.

I agree. Discussions about rules are always on-topic. Sometimes they become holy wars and they shouldn't. If we as racers are doing our jobs correctly, we should not become emotional about rules. We should simply want clarification so we can go on to build the best car we can. That said....

Originally posted by grjones1:
When one reads a rule he assumes he must grasp the intent of the rule and he hopes his inferences are accurate according to the intent. Semantics are playing a big role here; however, I am not avoiding the question. Most COA decisions I've read appear to side with what the court finds in their judgement was the original intent so we differ in our perception there.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Originally posted by grjones1:
In any event, what I'm trying to say is that if the rule is not clear or not founded on sound reasoning, and much of the time common sense, it must be revised and made to fit reality.

I couldn't agree more and already have. I think the rule should be changed to allow aftermarket replacement parts that serve no other function beyond that of the OEM part. That would seem reasonable. Perhaps the CB is worried about being able to police these parts, or they are worried about people stretching, bending, and otherwise warping such a rule. Or perhaps it has never really come up. I don't know.

Originally posted by grjones1:
I think we can justifiably consent to using aftermarket parts that meet factory specifications whether or not we agree the rules allow them (and I think they do because the ITCS does not require part numbers).

OK, a couple of points here. We don't get to consent to such a thing. We can do it, but the stewards and the COA get to make the call until the rule is changed. And again, the ITCS does not need to require part numbers because it's already explicit in what is allowed regarding OEM vs aftermarket parts. I will say, however, that you are effectively correct as long as there is no way to distinguish the aftermarket part from the OEM part. It's much like my argument about bending RX-7 axles to add camber. Nothing says you can, but it's impossible to find them illegal.

Originally posted by grjones1:
But yes, if the new bumper cover with airdam provides an unfair competitive advantage (lighter) than the original bumper cover then another should be found.

But whether a part provides a competitive advantage or not is not the issue. Such parts, if illegal, are still illegal and people get tossed for them.

Originally posted by grjones1:
But again let's not be so petty as to disallow a solution because the rules don't spell out every possible circumstance, we'd have to deal with an encyclopedia. Do we concur on any of these points?

1) I think someone who protested aftermarket replacement rotors would be taken behind the porta-potty and throttled. Or should be.

2) Certainly in the cases we are discussing, the rules do indeed deal with them. There is no allowance for these aftermarket parts. How can that be more clear?

3) The rules don't have to make sense to us (do they Kirk? ). The fact is, what makes sense to one person, may not to another. If the powers that make rules (C decide they don't make sense, they will be changed. If the competitors think they don't make sense, they should write to the CB and try to convince them. People do this every day.

4) We are not allowed to ignore rules that we think are silly or don't make sense. It doesn't mean that people won't do it. Shoot, I can assure you I won't be buying Porsche factory rotors for my 944. That's crazy. But, if the rule is not changed before I race and I get caught, that's the chance I take. And probably the chance the protester would take since the entire rest of the IT field would probably take the protester out behind the porta-potty and throttle him (can't throttle a her ).

Sounds like the solution is to try to get the rules changed. I could see aftermarket replacement rotors being allowed. Aftermarket bumper covers with integral airdams? No. BTW, I've raced against cars with those. I wouldn't dream of protesting them, but they are still illegal.


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

[grjones1]

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B]
George,
Whether we agree on everthing or not, I'm beginning to believe you are a reasonable man. Enjoyed talking with you.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Geo:
1) I think someone who protested aftermarket replacement rotors would be taken behind the porta-potty and throttled. Or should be.

Tch Tch tch....C'mon, George! You know better than that! You don't take 'em behind the porta poddy, you wait until they use it, then fliparoo, door side down. Best done on a hot, humid, summer day....



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

[itaracer]

OK. Thanks to Festus I've found an air dam that will work. It is urethane and is IT legal. For those interested you can find it at Victoria British, part number 95-828 and sells for $199.99. It is polyurethane and almost an exact copy of the fiberglass air dam sold by Mazdatrix which is what I have right now.

Thanks for all the posts.

------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

[RX767]

Mark, Festus, or anyone,

How are you attaching your airdam?

How far under the car does it extend?

Does anyone have insights into repairing a tear in the urethane?

I also have a urethane one that withstood an off course excusion where it was jammed up under the front of the car. My intial setup was to use Dzus fasters (two per side) and zip ties underneath the car to aid in loading and unloading the car. I am now considering attaching it more permanently and building longer ramps.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

[itaracer]

Bill,

The ad in the VB catalog says the dam comes "complete with all mounting hardware and step by step installation and painting instructions".

On the fiberglass one I got from Mazdatrix I used 3 Dzus fasteners on each side to attach the dam to the fender and a couple of urethane bunges in the front to keep it from sagging in the middle. If you like I can sent photos of the installation when I get the new air dam. My email is [email protected].

------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

[Festus E. Simkins]

I used large head (button) pop rivets to attach mine. The "kit" comes with push in plastic rivets. I had to make up a small bracket to keep it from sagging on the bottom. Basicly two brackets pop rivited to underside of radiator opening. No big deal at all. Took about half an hour to make and attach. The air dam does not have any openings for brake ducts so I had to cut holes in it. When I crashed real hard that is where the dam tore. I trashed it and will get a new one when the car is fixed.

Drive well.

[RX767]

Mark and Festus,

Thanks for the replies. I will order the VB catalog. Mark, I will send you an email. I would like to see some pictures when you have it installed.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23