where do we get the factory specs???

[RSTPerformance]

ITANORM said the following "the shop manual does not - anywhere - mention or recommend a battery case size" in another thread, and it has triggered something in my mind:

If the shop manual does not include factory specs where do you get those specs? Do we have to follow any specs???

If this a gray area, how would you approach it?

(Maybe we are not talking about a battery but possibly something else please pretend it could be anything)

Raymond Blethen

------------------

RST Performance Racing
www.rstperformance.com
1st and 2nd 2003 ITB NARRC Championship
1st and 6th 2003 ITB NERRC Championship
3rd 2003 ITB ARRC Sprint Race
4th 2003 ITB ARRC Endoro
1st 2003 AS NERRC and NARRC Championships

[racer_tim]

If you go to your standard auto parts store, they will have a cross reference list for the generic "size" battery that came stock in your car.

I would imagine that overall size is what's going to raise some questions, if you put in a VERY small (light weight) battery, that doesn't really fit into the standard "hole" or tray that was stock.


------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited December 16, 2003).]

[Geo]

You've got a good point. But, I would imagine the tech folks would get the spec from the owner's manual. That's still a factory document and every owner gets on.

That would be my guess.


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

[joeg]

Sometimes the sizes are in the original "Owner's Manual"--assuming you can find one. Not the "Shop Manual"

Cheers.

[ddewhurst]

1985 1st gen RX-7 Workshop Manual spec's a battery type & capacity. & I would bet that wih this info a battery store would have a replacement OEM size, type, capacity, weight battery.

Raymond, for fun try another item for a 1985 1st gen RX-7. No valve train questions please.

Have Fun
David

[philstireservice]

82-87 Audi Coupe 41 case (BCI Group #)
Length 11 9/16
Width 6 7/8
Height 6 7/8

------------------
Phil Phillips
94 Acura Integra GSR #4
ITS/H3/ST1
www.philstireservice.com
Amsoil Dealer
distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer
Toyo Tire Dealer

[itaracer]

2003 GCR 17.1.4 C (ITCS page 6) "To establish the originality and configuration of teh vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so requested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be acceptable with proof of non-availability from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee."

The owners manual is not an approved "shop manual". If you can't obtain a factory shop manual from the vehicle manufacturer you will need a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the required shop manual is no longer available. In this case a "Haynes" type manual is acceptable.

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

[RSTPerformance]

Please remember that my question is not directed towards battery size, but at ANYTHING...

Lets give other examples of specs possibly not listed: Bore size, stroke, pistons, valve size, wheal bearing size, power stearing ratio, axel length/weight (Anyone ever lighten their axles or driveshaft... hummm theirs a thought?) oh wait and the other commonly joked about weight, flywheel... oh my flywheel has 500,000 miles on it..., etc.


You get my drift, how do we enforce those rules if they are not listed in the factory manual, or does that mean your options are open?

Thanks for the additional input.

Raymond Blethen

PS: I hope I am not opening a can of worms... no arguments please, just opinions on what you would do
A) when building a car to max rules
defending something that you changed or
C) defending something that you didn't change but someone says that you did change from stock.


PSS: I have a Audi Factory Manual, and I have a "stock size" battery. I am also have zero weight problems (other than the motor is infront of the front wheels) so I am not interested at all in the battery. I am interested in proving "stock" items are "stock" when no specs are given for stock parts that are not available from the factory anymore. Audi is one manufacturer that keeps a lot of specs "Top Secret."

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited December 16, 2003).]

[John Herman]

Comparison to a known stock OEM example is one way a protester could prove or disprove a spec. For example, camshaft lift is all that may be in the shop manual. This does not imply the remainder of the cam is free. The same procedure could be used on other parts as well. If you use that super-rare part which is allowed under the update/back-date rule, I suggest you be able to identify the year and model the part came from. That way if the protester states that part never was available according to the sources he has, you can rattle off the model (and/or factor p/n) that can be identified in the service department microfiches. Keep a copy for your records. In some rare cases if you could get a copy of a factory print, that would definately keep you off the hook.

[Quickshoe]

Raymond,

Here's a long shot...but hopefully reason will prevail.

Let's assume you are protested for an illegal flywheel. The factory service manual doesn't list a weight.

The wonderful GCR states "The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee.

If it is obvious that you've ventured down the evil path and present a 7# aluminum flywheel, I'd say you should have to prove it complies. If you present something that appears to resemble a stock piece I think that the burden of proof should shift to the protestor.

Not that it works that way.

I know, where to draw the line? I guess that's a subjective decision for the SOM to make. If you don't like which way it goes you could always appeal.

I don't think always shifting the burden to the protestee is the answer. All one would need to do is get the FSM for a car that is always beating him, find an item that doesn't have a spec and protest it.

--Daryl DeArman

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by John Herman:
Comparison to a known stock OEM example is one way a protester could prove or disprove a spec.

John, I would agree if the "cam" is way out of spec. But what if it is a tiny bit different than the known OEM part? You've got to have some amount of manufacturing tolerances. No spec for the item in the FSM, I'd doubt you'd be able to find mfg. tolerances.

This is one of those deals where hopefully reasonable heads will prevail.

I protest your cam. No spec is given. A known stock OEM part is obtained for comparison. Yours is out .010" lift or 1 degree duration or what have you. I'd say screw it..close enough...must be beating me legal. Probably too late at that point.

How far along this process can a competitor withdraw his/her protest?

[Quickshoe]

oops. please delete this post


[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 17, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by itaracer:
The owners manual is not an approved "shop manual".

You don't say?

But, if the owner's manual does identify the battery size, I think from a practical standpoint, this information would be accepted. The rule does not state that "anything not listed in the factory shop manual is free."

That said, a total lack of any spec at all makes it difficult to find someone illegal. My favorite case in point is the RX-7 live axle. There is no, none, zero, published spec. Therefore, while purposefully bending the axle is technically illegal, no spec exists to find it so. A battery is significantly easier to establish legality.


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

[John Herman]

I think that is why in some cases, "experts" are called in for the tough calls. Those people who are intimately familar with the parts and measuring process. (If Paul Brothers, the owner of Comp Cams, said that two cams are indeed different and cam A could be considered an improvement over cam B, I think people would listen.) It just depends how far people are willing to push it. However, for gross items (e.g. drive axles with holes drilled through them for weight), comparison to other OEM parts would quickly build a case against the parts in question. The other item I have seen used in protests is the surface finish of parts (it had to do with the insides of an intake manifold). While no specifications existed, that poor manifold was sent with other parts for comparison to many experts. In the end, most of the experts agreed the part had been excessively tampered with, and the racer was found guilty as charged. I guess what it comes down to is, just like in real life, who can build the strongest case for their side and get the court to side with them. If you can convince people that you needed to sandblast the inside of your intake manifold for two days to clean up all the crud, and the resultant changes to the intake manifold were an "accidental" by product, then my hats off to you. Obviously, the more a person dabbles in the grey areas, the more likely they'll need to defend themself.

[jc836]

You have asked about ANY part on the car. So here is a thought about legality/originality-the paperwork from the dealer parts department for your OEM spares should be good enough along with the "shop manual" to prove the parts are correct. Yes, I am assuming that such pieces as flywheels, battery trays, and who knows what else are still in the OEM inventory. In some cases they are. If you are protested for the valvetrain for example-best to have complete documentation from the shop that did the work on it. Just another view.


------------------
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

[apr67]

So I race a 1970 Wombat GT.

Wombat no longer has the cam available.

So you protest me. How do you prove my cam is il-legal? Do you pull a junkyard cam? How do you know it is right? How do you know how many different cams may have been in these motors?

I think this is a real problem in the IT rules, they are often 'unenforceable'.

[Geo]

Originally posted by jc836:
You have asked about ANY part on the car. So here is a thought about legality/originality-the paperwork from the dealer parts department for your OEM spares should be good enough along with the "shop manual" to prove the parts are correct.

You bring up a good point. In the case of this specific question, if the factory battery is still available, you may use any battery of the same size and type. If the factory has superceded or replaced with another size, you may use any battery of that size. Makes sense.



------------------
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 apr67:
So I race a 1970 Wombat GT.

Wombat no longer has the cam available.

So you protest me. How do you prove my cam is il-legal? Do you pull a junkyard cam? How do you know it is right? How do you know how many different cams may have been in these motors?

Assuming Wombat is still in business, but just don't make that cam anymore, it may be possible to get the specs from Wombat w/o requiring a cam in-hand. The junkyard cam should not be acceptable.



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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by apr67:
So I race a 1970 Wombat GT. ...I think this is a real problem in the IT rules, they are often 'unenforceable'.

To some degree it is a problem that cars are just getting older. In 20 years, is the Club Racing department still going to be trying to accommodate your now 50-year-old Wombat? When does a car arguably become old enough that we shouldn't try to adjust an entire category to allow them to play - let alone enabling the opportunity to compete?

I'm not really kidding but don't want any drivers of "veteran" IT cars to take personal offense...

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
To some degree it is a problem that cars are just getting older. In 20 years, is the Club Racing department still going to be trying to accommodate your now 50-year-old Wombat? When does a car arguably become old enough that we shouldn't try to adjust an entire category to allow them to play - let alone enabling the opportunity to compete?

I'm not really kidding but don't want any drivers of "veteran" IT cars to take personal offense...

I probably shouldn't respond to this, but I will. I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. I also must say it concerns me since my car is already 20 years old.

But, IMHO there should be no accomodation. When parts are NLA and they wear out, game over. It's a harsh solution, but as you say, will the 1970 Wombat be the IT equivelent in 20 yeasrs of the MGA today in Production?

Some with think this is fair and others will not. I personally think it's the only truly fair way to address it.

It would be easier for all if there were a natural progression of cars from SS to IT or T to P. If we had a logical progression, when the Wombat's NLA cams wear out, it still would have a place to race in P.


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