Wheel diameter rule change Poll

[Jake]

Cher -

I see your point. I just don't agree with the standard. I recently bent a wheel and can not get a replacement wheel at all. My options are to run 3 of what I have and have a new wheel custom fabricated for the price of an entire set of 15" wheels, ditch my 3 14x7 wheels and look around junk yards for the stock wheels, or buy a set of aftermarket 14x6's. I am currently trying to get my 4th wheel repaired, but I wonder about the safety aspect. I regret that it has come to this.

[cherokee]

I don't agree with the standard also. But from the track record of the rule making/changing process I think that the chances are slim in getting anything changed if you can still get a part that meets the specs. Maybee I am a glass half empty kind of guy....or a realist.

[cherokee]

double post

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited January 14, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
So what is the difference. A rotor is ok to come from the aftermarket but "X" is not? If the aftermarket part has the same specs as the factory part why not use it.

I see your point... The differentiation I would make here is that one part is a normal wear item that is allowed to be replaced by aftermarket pieces per the ITCS and has little bearing on the performance of the vehicle.

I suppose a camshaft could be considered the same thing, except that it has a significant impact on the performance of the vehicle.

If all that matters is the profile of the cam, and the club has the ability to measure this, then I suppose the specifications are no different to enforce than those of a set of rotors, so perhaps the part number on the cam doesn't matter.

For example, if the cam in quesion is NLA, but the competitor finds a different part and regrinds it to match the stock profile, is that legal? Are regrind cams legal for IT? It's not specifically addressed, unless it's considered under the "factory repair" clause...

Thank you for bringing the similarities of these two situations to my attention. Perhaps what is needed is some wording chages to the rules, similiar to what was done with pistons, which says something to the effect of the pieces simply needing to be "exactly equivalent" to the factory pieces...

I'll take that up with the ITAC...


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

[cherokee]

I think that the botttom line on all this is that the cars that we are running are getting older. And modern automotive design has changed. I have read where people say IT is like Prod was 30 yrs ago. I don't know if that is true or not but do you think that Prod is where it is now becuase the vast majority of the cars are now pretty dang old and faced the same problems that we are facing now? Do you see IT going the same way, The current trend seems to suggest so. It seems logical to me that as our cars age we will see different little things creep in there. The only way around that is to say that a car over "X" yrs can't run IT, (I hate this idea) Or the older cars Like the 510 get special allowances not given to the other cars...like an different cam. I know what that sounds like but step back and look at what is going on in total in IT.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

I see your point... The differentiation I would make here is that one part [rotor] is a normal wear item that is allowed to be replaced by aftermarket pieces per the ITCS and has little bearing on the performance of the vehicle...

I've gone around and around on the brake rotor issue and would love some clarification. At this point however, I don't remember where the allowance for aftermarket "normal wear" items
is. Help?

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't remember where the allowance for aftermarket "normal wear" items
is. Help?

K

Kirk,
I may have to conceed on this point, because I just went through the ITCS twice and see nothing that really states anything to this effect...

It seems completely unreasonable that one would be expected to use strictly factory pieces for this kind of thing, but then, we did originate from SS...

I'll have to inquire further...


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
I don't agree with the standard also. But from the track record of the rule making/changing process I think that the chances are slim in getting anything changed if you can still get a part that meets the specs.

Perhaps that's because people talk plenty, but write little. There are exceptions to this of course, but it's more the rule than the exception.


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

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Geo:
Perhaps that's because people talk plenty, but write little. There are exceptions to this of course, but it's more the rule than the exception.

That may be...but you can only bang your head on the brick wall for so long...then you will come to the conclusion that you are not going to get anywhere. A lot of talk about the wording in the replies that come back. I think that facts or even their reasoning in shooting down a request or approving one would go a long way. I will use a wheel example thats what started this anyway. Guy says I can't find 14x7's that fit my Wombat GT anywhere. The rules folks would send back something to the effect sufficant supplies exist. The guy gos what you are crazy 14x7 don't exist for my car, these guys just don't care..... If they would say your max wheel size is 14x7 your car came with 14x6, the 14x6 wheel is available in the aftermarket from these sources and on the used market from these sources. They would have to have the sources to approve or disapprove the request. Guy says but my car will not be as fast with those wheels. The rules guys come back and say. "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car..." you knew this going in. And that is the problem, we do this hoping to be competitive with other cars...right.

[Bill Miller]

George,

I think Cherokee hit it. We do our part, and send in all the data in the world, yet we get these canned, flip responses. Or things get sent to the AC, never to be heard from again.

You, and others, advocate writing letters. Maybe you should be advocating that the CB provide more detailed responses when things are shot down. And, I still want to know why they publish the requestor's name when something is shot down, but not when it is approved? What's up w/ dat?

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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...but you can only bang your head on the brick wall for so long...</font>

Amen, brother.

Geo, you have a constant mantra of "write to the Comp Board" and Darin is always saying, "Support it with data." How many times in the last three years have I sent well-written and well-documented requests to the Comp Board yet have been shot down with nothing more than a 6-word sentence? I can understand disagreeing with my position, but when virtually every reasonable person I talk to tends to agree with me, I find it difficult to conclude anything else except that the COmp Board is unreasonable.

In fact, the only request that I've made in the last three years accepted by the Board was one in regards to FIA approved seats, and that took the support and phone calls from a rep of a major international aftermarket safety equipment supplier.

How much longer should we keep banging that wall?

I tried real hard to keep an open mind when I decided to re-up my SCCA membership and try again. But, frankly, I've re-acquired my cynical distaste for the process(es) and people involved in it. "Club"? "Responsive to the membership?"

Hardly.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
If they would say your max wheel size is 14x7 your car came with 14x6, the 14x6 wheel is available in the aftermarket from these sources and on the used market from these sources. They would have to have the sources to approve or disapprove the request.

At the risk of being accused of sounding arrogant, is it the CRB's job to make sure you understand the nature of the rules? The is no requirement that says you MUST build to the limits of the allowances. Further, if you've done enough research to figure out that something isn't available, surely you've also figured out what is. I don't think the CRB was put in place to help you source parts for your car.

I'm sure if you posted your required application here, you'd get several leads...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And that is the problem, we do this hoping to be competitive with other cars...right.</font>

Right now, right or wrong, that's the nature of the class.

It can't be too much of an issue, because when something as important/impacting as PCAs come up for membership input, we get next to no response... Not exactly the sign of an issue that's "high priority"...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 15, 2004).]

[cherokee]

I used the wheel as an example. If it was a more unique part and I can't find it and they say supplies exist...that is just short. Pass the info along, they have to have it anyway...they gave an answer..so give. If you ask for something that sounds logical and it gets shot down I want more then a no, because we said so...I am not 4 anymore. (some may disagree)

That is the nature of the class and the root of the problem IMO.

I am very slow about sending up requests to change things I want to know why things are being changed and look at it from ALL sides. After I understand that then I will choose to respond or not. Lots of things get changed that I don't agree with but I understand the reasons behind the change (computers). Why respond to a PCA? Why adjust the performance of a car if you don't care if it is competitive or not?

On the PCA thing you and Geo are right no response...why...lack of hope anything would be done?...perhaps. Right or wrong I think that it is a feeling people get when talking to HQ. And that needs to change...even if it is more work for them.

What I would suggest is a more "modern" way of sending up requests...it is so easy to sit and type an e-mail, we all sit here and gripe here...it is easy. If there was a eletronic way to send up requests [email protected], [email protected] kind of thing....maybe there is if so I don't know about it...and if I don't others don't.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
If there was a eletronic way to send up requests [email protected], [email protected] kind of thing....maybe there is if so I don't know about it...and if I don't others don't.

Cherokee,

You're in luck... THERE IS! If you send a request in the form of an e-mail to the [email protected] and to [email protected], I promise you that it will get added to the agenda.

That's how I send in ALL of my requests. I usually write them up in Word and attach them, but you could just as easily write it in an e-mail and just send that. That's how the majority or our requests are received...

I usually get a confirmation response that they received it.

I can't promise you that things will change, but I can assure you that there is a good group of people TRYING to get things to make more sense...

Good Luck,

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 15, 2004).]

[cherokee]

Thanks...I do believe that people try to do the right thing...a lot can happen with mis communication and I think that is what 90% of the problem is.

[Geo]

I must say I'm pleased with the measured responses from some of you who are frustrated with "the system." And I do understand most of what gets you frustrated and why. I really do.

Keep in mind that for every good and well reasoned argument, there is probably a good, well reason argument against. I too am amazed at the opposition to some things, but it's there and people have good reasons for them. It can be very difficult sometimes getting to the point of making a change - especially when a lot of people just plain don't like change.

Something to consider is that there are a number of members of the ITAC active on this forum, and three of us in particular who are very active. If we strongly suggest you write to the CRB it's usually because we are listening to you and trying to make arguments for change. However, we need your help in doing so. Change, by and large, requires a critical mass to get moving. On rare occasion a single letter can do that. More often it requires a number of letters to first of all get the CRB to realize there truly is and issue. Then we all have to get them to believe it's in the best interest of IT to make the change.

It's work to get people to change. Rarely does a single good argument cause change to happen. A large number of them carry more weight.

I hope the current ITAC has provide some amount of hope for those of you who are frustrated. We have tried very hard to communicate what is going on with issues before us (as much as we can) and none of us have thrown up our hands and walked away in frustration when the conversations have turned, uh, [i]enthusiastic(?)[/i}. OK, down right hot. We all care, we all listen. We do try to do the right thing for IT, and not suprisingly, we don't always agree amongst ourselves even.


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