Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I don't understand the .040 over pistons being NLA. Can't you get ones from Weisco or JE (or any of the other custom piston vendors)?

Actually, I explained that before. The 944 block is Alusil, an aluminum/silica alloy and the pistons must be coated with an iron oxide coating. Nobody is making them. There is rumor that a manufacturer is thinking of making them available again, but that was 6 months ago and I've seen nothing else yet.

At the moment, they truly are NLA.


------------------
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 grega:
And, fact remains, pistons are available for the 944, just not "off the shelf." You can have pistons made in any design and specification you want.

It would be nice if it were true, but it is not. They require a special coating and NOBODY is producing them. The rest of process of getting pistons is easy. Nobody is doing the coatings. People have looked into this.


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

[Bill Miller]

George,

And just what happens if you don't coat the pistons? Also, per the engine coating rule, how would the coated pistons even be legal?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

And just what happens if you don't coat the pistons? Also, per the engine coating rule, how would the coated pistons even be legal?

The coatings are OEM Bill.

If you don't coat them you make it quite likely that the pistons will gall. Aluminum doesn't like sliding on aluminum.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
The coatings are OEM Bill.

If you don't coat them you make it quite likely that the pistons will gall.

If you DON'T coat them... they won't be "exact equivalents" and would therefore not be legal!



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

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Seems to me that if we moved all cars with 160-180 hp weighing in the 2400 to 2800 lb range to ITA, we'd have what, 3 cars left in S -- BMW, Mazda and Datsun?

I'm pretty sure the Mazda tops out at about 170 to the wheels - 2680 lbs.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
If you DON'T coat them... they won't be "exact equivalents" and would therefore not be legal!

Nice try Darin, but a forged piston is hardly an 'exact equivalent' of a cast piston, yet forged pistons have been deemed legal. So, it's already been established that, at least in the case of pistons, the replacement parts don't have to be 'exact equivalents' of the OEM parts.

As far as the coating question, I was playing devil's advocate. It would seem that a coating would be required, in this case. Yet, the ITCS expressley prohibts coating of internal engine components. Quandry? Could be...

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

[JeffYoung]

Marty, should have been clearer. I meant 160-180 at the crank with IT mods. I only know a couple of cars (due to development or potential) that go higher, BMW (240 at the crank?), Mazda (200 at the crank?) and 240-300Z (190-210 at the crank?).

Everybody else is chasing those guys, again I think mostly because of development. I'm at about 170 at the crank (estimated, "S" car with 2560 min weight) and I know there is more there -- the bump in compression, .040 pistons, gasket matching, etc. Right now, I just have a good, well built, balanced and blueprinted stock motor.

My point is that based on Tristan and George's discussion above, there wouldn't be a good reason for whole lot cars to stay in S if we could justify moving the 944 to A.

George, usually agree with you, but I think Tristan is right. Not sure I can see moving the 944 to A.

[Geo]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, usually agree with you, but I think Tristan is right. Not sure I can see moving the 944 to A.

I'm not trying to be argumentative in the least, but I'm curious why? Specs are pretty danged close, and I'll bet hp potential are pretty similar. And the 944 weighs in at 185 lbs more.

So, I guess I'd be curious what specific points you would have.

I'm stepping lightly here because of my position on the ITAC and the fact this affects me personally. But, I'm trying to look at this VERY objectively with sensitivity to specific subjectivity. From where I sit, the 185 lbs more than makes up for any additional power and intangible performance potential. But again, I'm interested in hearing the feedback.


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

[JeffYoung]

George, appreciate the tone of your response.

Here's my thinking, and I invite you to respond so we can continue talking about this.

I'll start with my car, and then move to others. I drive a car that was, I have heard, perhaps the very first dominant S car, the TR8. Specs are: 135 hp stock, 160-170 pretty easy to obtain with headers and emissions off, and a good blueprint and balance. 180 to 200 ft lbs of torque, which is the primary advantage of the car. Terrible brakes, small discs in front, drums in rear. Live rear axle. 2560 min weight.

Stack that up against a 944....other than the torque figures, and the weight, the 944 is a far "superior" car. So does my car belong in A? I'm not sure that anyone would agree that it does.

Move on to the rest of S. Preludes, Calais, Integras, Celicas, 2nd Gen MR2s, VR6s, etc. etc. etc. All about 2300 to 2600 lbs. All about 130-150 stock crank hp.

All very much like the 944 and the TR8.

Do we move all of these cars to A? I guess that was my point. If we start moving cars like the 944 and the TR8, which are outclassed but not totally out of place in S to A, I'm not sure where we stop. Do we end up with just 325s, 2nd Gen RX7s and 240zs in S?

While I'm knew to the club and racing, I've pretty quickly picked up on the fact that Prod is dying and I can see the reasons why -- PCAs to keep the enfranchised group competitive. So I'm very leery of PCAs because what I love most about IT is large, varied fields.

But maybe it is simple and limited weight adjustments that can resolve the issues we have raised here for week and weeks. Say you took 200 lbs off the 944 and the TR8, and the MR2 and the Celica and the VR6 and the Volvo 850......I don't know.

But what I am pretty sure about is that moving higher hp rear drive GT/Sports cars to A is probably a mistake; as much a mistake as classing the Bimmer at the weight they did in S.

And that's really the issue in S isn't it? Without the BMW, most cars are much closer to the front.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
So, it's already been established that, at least in the case of pistons, the replacement parts don't have to be 'exact equivalents' of the OEM parts.

ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.

Ummmm.... YES... as a matter of fact they do...



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

[Bill Miller]

Well Darin, I stand corrected. Could invoke the Don Horner rule though, and say that the rule goes on to operationalize what 'equivalent' is. Gives lots of areas that have to match OEM, but says nothing of coatings. However, I'll concede that you probably would be legal using coated, aftermarket pistons. Although, I'd not want to have to argue that one in the tech shed.

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

[Geo]

However, I'll concede that you probably would be legal using coated, aftermarket pistons. Although, I'd not want to have to argue that one in the tech shed.
[/B]

I don't think anyone would have a problem with aftermarket pistons with the factory coatings. Unfortunately this is purely a theoretical discussion because they don't exist. (assuming we are still talking about the 944 pistons here)


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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...because they don't exist...</font>

George, you cannot hide behind that as a defense for moving the car to ITA.

- A race-quality rear swaybar does not exist for my car. We fabricated it.
- Good adjustable upper strut mounts, front and rear, do not exist for my car. We fabricated them.
- Proper geometry struts do not exist for my car. We fabricated them.
- A good ECU doesn't exist for my car. We're reprograming one.

I could go on and on, but I suspect you get my point: lack of off-the-shelf parts for *any* car cannot be used as a crutch for claiming lack of performance, thus reclassification. You can have anything you want fabricated; maybe not cheap, but it definitely can be done. Until the day you are willing to add into the ITCS a price limit on parts, then as long as fabricators exist, legal parts can be made to order.

You, yourself, have long stood behind the target that read 'until you've done all you can on your car you cannot claim to need reclassification.' I did exactly that, now it's your turn.

Have the pistons made. Don't give me that BS, George, they *can* be made. When you then cannot keep up in ITS, only then will it be time to follow your own advice and send a letter to the ITAC and Comp Board requesting reclassification.

Until then, please stop with the 944. I think it's obvious to everyone - except you - that the car belongs in ITS for now.

GregA

[Jake]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Move on to the rest of S. Preludes, Calais, Integras, Celicas, 2nd Gen MR2s, VR6s, etc. etc. etc. All about 2300 to 2600 lbs. All about 130-150 stock crank hp.

All very much like the 944 and the TR8.

Do we move all of these cars to A?

I for one say yes. Honestly I think about 3/4 of the ITS feild can move to NEW-ITA, 3/4 of the ITA field can move to ITB, and 3/4 of ITB can move to ITC. This would go a LONG way to making more compatable fields, evening out the class subscriptions, and allowing newer cars a place to run.

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
George, you cannot hide behind that as a defense for moving the car to ITA.

OK Greg this is getting bloody tiring.

Find one place where I used this or lack of any part as a justification for moving the car. Do you not read carefully or do you just make up what you need to make your point?

Originally posted by grega:
Have the pistons made. Don't give me that BS, George, they *can* be made.

Really? Well you're ignorant on this topic. Others have looked into it. Like other things, your saying it doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by grega:
Until then, please stop with the 944. I think it's obvious to everyone - except you - that the car belongs in ITS for now.

Really? You were quite verbose about all the reasons your NX should be moved.

Show me how different the 944 is from the SOHC 240SX, an ITA car that weighs 185lbs less. Give me something solid rather that just spewing.


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

[Tristan Smith]

Geo,

First for the record. I am not taking a stand one way or the other for moving the 944 to "A". I am so slow lately, due to driver incompetence, I have bigger issues to worry about.

Couple of things to think about. I would say that a well prepped IT 944 motor is simply making more horsepower than an equivilant 240sx motor. Period. Bob Stretch aside, 240sx's while quick in various regions are not an overdog in "A". And most of Bob Stretch's speed is due to his excellent driving skills. So he may not be an accurant benchmark to use.

Second, I personally know of no 240sx's that are making minimum weight. Everyone I talk to is 50lbs to 100lbs overweight, and there aren't many places to legally take it away. So your 180lbs weight difference is propably less than you think. Just some things to add to the discussion.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Find one place where I used this or lack of any part as a justification for moving the car...</font>

"...the Milledge crate motor uses unobtanium 0.040" pistons which are NLA..."

"Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA."

"And I agree that the 944 can make nearly 180 bhp (since the 40 over pistons are NLA, 183 is not possible)"

"...the pistons must be coated with an iron oxide coating. Nobody is making them."

"At the moment, they truly are NLA."

"They require a special coating and NOBODY is producing them."

"Nobody is doing the coatings."

"Unfortunately this is purely a theoretical discussion because they don't exist. (assuming we are still talking about the 944 pistons here)"

...and that's just from this thread.

The bottom line is that you will make more horsepower with .040 pistons; just because "no one makes" them doesn't mean you get a PCA.

If you want support on this issue, find out what the performance would be if someone did make them, and use that in your arguments. At that point you'd have some legitimacy to your position.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You were quite verbose about all the reasons your NX should be moved.</font>

Exactly, and detailed. I wrote several letters over several years providing evidence as to why the car should be moved. Further, as is usually required, I spent a shitload of money to prep the car to the Nth degree to prove it; all I'm asking is that you do the same.

Oh, and let's not forget that up to about a year ago you were still quite adamant that the Sentra SE-R and NX2000 should be competitive in ITS, despite having never attended an SCCA Regional race outside south Texas...

And you still have not told us what ITS car and driver was duking it out for the overall lead with Bob Stretch in the 240SX.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">..Give me something solid rather that just spewing...</font>

To paraphrase you over the years, George, it is up to the competitor to prove the car should be moved, not to everyone else to prove it should not be.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...this is getting bloody tiring.</font>

I totally agree with you, George, which is why most people usually choose to simply stop arguing with you.

Me? I'm ignorant. But I do have my limits...

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
First for the record. I am not taking a stand one way or the other for moving the 944 to "A".

I appreciate that. And I'm not making a big push either. All I've tried to do is open up a discussion looking at objective specs and questioning the "fit."

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Couple of things to think about. I would say that a well prepped IT 944 motor is simply making more horsepower than an equivilant 240sx motor. Period.

Are you willing to discuss approximately how much more? If you aren't, I understand. Unlike some, I believe that is your own business.

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Bob Stretch aside, 240sx's while quick in various regions are not an overdog in "A". And most of Bob Stretch's speed is due to his excellent driving skills. So he may not be an accurant benchmark to use.

True. My point, and one in this case was not "apples to apples" was that if you're going to compare the best of one, it should be compared against the best of another.

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Second, I personally know of no 240sx's that are making minimum weight. Everyone I talk to is 50lbs to 100lbs overweight, and there aren't many places to legally take it away. So your 180lbs weight difference is propably less than you think. Just some things to add to the discussion.

Good point. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion about the similarities and differences.


------------------
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 grega:
The bottom line is that you will make more horsepower with .040 pistons; just because "no one makes" them doesn't mean you get a PCA.

Greg, slow down boy. Go back and reread. Where did I use any of those things you quoted to specifically justify a reclassification? The answer is no where. There was a discussion of the hp made by a 944 vs a 240SX. I quoted the number Jon Milledge published and noted that it was with NLA pistons, so the number now would be less. But I never used that anywhere as a justification of moving the 944.

Originally posted by grega:
Exactly, and detailed. I wrote several letters over several years providing evidence as to why the car should be moved. Further, as is usually required, I spent a shitload of money to prep the car to the Nth degree to prove it; all I'm asking is that you do the same.

Your car was moved because the technical specs were so close to some cars already in A, not because of how much money you spent. That is all I'm doing here. I'm comparing the 944 with the 240SX. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.

Originally posted by grega:
Oh, and let's not forget that up to about a year ago you were still quite adamant that the Sentra SE-R and NX2000 should be competitive in ITS, despite having never attended an SCCA Regional race outside south Texas...

Where I've raced is not germane to the discussion, and since this is a regional class, not having raced outside my region is a stupid point anyway.

But to address your point about my position on the NX2000 and Sentra SE-R, yes, I did have a different opinion of where they belonged (not necessarily about competitiveness). My positioin changed with some recent classifications and reclassifications that made those cars a closer fit technically with other cars in A. Again, in my discussions about the comparisons of the 240SX and the 944, that is all I'm discussing. You have an axe to grind for some reason (perhaps because I disagreed with you in the past?) so you're bringing all sorts of other stuff into this.

Originally posted by grega:
And you still have not told us what ITS car and driver was duking it out for the overall lead with Bob Stretch in the 240SX.

Fine. YOU want to know.

John Banks in his 300ZX. But this is really not germane to the discussion either, but I'm sure you'll find something to latch onto here.



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