Beetle in ITC

[ITSRX7]

GRJ,

My point is that everyone has wear issues. I am not sure why the hub issue even came up other than Bill asking us to dig up the history of some other committees decision.

FWIW: If I had a car that broke/wore out it's front hubs in 2 hours, I simply would have changed cars by now. It seems like an unnecessary risk/cost. But, you seem to be having fun - so more power to you.

I can tell ya'll that the prevailing wisdom on the ITAC is to avoid any car-specific rulings at all costs.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Bill Miller]

Damn, Andy beat me to the 400th post!!

Since you brought it up Andy, did you guys ever find out how/when/why the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hub deal was done?

Also, I'm still waiting for that VW engine information that Darin says he has. Did he forward those emails to you, by any chance?

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Damn, Andy beat me to the 400th post!!

Since you brought it up Andy, did you guys ever find out how/when/why the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 hub deal was done?

Also, I'm still waiting for that VW engine information that Darin says he has. Did he forward those emails to you, by any chance?

Nope and nope.

While I understand your curiosity Bill, the hub thing is pretty low on the priority list. Current letters, clarifications and a strategic direction are filling the minutes now.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Knestis]

I get it. Until you think of an answer, you resort to slapstick.
GRJ

Actually, no. When I read something like this...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends. Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.</font>

...I just give up, 'cause I don't have the faintest idea what is going on any more.

It's called disengagement and is useful to conflict resolution. You can have the hub argument. I don't know what I'm talking about. I lose.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 08, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Nope and nope.

While I understand your curiosity Bill, the hub thing is pretty low on the priority list. Current letters, clarifications and a strategic direction are filling the minutes now.

AB

Ok Andy, I guess I need to write a letter.

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

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know what I'm talking about.

K

Finally. Over 400 posts and Kirk admits it.
Everyone can go home now. It was tough, but a job well done.

Scott, who just disengaged as well

[grjones1]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">we change the suspension geometry and place the hubs under maximum stress, some of the hubs which are up to street use, are not up to competition use.</font>

I don't see your opinion as that different than mine.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">These great bits of wisdom coming from two happy participants whose cars don't have a hub problem.</font>

I don't know about Kirk's car, but my car doesn't have hub problems. It does have its' share of other problems.

The motors don't last long under the stress we dish out. Better parts would help that, but then some would just twist them even tighter, wouldn't they?
...I was waiting for someone to close this thread by requesting a group hug.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Daryl,
There's a great deal of safety difference between stressing a motor that might break, and stressing a hub that will definiely break- the first does not usually result in a wheel falling off. The second usually does result in a wheel falling off: Come on I appreciate a good rebuttal but these aren't just apples to oranges, they are apples to cheese omelettes.

By the way, your FF motor is almost identical to my Fiesta motor (in case you didn't know).

And even Scott and I are talking about things an an even-tempered plane. So the "group hug" has already happened, I think.

GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
[B] ...I just give up, 'cause I don't have the faintest idea what is going on any more.

It's called disengagement and is useful to conflict resolution. You can have the hub argument. I don't know what I'm talking about. I lose.
K
B]

K,
You and I both know, that wasn't a disengagement or a concession, it was a snub.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
GRJ,
My point is that everyone has wear issues. I am not sure why the hub issue even came up other than Bill asking us to dig up the history of some other committees decision.
FWIW: If I had a car that broke/wore out it's front hubs in 2 hours, I simply would have changed cars by now. It seems like an unnecessary risk/cost. But, you seem to be having fun - so more power to you.

I can tell ya'll that the prevailing wisdom on the ITAC is to avoid any car-specific rulings at all costs.
AB

AB,
I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, where stock hubs are proving not to be up to the rigors of competition (frequent and repeated, failure) alternative heavy duty hubs which do not provide any other mechanical advantage (i.e., larger rotors different attachment points, etc.) may be used.

And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car, because the ITAC and CRB do not want to make the effort to rule on what has proven to be on a number of different makes and classes a serious safety issue.

I know you think that I am simply trying to relieve myself of normal wear and tear maintenance: the fact is even after close attention to maintenace on some hubs, they still fail habitually, and we really are throwing the hub failure dice everytime we go out. Yes I've been ignored on this for years, and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. Lord knows, you've spent enough time looking at and changing racing harnesses that fail, what, once in 100,000 uses.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:

......I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, .... alternative heavy duty hubs .......may be used.

And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car,.....
...... and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. GRJ

I thought I had disengaged myself, but the pull....is....soooo...strooong...must ..resisssttt.

But I can't. Sigh...

A comment or two.

The hub issue is no different than any other part. How about the Borgward conn rods? They almost ALWAYS break at 6950 revs...or sometimes earlier, in a car with a 7000 redline. Isn't spreading oil all over the track in T12 at Road Atlanta in a pack of cars a safety concern?

I know, don't rev past 6900 and all is fine. Proper use, proper maintenance and all that.

If the Borgward driver solicited the ITAC/CRB for an alternative conn rod based upon safety concerns, what would they say??

I imagine they would be loath to grant a change to the specific model, (Note here that your comment about your request not being model specific is way too vague and lacking controls to ever be considered) and would suggest the bottom line would be:

...."Caveat emptor", and "Due diligence"....

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Oh...I don't think you can find a better example of a "snub" than this comment:

Originally posted by grjones1:

And I see that K has saved so much $ on not having to replace hubs, he can afford Recaro seats in his IT (SS?) car. Gee, if I could only convince the Board to let me use heavier hubs, I too could trade in my cheap old Butler-Built for a Recaro and impress all my autocross friends.
Uh oh, I've given away my ulterior motive.
GRJ

Yes, I will agree with Bill's earlier response as well.



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

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There's a great deal of safety difference between stressing a motor that might break, and stressing a hub that will definiely break-</font>

This is so absurd, it's not even worthy of comment. Let's see how you feel the next time someone grenades a motor in front of you.


Andy,

I just reviewed the Olds/Pontiac spec line again, and I see that, not only did the cars get the Saturn hubs/bearings, they also got to convert from rear drum to rear disc. Maybe it was because the Saturn stuff wouldn't work w/ drum brakes (probably the case).

I'll admit that I didn't look at every car in every class, but does anyone know of any other cases where one model has been allowed to use parts from other models, that aren't listed on the same spec line?

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:

AB,
I'm not asking for a "car-specific" ruling, I'm asking for a safety ruling that states, where stock hubs are proving not to be up to the rigors of competition (frequent and repeated, failure) alternative heavy duty hubs which do not provide any other mechanical advantage (i.e., larger rotors different attachment points, etc.) may be used.

The issue is simple: who decides which models hubs are sub-par? How many hours? How many races? This would be a rule that had to go into effect for the entire category, not just selected cars. It's a classic example of rules creep. Every car has it's wear items, replace as neccessary.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And you make my point: after I have spent in the neighborhood of $10,000, setting up and racing my car, I am supposed to simply build another car, because the ITAC and CRB do not want to make the effort to rule on what has proven to be on a number of different makes and classes a serious safety issue.</font>

See above. Some cars make good racecars, some don't. I don't think rules for an entire category should be changed to accomodate a single make. Should we allow power steering-fluid coolers because the SE-R's and NX2000's cook thier fluid? You could argue that is a safety issue as well but it is just a pimple on the ass of that car - and you choose to live with that pimple when you choose that weapon.

I know you think that I am simply trying to relieve myself of normal wear and tear maintenance: the fact is even after close attention to maintenace on some hubs, they still fail habitually, and we really are throwing the hub failure dice everytime we go out. Yes I've been ignored on this for years, and I still race the car, but it would be nice if for once, the powers that be could take the time to look at a serious safety issue. Lord knows, you've spent enough time looking at and changing racing harnesses that fail, what, once in 100,000 uses.
GRJ

The belt issue has been and still being address at the CRB/BoD level. The ITAC has nothing to do with that unless we are specifically asked to make a recommendation - and haven't been yet.

I understand where you are coming from but I think that when you look at things from a 10,000 foot level, somethings may not make the same sense that they do when you are looking atthings from under your OWN CAR.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[grjones1]

[/b][/QUOTE]
The hub issue is no different than any other part. How about the Borgward conn rods? They almost ALWAYS break at 6950 revs...or sometimes earlier, in a car with a 7000 redline. Isn't spreading oil all over the track in T12 at Road Atlanta in a pack of cars a safety concern?
...I imagine they would be loath to grant a change to the specific model, (Note here that your comment about your request not being model specific is way too vague and lacking controls to ever be considered) and would suggest the bottom line would be:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Come on Jake, blown engines and oil on the track are accepted conditions. I really don't see a corner worker warning me that my wheels are coming off the car is a possibility, but at least I get a red and yellow flag when oil is spotted and a yellow when an engine goes. The two events and issues as you pose them are not the same.
Guys I am NOT requesting a change for specific models, I'm requesting a change allowable for ALL models!!!

I believe we can document without too much trouble from flag and tech reports how often wheels have come off different cars because of hub failures. how many harnass failures can you document?

Harnesses are being changed because they might break, hubs are not allowed to be changed or altered even when it is known that they will break. Where's the logic?

I wasn't snubbing K, indeed I was implicating what I perceive as a bit of elitism on his part (the use of Recaros) (and I'm not suggesting K is elitist, only that his use of the Recaro may be considered elitist.) And I was poking a little fun at his suspicion that my request for hubs might have an ulterior motive. I humbly request you make the effort to read between the lines on occasion.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 08, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
AB

And I understand your position, Andy, but if this were not an issue with cars in addition to my own, I would not even suggest consideration.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
AB

And Andy, SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps and change to standard brakes if they choose. I think I'm right on this one (I know we got rid of our PS servo years ago for just the same reason, they fail.
GRJ
GRJ

[Greg Amy]

...SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps...

Uh, we can? Woo-hoo! That's news to me!! Get outta the way, I'm off to the garage!

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer at no additional charge. - GA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grega:
Uh, we can? Woo-hoo! That's news to me!! Get outta the way, I'm off to the garage!

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer at no additional charge. - GA

Not only do you offer sarcasm, but your lines are much easier to read between ...

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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And Andy, SERs and 2000s can legally remove their power steering pumps and change to standard brakes if they choose. I think I'm right on this one (I know we got rid of our PS servo years ago for just the same reason, they fail.
GRJ
GRJ

Robert,

Which GCR did you read this in?


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

[therooster]

"...I really don't see a corner worker warning me that my wheels are coming off the car is a possibility..."grjones

I have an Audi that has a similar design to the VW's. I have also worked on/driven a 2.0l 16V A1 Rabbit w/approx 200hp that lived it's life on the track with a Time Trial Club. If you pay attention and maintain your car you pretty much know that your risking breaking a hub. You do not need a corner worker to tell you. My experience is they do give a little warning.

Chris