Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: REMINDER: Feedback needed on Crank Pulley Rules...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
    But if you're trying to say that a stock pulley drilled for lightening is allowed I think that is over the limits of the rule. Drilling or machining a stock pulley is a modification, not a substitution.

    At heart the real problem is the wording "substitute" which is ambiguous at best.
    Perhaps. I'd have no qualms about taking a modified OEM pulley through the COA. I'd argue that a modified OEM pulley is indeed a substitute. The choice of the word substitute simply allows you to machine one from billet IMHO.


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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    George, the implication of the rule is that the crankshaft pulley can be substiuted with the unmodified factory one for without those accessories. I've never read that rule to mean an aftermarket part could be used.
    So, if your particular manufacturer offered a different pulley for non/AC cars, you can buy and use it. But if they put the same double groove pulley on all cars and offered no substitute, you're screwed. Right?? Hogwash!

    In that case, I have a substitute pulley that meets the letter (and spirit) of the regs. The fact that it is a modified factory pulley that I chose as a substitute renders your argument irrelevant. And if you want to carry it further - it is a true substitute, because it came off another engine (I think - I have something like 7 in the shop ).



    [This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 18, 2004).]

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    You might have a pulley that follows the intent of the rule if all you do is remove an extra grove. I've heard many people interpret the rule differently but I haven't seen a conclusive ruling. But, if you go and take off more material than just the groove, a line has been crossed. Drilling holes to reduce mass is not evident in the spirit of the rule.

    Again what is the steward going to define as a substitute? Having gone back and forth on this who can say. It depends on the weather and the alignment of the planets probably on which way the ruling goes and there is always the appeal.

    A substitute pulley still doesn't change the fact that I can buy a crank underdrive pulley from 3 manufacturers, but that's illegal under the current rule. That rule only allows alternate accesory pulleys which means having them custom made for big bucks. So why not change the rule and end all of this confusion?

    ------------------
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Shelby Charger
    MARRS #96

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
    Again what is the steward going to define as a substitute?
    I'm one of those. And you have my ruling.


  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    The CRB board member I talked to last weekend would seem to disagree. Again, it depends on the phase of the moon when the rules are so open to interpretation.

    ------------------
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Shelby Charger
    MARRS #96

    [This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited November 18, 2004).]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Originally posted by ITANorm:
    I'm one of those. And you have my ruling.
    Yeah, there's no conflict of interest in *that* ruling...





  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    Yeah, there's no conflict of interest in *that* ruling...



    Come on Greg. You are insinuating something here with zero data to support it. How do you know that the CRB member in question doesn't race in Production or GT or FF or whatever?

    What I will say is that a CRB member can have an opinion like the rest of us, but until either the COA makes a ruling, or the CRB makes a rule change, it's just an opinion, same as mine. Same as yours.


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

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Drilling holes to reduce mass is not evident in the spirit of the rule.[/B]</font>
    How do you know? Are you Jean Dixon or something? Ok, I'm messing with you, but the point is, you and I DO NOT KNOW what the spirit or intent of the rule is. If you're making decisions based upon your idea of the spirit of the rule, all I can say is I hope you're in my region.

    As I've said many times, once a rule is written, the spirit and/or intent of a rule (unless spelled out) is irrelevant. What matters is the written law. This has been born out by the COA in the past. Just keep in mind that if you find a particularly clever solution, nothing prevents the CRB from changing the rule for the following year.


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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Come on Greg...</font>
    Which part of the "Winky Eye" did you miss there, George?


  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    Which part of the "Winky Eye" did you miss there, George?

    I saw it. Combined with the words it looked like you were implying something.


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

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    wow! good discussion! i think there is room for intepretation and that is why i made the "substitution" with a modified crank pulley from another engine. i am not trying to cheat but i am trying to maximize the potential of the car. if i thought there was anything "wrong" with this, i would not have shared it.

    i will continue to run this pulley when i resume racing next spring, God willing.

    look for me in CenDiv events (michigan) with my new to ITB CRX (if I don't go to the Honda Challenge and run H5).

    my handle will remain tom91ita even if i am in itb.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    631

    Default

    What is the advantage of an underdrive crank pulley if you already have underdrive pulleys elsewhere? I guess less rotational mass is an advantage. I'm asking out of ignorance here. If you are already 'underdriven', why would you need to underdrive even more?

    Is it just to remove weight?

    Tom

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What is the advantage of an underdrive crank pulley...</font>
    Tom, in my particular example, no one makes underdrive pulleys for the SR20DE that doesn't also encompass a matching crank pulley. Unorthodox, for example, offers everything as a "system", and buying just their accessory pulleys makes things worse (they're actually slightly *smaller* diameter than stock). Furthere, there's very littel space between the two pulleys (water pump, power steering pump) that you just can't go much bigger at all.

    Greg



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Thanks. That makes sense. The matched set is probably cheaper and more effective than custom made accessory pulleys as well. Kind of like the coil-over situation.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    Tom,

    For my car no one makes underdrive accessory pulleys so the only option I have under the current rules are to have custom made parts. However, there are the vendors I can buy an underdrive crank pulley from. It's the difference between calling up and ordering a $75 dollar part or having to design and have a shop make a $300 part.

    ------------------
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Shelby Charger
    MARRS #96

    [This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited November 19, 2004).]

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I have yet to hear a compelling argument against allowing crank pulleys when accessory pulleys are allowed. I one is allowed the other should be as well.

    ------------------
    David Rierson
    #53 ITS Honda Prelude
    Texas Region

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Boyertown, PA- USA
    Posts
    454

    Default

    OK, before continuing, please realize, the original intent of the rule change (yes I know the intent, since I share a brain with the person making the request) was to allow for a speed change of accessories for the purposes of 1) reducing water pump cavitation at high RPM and 2) reducing accessory speed to extend the life of parts, and sure, if there's a performance gain to be had, we'll take it. As far as I can glean from the rule the does exist, this allowance was made by permitting different diameter accessory pulleys. Problem is, it costs more to make custom pulleys (plural) than to get one pulley that is available, and also some vehicles have space issues that make is extremely difficult to work with the rule as written. Given that the Purpose and Intent sections of the ITCS specifically mention the idea of low cost, it makes no sense to disallow something that is cheaper to do when that can also be achieved in a much more expensive fashion, and this new method gives no other real benefit. Yes, I realize the Pandora's box I just opened here and I'm sure everyone will correct me about how wrong those statements are. Nice thing about being me is that I, probably much like most of the other intelligent posters here, realize that this makes NO DIFFERENCE in the grand scheme of things, and therefore I don't have to care I am simply posting this so that I could hopefully encourage others who have the similar philosophy that there are those of us around here that just want to play with a race car that is truly cheap to run, and who gives a crap if we win- we just don't want to replace stuff every race. That's what GT cars are for.

    So why would anyone want to vote against this rule change? The only thing is does is reduce costs. In fact, the way the rule change was written and sent to CRB, it included a disclaimer to prevent a pulley change in the event of the pulley being part of a damper assembly if applicable, but of course some moron decided to withhold that part of the request from the "request for input" thereby changing the "feel" of the rule change...

    Originally posted by Geo:
    Perhaps. I'd have no qualms about taking a modified OEM pulley through the COA. I'd argue that a modified OEM pulley is indeed a substitute. The choice of the word substitute simply allows you to machine one from billet IMHO.


    So George, since you're one of the people on here that I typically respect, I have to ask-

    Where does it say you "bloody well can" machine one? It says is that you can make your own and/or modify the crap out of a stock one? Yes, I see the part that says "Crankshaft pulleys with fewer grooves than stock may be substituted if air conditioning compressors and/or emission control air pumps are removed. Diameter and material of crankshaft pulleys shall remain as stock. Type of accessory drive (e.g., V-belt, toothed belt, etc.) shall remain as stock." but I'm really thinking that this is one of those "strained or tortured interpretations" specifically prohibited by GCR Section 1.2.4. If you really want to get technical, the alloy of steel typically used for billet is very different in chemical structure than the stamped steel typically used for pulleys. I bet my strained interpretation can beat up your strained interpretation...

    If you need me, I'll be out hogging out my ports, stuffing a MOTEC into my ECM housing, and chucking up a stamped steel pulley on the old lathe to machine the thing down to the thickness of the skulls of some of the posters on the boards here... Oh wait, I wanted to REMOVE material...


    ------------------
    Matt Green
    "Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

    [This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited November 19, 2004).]

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
    So George, since you're one of the people on here that I typically respect, I have to ask-

    Where does it say you "bloody well can" machine one? All it says is that you can make your own and/or modify the crap out of a stock one? Yes, I see the part that says "Crankshaft pulleys with fewer grooves than stock may be substituted if air conditioning compressors and/or emission control air pumps are removed. Diameter and material of crankshaft pulleys shall remain as stock. Type of accessory drive (e.g., V-belt, toothed belt, etc.) shall remain as stock."
    OK, the ITCS allows you to substitute a pulley with fewer grooves. So it says you can. From there you have to look at limitations. They are few and we have both repeated them. So, if you substitute within those limitations, you're golden, even if you modify an OEM pulley IMHO.

    Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
    If you need me, I'll be out hogging out my ports, stuffing a MOTEC into my ECM housing, and chucking up a stamped steel pulley on the old lathe to machine the thing down to the thickness of the skulls of some of the posters on the boards here... Oh wait, I wanted to REMOVE material...
    I'll be in the garage under the hood feeding the hamsters caffine.


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

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •