Senior Member
<Slim Pickens>That there's communism, pure and simple</Slim Pickens>Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As stated before the rules must be equal for all competitors, if one car can shave the head and another can't because of a design difference than where is that equitable.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
PS Tom what about those cars that don't have a dial a gear available? How do we make it equitable for them. Provide a cam a cam gear and a crank gear and I will find a legal way to return the timing to stock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As stated before the rules must be equal for all competitors, if one car can shave the head and another can't because of a design difference than where is that equitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Member
Originally posted by Geo:
I don't know if that's true or not, but I know I've used it quite a bit.
Well there you go, it's damn near impossible to tell George and Darin apart!
B & B part deux?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
Exactly my point AGAIN, the dumb ass rule states it has to be a woodruff offset key, since you can't seem to get this idea through your head; let me re-explain the concept. The rule should define the specifications (i.e. you can mill the head .040, or the valve size must be 1.203) and not care how you get to the specification. This way if a car is protested for being illegal it doesn't matter if he used a woodruff key, offset button, welded fitting etc, the only think that mattered was that he was not within the specification guidelines.Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
PS Tom what about those cars that don't have a dial a gear available? How do we make it equitable for them. Provide a cam a cam gear and a crank gear and I will find a legal way to return the timing to stock.
Senior Member
Tom, you don't have to get anything through my head dude, Just understand that I feel the current rule is just fine and need not be changed even for your car. I can make your car legal with no issue send me the parts I'll show you how and then you will have something else to sell on your website. I am not dense or stupid the reason these parts are wanted is because there is an advantage to running them.
Senior Member
Really??? Wow... so, if the rule states that my car must be 2.4L or 2389cc, or???, I should be able to bore/stroke it any way I want to meet that specification???Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
The rule should define the specifications (i.e. you can mill the head .040, or the valve size must be 1.203) and not care how you get to the specification.
And I can take ANY valve I want and cut it to 1.203"???
KOOL!
This is great! So, we should open the rules up to allow you to get your cam timing back ANY way you see fit???!! YAH... I'll be those adjustable ALLOY cam-gears look like a GREAT solution for this "problem"...
No "unintended" consequences with that one...
Funny how any rule that someone doesn't agree with is a "stupid" rule...
Rules that had people buying coilover struts, cutting the threads off, then adding them back on the meet the rule... THOSE are "stupid" rules...
Rules that simply limit the amount of modification you are allowed to do... I'd call that sensible...
You've essentially proven that this car does NOT have an issue with adjusting it's cam-timing back to stock, you just don't like the method. It's not overtly or overly difficult to do, isn't above and beyond what any other similiar car has to do, and it doesn't require a degree in astro-engineering to do... Any competent machinist could likely perform the task...
No... every rule book has limitations in what it will allow, and ours is no different... If you don't like it, again, you have Production to go to that will likely allow more modifications that may better suit your desires... Of course, again, you are going to bump up against another set of limitations that you may not agree with... In that case, there is always GT...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
Just what I expected from you Darian, missing the point just to prove a point, That's why the rule book is so thing and the cheating continues. You have fun with your dictionary, I'm going racing.Originally posted by Banzai240:
Really??? Wow... so, if the rule states that my car must be 2.4L or 2389cc, or???, I should be able to bore/stroke it any way I want to meet that specification???
And I can take ANY valve I want and cut it to 1.203"???
KOOL!
This is great! So, we should open the rules up to allow you to get your cam timing back ANY way you see fit???!! YAH... I'll be those adjustable ALLOY cam-gears look like a GREAT solution for this "problem"...
No "unintended" consequences with that one...
Funny how any rule that someone doesn't agree with is a "stupid" rule...
Rules that had people buying coilover struts, cutting the threads off, then adding them back on the meet the rule... THOSE are "stupid" rules...
Rules that simply limit the amount of modification you are allowed to do... I'd call that sensible...
You've essentially proven that this car does NOT have an issue with adjusting it's cam-timing back to stock, you just don't like the method. It's not overtly or overly difficult to do, isn't above and beyond what any other similiar car has to do, and it doesn't require a degree in astro-engineering to do... Any competent machinist could likely perform the task...
No... every rule book has limitations in what it will allow, and ours is no different... If you don't like it, again, you have Production to go to that will likely allow more modifications that may better suit your desires... Of course, again, you are going to bump up against another set of limitations that you may not agree with... In that case, there is always GT...
Senior Member
Not to hijak but...
Our team car just set another track record this weekend...is anyone going to protest the adjustable thread gears we have on our aftermarket washer bottle that was repositioned to accomodate the...
I think the rules are ok right now. Those that take advantage of rules that adjust the timing have sufficient means to return them to stock. All things can't be equal in IT, just ask the guys with carbs. I honestly think it's just rules creep.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Senior Member
Tom,Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
Just what I expected from you Darian, missing the point just to prove a point, That's why the rule book is so thing and the cheating continues. You have fun with your dictionary, I'm going racing.
If you are going to form an ill-opinion of me, at least learn to spell my name correctly... D-A-R-I-N
And, I don't think there is anyone here, including me, who doesn't get your "point"... likewise, it's pretty clear how you react when you don't like the counter-point... The current rule is as equitable as the change you are suggesting, and likely more-so, given the market availibility of adjustable cam-gears... But, if you've done your research, you already know this...
If you feel this should be officially addressed, you should take the appropriate steps to get it considered... Don't let the opinion of one ITAC member discourage you... Run it by your peers and the officials of this club for official consideration and see where it goes...
Just remember that, if you don't like the outcome, it's not because just I didn't think it was a good idea...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
Yeah, we have matching flat black helicopters too!Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well there you go, it's damn near impossible to tell George and Darin apart!
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
Well, I for one like the rules the way they are. After all, if we allowed adjustable cam gears then I'd actually have to learn how to degree my cam to make sure I was legal. Now, I just use "the stock gear" without any offset key and am automatically "legal" (/invisible ink on/ ..."the stock gear" carefully selected to optimize timing from my stash of 20-30 stock gears with slight manufacturing variations, evil laugh... /invisible ink off/).
In addition, although it's no skin off my nose, I believe that most of us have been misreading the plastic gear substitution rule. IMHO, the rule does *not* say that the replacement metal gear must achieve stock timing (e.g., even with a shaved head), but only says "as stock" to mean the same timing as would be achieved with the stock plastic gear (presumably before it wore out or melted). In fact, again IMHO, a replacement metal gear that compensated for head shaving, for example, *without* an offset key would currently be disallowed as it would run afoul of the stock "dimensions"!
[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited April 22, 2005).]
Junior Member
[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 24, 2005).]
Senior Member
Originally posted by irace1:
Unless your region has ITE - only two limitations, a VIN Number and DOT Tires...
Of course, this will never happen, but the IT rules should be completely replaced with a weight to rear wheel horsepower rule and cars could be classified, as ITU, IT1, IT2, etc. based on certified dyno results. This is the 21st century, we should embrace the technolgy.
Then, instead of arguing over cam timing and restrictors or finding ways to exploit the gray area, we could race what we got!
[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 23, 2005).]
What is a "certified dyno rating"?? What would the procedure be in..New Hampshire? Or Portland? Or Jackson MI? How will it be standarized so I can run my car in Ohio and Atlanta and New Hampshire? Does that mean that to show up to race, every competetor must have built the car to meet the specs, and then gone to, (I assume this would be the "certification" part) a dyno to take a few pulls? Doesn't strike me as ...ummm...well, let's just say that part isn't too convenient.
Are you suggesting that it's all weight to hp? (And I assume you will let the FWD guys in too...what i think you meant was WHP, as in horsepoer at the wheels)
How will you equailize handling? And torque curves? (I better sell my rotary now, becuase I will get whupped by anything with close to the same HP at the wheels, all other things equal!)
It will never happen because the thing that makes IT so great, the depth of choices a guy has in cars to race, will kill a system like this. It can work in an organization that has limited models and paramenters to govern, or in a small club where the expectations are more flexible, but it's a tough road to hoe with hundreds of models spread out across a continent.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Senior Member
I don't see where classifying on power to weight is embracing technology. In fact, it's very much the opposite. This rewards the low power car that is stripped to the gills because the lighter weight will help handling and braking and you don't have to worry about your hp because your hp to weight is the same.Originally posted by irace1:
Of course, this will never happen, but the IT rules should be completely replaced with a weight to rear wheel horsepower rule and cars could be classified, as ITU, IT1, IT2, etc. based on certified dyno results. This is the 21st century, we should embrace the technolgy.
It's ultra low tech.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
Way to go, Jake. You scared off another one.Originally posted by irace1:
[This message has been edited by irace1 (edited April 24, 2005).]
K
Senior Member
It's a safety issue, legalize 'em :wink
Senior Member
Ummm.sorry guys...And irace1, I hope I didn't come across as too harsh, I actually misread your name and thought I was responding to another poster.Originally posted by Knestis:
Way to go, Jake. You scared off another one.
K
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Senior Member
Yeah sure ya did there Jake......I actually misread your name and thought I was responding to another poster.
Senior Member
I agree on the power to weight and dyno thing. Its looks great on paper, the ultimate in rules simplicity, then you start thinking of how you'd manage it.
NASA has a couple of classes that do it, but as mentioned those classes cover a very narrow range of chassis and there aren't NEARLY as many NASA regions as there are SCCA regions. No way we could consistently keep the same dyno showing up at EVERY event here in the southeast. Hell, we're so big we often have two races happening on the same weekend down here.
Anybody can write a rule. Writing one that can be managed is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Scott, who can just imagine the results of word getting out that "The dyno won't be here this weekend."
WOW!
Talk about track records falling...
Senior Member
Dyno?
With a flip of a hidden switch I can make the motor gain or loose power. Sounds like a cheaters paradise.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks