How About Making Adjustable Cam Gears Legal?

[Catch22]

Originally posted by golfracer:
but an IT car is not allowed to adjust cam timing with a key, you are only allowed to return it to stock. Allowing adjustable cam gears directly conflicts this rule. I guess some of us have one more thing we need to police...

Nonononono...No

Thats not what I'm trying to say.

Let me try to rephrase it...
If I can make an adjustment on my cam timing with an offset key to get it to stock, then why not just let me accomplish the SAME end with an adjustable gear?
In the end, if you are policing cam timing, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
And in the end, if you aren't policing cam timing. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Same end, different means.
I just like to keep things simple.

Scott, whos kind of sorry he brought it up at this point.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

..... Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiot....

First, let's ask the ITAC posters here....did you guys (or your prior equals)think about the VANOS thing at all when the VANOS equiped car was classed? Look......... they might not get it all classed perfectly the first time around, but they do pretty well.

Second, it's a stretch to see how anything you list will make racing safer and cheaper. Converting brakes can't be cheaper than leaving what you have.....and how are short shifters safer or cheaper?? Even if you just hack the shaft off, it's still coing to cost something, and labor IS money.

To me, some of the best races I have seen have been the David vs Goliath battles, where one car shone under braking, but was trounced by the others power. It is huge fun to see the drivers strategise and try to work their advantage. The problem with standardizing elements is that it is one (or many) steps closer to a spec series. Look at NASCAR....

As for looking like idiots....sorry, I don't buy that...sure, trot out the washer bottle to make the case, but really, who cares if you have to have the thing! It's harmless! It's just another red herring.

What you are proposing is post classification competition adjustments, sorry to say. Opening up rules as you have suggested will NOT benefit all equally, and as an obvious example, what do you propose to do with the rotaries and their cams? Tell them to pound (more) sand?



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If you can use an offset key to correct the timing back to stock, why shouldn't you be allowed to use an alternate means to correct the timing?

See, the problem is in asking "why shouldn't you?" The real issue is "why should you?"

Present a compelling case other than "gee, it's easier."

The rule book is written from the perspective of what modification are allowed, not what are not allowed. It's not up to the ITAC or CRB or BOD to decide why something shouldn't be allowed. It's up to them to decide why it should.

So far I see zero reason why it should.

BTW Bill, lest you think I'm picking on you, I'm not. You simply provided the most concise point to quote.


------------------
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 lateapex911:
Opening up rules as you have suggested will NOT benefit all equally, and as an obvious example, what do you propose to do with the rotaries and their cams? Tell them to pound (more) sand?

Oh hell no. You not only can you any cam gear you like. You can use any cam you like.


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

[Tom Blaney]

As usual the entire discussion is based around poorly planned and poorly written rules. The use of offset keys only favors cars that are capable of using offset keys (VW if I'm not mistaken) so therefore if the Nissan, or Honda follow the rule and mill the head they break the other rule because they can't use offset keys. The BS written into the rule stating that you "MAY" adjust the cam timing back to stock is assinine. It either it is stock or it is not, why can't the rules people get that straight. Screw the "MAY" and use the "MUST" than you "HAVE" to fix the rule so that either "EVERYBODY" can readjust the cam timing or "NOBODY" can adjust the cam timing. Not just the people who have removable cam keys. The dual cam issue is mute if the rule is that the cam timing "MUST" be stock, because even it they have adjustable cam gears they still have to run stock settings. Cheaters will cheat no matter how Darian thinks he can police the rules. But if the steward are given poorly written rules that don't define what the exact rule and spec is that they are to match to then they can't police the cheaters.
If you look at the rule book for NASCAR (yes the one that draws millions of fans) it is very specific about what is and isn;t the rule, I don't think they say you "MAY" use a restrictor plate or you "CAN IF YOU WANT" put a bigger fuel cell in the car.



[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As usual the entire discussion is based around poorly planned and poorly written rules. The use of offset keys only favors cars that are capable of using offset keys (VW if I'm not mistaken) so therefore if the Nissan, or Honda follow the rule and mill the head they break the other rule because they can't use offset keys.

Tom, you should really get your facts straight. Any car that uses a woodruff key is capable of using an offset key. So, I know for sure more than just VWs can. I know Nissan's can.

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
The BS written into the rule stating that you "MAY" adjust the cam timing back to stock is assinine. It either it is stock or it is not, why can't the rules people get that straight. Screw the "MAY" and use the "MUST" than you "HAVE" to fix the rule so that either "EVERYBODY" can readjust the cam timing or "NOBODY" can adjust the cam timing. Not just the people who have removable cam keys. The dual cam issue is mute if the rule is that the cam timing "MUST" be stock, because even it they have adjustable cam gears they still have to run stock settings. Cheaters will cheat no matter how Darian thinks he can police the rules. But if the steward are given poorly written rules that don't define what the exact rule and spec is that they are to match to then they can't police the cheaters.

What is so hard about this rule? If you use an offset key, it must return cam timing to stock. That seems pretty simple to me.

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
If you look at the rule book for NASCAR (yes the one that draws millions of fans) it is very specific about what is and isn;t the rule, I don't think they say you "MAY" use a restrictor plate or you "CAN IF YOU WANT" put a bigger fuel cell in the car.

And you're trying to say you've actually seen a NASCAR rule book? They are pretty hard to come by as I understand it. For sure you won't find them on-line.



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
yeah but he did say TIT [insert best beavis laugh here]

Hmmmm, Beavis and Butthead, I always wondered what happened to those guys....


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

[Tom Blaney]

George:

Did you ever look at the honda crank or cam gear?

Are you sure that all motors that compete in IT use a "REMOVABLE" woodruff key.

If all motors can't make the same adjustment than the rule is not balanced.

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, exactly what engine are you talking about. I will go to a core yard today and look at one. I promise there is a legal way to adjust the timing back to stock on a honda. If there isn't then complaining about it ain't gonna fix it. Why don't you write a request for a specific part for that engine?
Why do we need to change the balance of IT to fix one engine. If the only fix is an adjustable timing gear then so be it. Just be prepared to have you cam timing checked at every race...

Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Tom, exactly what engine are you talking about. I will go to a core yard today and look at one. I promise there is a legal way to adjust the timing back to stock on a honda. If there isn't then complaining about it ain't gonna fix it. Why don't you write a request for a specific part for that engine?
Why do we need to change the balance of IT to fix one engine. If the only fix is an adjustable timing gear then so be it. Just be prepared to have you cam timing checked at every race...

Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)

The 1988-1991 Honda CRX SI & CIVIC, D16A6, one of the most popular cars in ITA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:


Now Bill, That's funny ( a rare moment but still funny)

Yeah, but which one gets the tee-pee for their bunghole????


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
George:

Did you ever look at the honda crank or cam gear?

Are you sure that all motors that compete in IT use a "REMOVABLE" woodruff key.

Tom, where did I say that all motors that compete in IT use a removable woodruff key? You said Nissns and Honduhs can't and you strongly implied it was a rule written for VWs. I simply stated that more than VWs can and for sure Nissans can.

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
If all motors can't make the same adjustment than the rule is not balanced.

This is not automotive socialism Tom. Cars by their very nature differ from one another and no amount of trying to make them so will work. Different cars have different strengths and weaknesses. Different cars can take advantage of different rules. That's the way it is.



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

[apr67]

Allow adjustable timing gears, and I will put on much lighter than stock gears, made out of un-cant-afordium.

The price goes up due to unintended consquences.

[Joe Harlan]

YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee....

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Renaultfool]

I don't have a real problem with the current rules as they are now, I can live with them. But for how long?
I do advocate a total rewrite and here is why.
The problem we have as a club is that auto technology has progressed since the days these rules were written. We now have dual overhead cam variable cam timing computerized fuel injected mechanical wonders that the club will never have the technical expertise or tooling to police. We still have older cars with push rod engines, single overhead cams, strut suspensions, double A arms, vented disks, unvented disks. I just feel that if you maybe make the hard parts (cams, pistons, valves, etc.) stay stock or to some other easily measured dimension you would just simplify the whole process. The soft parts, wiring harness, computers, jetting, timing, steering stalk switches etc. could be free and not make that much difference anyway.
In the British Touring Car Series they fought the engine rules and inspections for years and finally setteled on rules that specified that everyone run 2.0 litre engines and a 7,500 rpm rev limiter. They simplified the process and several brands of cars became competitive. No, that is not what I am suggesting we do, but maybe some thinking about variations on the theme would work well for us. Maybe draw your intake air through a specified sized hole prior to the throttle plate as they do in Formula 3. Maybe run a maximum valve lift if not stock cams, because lift is easy to check compared to timing. Stuff that is simple to check, because we aren't checking it the way it is now due to complexity.
Yes, to shorten your shifter might cost money, you could break your hacksaw blade, whatever that costs, but it will not make your car or you faster. New brake disks at Pep Boys cost about the same, vented, unvented, 9.5", 10.0". Sure someone would buy a $500 Brembo disk, but the cost does not change the laws of physics, 10" is still 10" in the end. Control the dimension, not the source is my suggestion. Screwing the rules down tight on things that really do not matter, such as whether you use a phillips head screw instead of a slot head screw as a bizare example, will kill our sport.
As automotive technology continues to evolve our rules problems will just get more complex. If we do not look for some simple ways to control things for the future, fields could continue to diminish.

For now, we have the rules we have, let's race within them.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? :moon:


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

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee....

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
YOu mean this engine with the replacable keyway at the crank?

http://88-crx.com/repair/ServiceManual/CRX...2SH200/5-16.pdf

But I will also add this. If you cannot return the timing to stock after milling the head or block then maybe you shouldn't mill those parts. Tom your argument is not well founded and I will have somebody buy you a beer will your appeal fee....

Bill you seem to have a fixation(sp?) on the bunghole dude....You better get help for that.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 22, 2005).]

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you were to actually look at the sprocket that slides on the crank, there is a half key that is pressed into the sprocket. In the drawing the removable key is used for the damper pulley.

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.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? :moon:

OK, I'll correct you... I've NEVER used a "mooning smiley" to my recollection...

If this particular Honda is "one of the most popular cars in ITA"... why isn't anyone else complaining about this "problem", per se???

AND, if what Joe found is correct, and this car DOES have a woodruff key in the crank, then this car is at no more a disadvantage than ANY NUMBER of cars out there, inlcuding Nissan, VW, etc., even if it is only a "half-key"... and this entire discussion is a complete waste of time...

Let me ask you a technical question... can the half that is pressed into the crank gear/pulley be pressed out? COULD a fully machined, offset woodruff key be used in it's place???

As for a "Total Re-write" of the rules... How about we pay attention to what Production is undergoing right now and let's see how well their re-write works out...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Darin the one that's found of the mooning smiley??? :moon:

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know I've used it quite a bit.



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