How About Making Adjustable Cam Gears Legal?

[Catch22]

Hear me out on this one for a second.

Its already legal to re-key your timing gear to adjust cam timing, so why not make it easier and just allow adjustable gears?

I see no change at all in terms of performance potential over the current rule, just an easier way to get the same result.

Or am I missing something?

[seamus88]

I agree!

[jc836]

Although there is room to agree-it is rules creep. Sadly, my experience with the CRB about suspension parts shows their reluctance to alter to status quo.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song-FOR SALE
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

[zracre]

yes it would be easier for us honda guys, but there are so many cars in IT, what about the poor guy (or gal) on a budget with a car that no manufacturer makes one for?? too many variables on that one i think...definitely rules creep.

[Knestis]

To clarify - the rule allows the use of offset keys to bring the valve timing back to stock, right?

Now, whether anyone checks to see if valve timing is per factory spec or not is a huge supposition but I'll bet that it will be impossible to isolate one issue (stockness of valve timing) from another - how we achieve it.

I'm going to surprise Scott by agreeing with him but I'll bet that it's a non-starter. Somone is going to decide that it will be "too easy to cheat," which is exactly why the suggestion makes sense.

K

[Banzai240]

Didn't we just go through this discussion???

A letter about this was already presented to the CRB/ITAC and we did NOT recommend this request...

There is NO need for this change... Grids are full of cars racing just fine WITHOUT this change... It's STRICTLY a performance based change and has very little to do with making racing more practical...

I can all but guarantee you that the ITAC would NOT recommend this change, and I'm pretty sure that if we did, the CRB would turn down the recommendation...

If you want this kind of modifications, then you should probably look to Production or wait for the new "B/D-Production" classes...

In my opinion, we have enough work to do just trying to get the classes balanced out somewhat, without trying to throw another wrench into the spokes with a change like this... I wouldn't want to be responsible for helping the BMWs or Acuras, etc., get even faster! Do you guys have ANY idea how much someone with 4-valve/DOHC arrangements could improve there system if they (I...) could adjust their (MY!) cam timing in this manner??? Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...

Just one more thing to add to the costs of building a motor...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Catch22]

But Darin, the BMW and Acura folks can ALREADY legally adjust their cam timing. Thats my point. Why not make it easier for those of us who have a little less skill with a grinder or don't work at a machine shop???

<shrugs>
Sorry. It makes sense to me. Its not changing *anything* just making things easier.

PS - Who wants to bet me $20 that some of those top E36 BMWs have already re-keyed and maximized their cam timing...?
Anyone?

[Greg Amy]

Scott, you're both right *and* wrong: the BMW engine has ECU-controlled cam timing (VANOS). That's why these damn things make so much power with Motec...

So, the BMW drivers are just laughing at us plebes with crankshaft offset keys...GA

[Matt Rowe]

The rule clearly states the purpose of the cam key allowance is to return cam timing to factory spec after machining a head. It also clearly states the DOHC cars must use a key on the crank only. The biggest gains in cam timing on a DOHC is typically adjusting one cam against the other which is not allowed. If there are some guys out there doing this already then a protest would be in order.

I would have to agree with Darin, a set of cam keys is typically cheaper than adjustable pulleys and can accomplish the same thing. Since the only adjustment is to factory spec it should be a rare occurence as you shouldn't be using it to tune the car. So there isn't a real need to make this easier. Plus, as a post classification change some cars would benefit more than others from a lighter cam sprocket. And I know how much some guys hate post classification changes.

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

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Matt Rowe]

Greg,

Damn, I knew I was forgetting something. Maybe we should require the BMW's to unplug the VANOS system as an example of an legal part perfroming an illegal function?

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I would have to agree with Darin, a set of cam keys is typically cheaper than adjustable pulleys and can accomplish the same thing.

Just be careful here... You are NOT allowed to use offset keys in the cams of a DOHC car... Offset keys may only be used in the crank pulley for DOHC cars...

If you allow these cars adjustable timing gears for the cams, watch them really wake up...

Wrong direction in my opinion...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[racer-025]

Maybe I was smoking too much on the weekend. But I would like to see IT go the other way. Currently, there is too much rules creeping and IT is slowly moving towards Production. IMO, if you want a modified race car, get out of IT and move up the ladder. There are too many racers bailing on IT and moving back into spec series' (ie: SM) and/or moving into NASA so they can race their modified whatever. IT was created to have a series for the old SS cars, and I think it is now too modified for the newbie that just wants to have some fun racing on the track. After all, this class is susposed to be entry level road racing. AND to think some people want this series to go National! $6-10k engines now in IT - unbelieveable! I also think that there are too many "big fishes" swimming in this little pond...

I would like to see engines go back to completely stock with no mods whatsoever. That would surely even out the competition for the poor racer. BTW, sorry for the thread hi-jack.

[This message has been edited by racer-025 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just be careful here... You are NOT allowed to use offset keys in the cams of a DOHC car... Offset keys may only be used in the crank pulley for DOHC cars...

If you allow these cars adjustable timing gears for the cams, watch them really wake up...

Wrong direction in my opinion...

Hey Darin, read Matt's post again. He states the restriction on the DOHC cars in there.

[on topic content]I agree w/ Darin, we don't need these in IT.[/on topic content]


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

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

[on topic content]I agree w/ Darin, we don't need these in IT.[/on topic content]

Prepare for the sea to rise and the ground to open up. Bill,Darin and Joe agree on something....Hell is mighty cold today...

The allowance to return cam timing to stock is a good one. If there were actually a protest my guess is a number of cars would end up on the trailer. With that said there is no reason to put more of them on the trailer. The advantage to an adjustable gear and the only reason anyone would puch for it is. You dyno the car for a HP setup and a torque set up. You then dial the cam for what ever track you are running.
The BMW deal is a factory part and should have been considered in the original classification of the car...(key word should'a)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by racer-025:

I would like to see engines go back to completely stock with no mods whatsoever. That would surely even out the competition for the poor racer. BTW, sorry for the thread hi-jack.

Sunbelt shipped more than 50 Spec Miata motors between the 2004 ARRC and April 1, 2005. AT OVER $5000 a pop.

Be careful what you wish for.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[racer-025]

Hmm, I wonder what is actually done to those Sunbelt SM engines? Does that price include the core?

I can take a decent Honda SOHC engine and rebuild it myself using OEM parts including bearings, rings, gaskets and get a 3-angle v-job, manifold matching and plain the head for under a K note. Of course this doesn't include boring and new pistons and I'm doing all the work except the machining.

They are probably spending a little more time measuring everything (than me) but they probably have a dedicaded assembly shop for those engines. They also must be installing many new parts, ie: cams, valves, etc. So, if that prices includes the core, I'm guessing that of course they are making some profit there...

[This message has been edited by racer-025 (edited April 20, 2005).]

[DavidM]

There was a thread a while back about the holy grails in IT that shouldn't be touched. The engine was one of them.

David

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

In my opinion, we have enough work to do just trying to get the classes balanced out somewhat, without trying to throw another wrench into the spokes with a change like this... I wouldn't want to be responsible for helping the BMWs or Acuras, etc., get even faster! Do you guys have ANY idea how much someone with 4-valve/DOHC arrangements could improve there system if they (I...) could adjust their (MY!) cam timing in this manner??? Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...

Just one more thing to add to the costs of building a motor...

Damn it Darin, if your perceived to be the gran pooba on the AdHoc committe don't you think you sould be a little more neutral on your recommendations. Since when is it allowed that the recommedations of the committee would be focused on keeping the Acura's and Hondas slower so the Nissans can catch up. The idea of a cam pulley falls in the same catagory as other things like no passanger door glass, bushings etc. All of these things are being tweeked one way or the other to try and maximize the car for the race. The stupid idea that the cars should be old showroom stock cars or that this is a place for old beat up pieces of junk to race is part of the reason that there are people going to clone racing like spec miata or spec ford or spec spec. The race weekend is getting too expensive and there is no logical crossover from IT to Prod. If you want to improve the level of competition and to keep the drivers from leaving for NASA or EMRA is to make it easier to join classes, and make it simple to limit the "rules creep" If the rule says that the timing can be adjusted to bring it back to stock, then fine check the car for stock cam timing, not the fact that somebody spent $75 for a adjustable pulley instead of putting shims in it. If the rule says that the cam timing has to be stock than that's simple to figure stock is stock. I don't care how you get to stock just make sure when I put my thousand dollars up that we can measure stock. The cam pulley is simply a tool to get you there. If the rule says it has to be 0 degrees and the cam timing is 6 degrees you fail you are penalized and that's that. Simple end of story, but if that same car can run in limited production where the rules allow for adjustments then why should I have to start replacing parts (and incur additional costs) rather than simply dialing the timing back to stock and race.

If the limited prep/prod rules require no door glass, and IT does not we have to hump around a piece of glass to run in two classes.

Focus on the future not the desire to make your particular car more competive to the Acura's and Honda's. If a driver want to try out a national class why should he have to change parts instead of simply changing tires and resetting adjustments to match the class rules.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by racer-025:
I can take a decent Honda SOHC engine and rebuild it myself using OEM parts including bearings, rings, gaskets and get a 3-angle v-job, manifold matching and plain the head for under a K note. Of course this doesn't include boring and new pistons and I'm doing all the work except the machining.

They are probably spending a little more time measuring everything (than me) but they probably have a dedicaded assembly shop for those engines. They also must be installing many new parts, ie: cams, valves, etc. So, if that prices includes the core, I'm guessing that of course they are making some profit there...

If you had a rule where the engine must be "stock", then you'd have to be doing all these same things... AND, like T2 or SS, boring an engine would not be allowed, so you'd be buying new blocks with every instance that the engine couldn't just be honed...

The IT engine rules are plenty adequate currently to allow you to build a VERY nice, dependable, and powerful racing engine... Now that Forged Pistons are technically and expressly legal, AND you can now use other-than factory supplied OEM camshafts, etc..., I think that the rules are plenty liberal to suit the purposes of IT... Namely to allow those modifications necessary to have a great racecar...

If you want more performance, there is Production or GT... both of which would LOVE to have the additional participation... And, if you are truely just in the for "fun", as many of you state when asking for requests like this, then you won't mind not being competitive in those classes. You can simply take advantage of the liberal modification rules to add your adjustable timing gears and go have more "fun"...



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:

Damn it Darin, if your perceived to be the gran pooba on the AdHoc committe don't you think you sould be a little more neutral on your recommendations. Since when is it allowed that the recommedations of the committee would be focused on keeping the Acura's and Hondas slower so the Nissans can catch up.

WHAT IN THE HELL are you talking about??? You'd better go back a re-read pal... I have absolutly NO personal interest invested in this discussion what-so-ever... I was only throwing out those names as an example of how changing this rule would effect IT as a whole...

Originally posted by: Banzai240
Would be fun to find out, but not at the expense it would be for the class as a whole...

You are WAY OFF BASE and I find it laughable that you'd even suggest such a thing...

If you guys don't understand the ramifications of allowing cars with overhead cams, Especially DOHCs, to have adjustable gears, then you'd better go back and read some articles on basic car performance... There is a REASON why the rules specifically limit these cars...

On the other cars, it's no more difficult to come up with an offset key for cam or crank than it is to come up with adjustable timing gears for "most" cars...

And, by the way... the Nissans don't have a need to "catch up"... so where that came from I have NO idea... If you think I've supported any recommendation based on my personal bias toward Nissans, you'd better go do some research, because you have NO idea what you are talking about...

Maybe you'd better go back and re-evaluate your opinion on this matter, because this attack on me was totally and utterely off the mark and completely pointless...

The ITAC, AS A COMMITTEE, ruled this change down just a couple of months ago for all the reasons that have been stated, the most important being that it was NOT in the best interests of IT... If you can't handle that, that's your issue to deal with.

AND, by the way... it is not the job of the ITAC to be concerned with every aspect of Production racing... Our rules have been rather consistant over the past 10 years, and Production went off in it's own direction with the LP rules, knowing well and good how the IT rules were written and what would be required to make that transition... I've been there and done that with that fight and your current LP rules are the result (in other words, any attempt at reasoning this out with that camp fell on deaf ears...) Production made it's rules knowing full well what the IT rules were... I see no reason why IT should NOW change it's rules to make it easier to go to Production... If Production was concerned about IT car making the transistion, they should have written their rules to accomodate...

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



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2005).]