How About Making Adjustable Cam Gears Legal?

[Tom Blaney]

As I stated before, if the rule said that the timing has to be stock, than why is that so difficult for you to measure. The rule allows you to bore 40 over not 42 over simple and very measurable. The rule said the cam timing has to be stock (be it single cam double cam or pushrod) measurable not even too hard for you to understand. The rule says that the head can be milled X amount, fine measurable. So the engine builder is following the specifications for bore, milling, and now he gets to cam timing, it might change based on the fact that the head is milled (are you able to follow me sofar) now the hard part. The customer has two choices, modify the key (if possible at a shop charge) to follow moronic rules that some people perceive will prevent cheating to try and fit a custom offset key into the pulley or have the customer purchase an off the shelf item for 1/3rd the cost of machine work to set the cam timing back to factory setting (again measurable). A classic win, win. A competitor decides to protest you for illegal motor including cam timing, the steward pulls out his/her trusty dial indicator, looks at the shop manual, presto, cam timing is either correct(legal) or incorrect (illegal).

As far as the rest of it goes, what is so wrong will allowing the racer to use that car either regionally or nationally without major modifications.

[Joe Harlan]

Tom the problem is that in most cases the protest never happens so the cheater just continues to cheat. Cheating by as I posted earlier having 2 known settings for HP and Torque and we have now just given them an easy path to change it at the track. Second part of this deal. You will hardly ever find enough tools to degree a cam at the track let alone qualified tech folks to perform the test. Limits man there has to be some.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Tom the problem is that in most cases the protest never happens so the cheater just continues to cheat. Cheating by as I posted earlier having 2 known settings for HP and Torque and we have now just given them an easy path to change it at the track. Second part of this deal. You will hardly ever find enough tools to degree a cam at the track let alone qualified tech folks to perform the test. Limits man there has to be some.

This is part of the reason that the stewards were told to improve the way that specifications can be tested at or off of the track. In a protest last fall that I was one of the authors of, we fould out quite quickly how poorly prepared the region was to fulfill the requirements of the protest and although we won, it was still quite taxing for both sides of the fence.

The point of the discussion (and one of my pet peeves with the rules advisors) is that they seem to make rules that result in it easier for the cash rich to find ways to cheat while the cash poor can't afford. The exact example here is that the rule says stock setting, simple test simple result. Does it really matter how you get to stock, The poor guy can;t afford to have a cheater cam pulley manufactured to look like a stock pulley, but possibly could afford the $75 adjustable that will allow him to set the cam back to where it is suppose to be for less than the cheater pulley. Now they rich and poor are back on the same playing field. So by saying in he rules that the cam timing can be set back to stock, but only with "offset keys" you now create a situation where some cars can easily use an offset key (that might be sold by the competition department from one manufacturer and not the other). Does the "jensen healy" have a easly accessable offset key, but I bet the nissan does.

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

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, You loose the bet. Nissan does not offer an offset key to line up the cams. I am at a loss as to why you find the need to personalize this to brand type. I make a custom gear for the GT and prod motored Nissans. 275 bucks. What you fail to get is that not every car brand will be able to take advantage of a cheap gear. Second I have seen more 75 dollar gears cost people complete race engines from what I call Sh*t part failure. And offset key can be made in your shop with a ginder and a file and most of the time you can do it from a small block chevy (cheapest engine ever to build) keyway.
Lets keep this above board and not be making it out like somebody is protecting an investment cause it ain't the case.

Second part. I think it is great that the stewards want to improve their part of the system. The part of the system that fails is between us drivers. 95% of the time I here "oh he's a cheater" yet I less than 2% Of the races I have attended have I seen a mechanical protest.

[Tom Blaney]

If I am not mistaken, some of the Nissan's can use offset keys in the L series motors. The Honda/Acura cannot use an offset key in their cam pulley without modifying the pulley. The idea of a cheap piece of crap is immaterial in the discussion. The entire point of the discussions is that the rules are written without real understanding of the reason why. If the rule says stock cam timing who cars if and how you get to stock, just get back to stock. If the rule is written with some slant, as is the idea of an offset key than it allows for cheating or at worst an increase in costs to comply. For example the rule allows for offset plates for the VW and the Nissans, but not offset ball joints for the honda. If the rule stated that you are allowed a 10% variation in camber from stock that is measurable and easy to control, not some can have camber plates and some can't. So now the cheater in the group has his big bucks builder modify the control arm to get the camber that the other guy can do for a $150 camber plate.

Yes my slant is against a particular manufacturer expecially since I have listened to the tirates that went on about bushings and then did some research on what is available to all the competitors.


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

[Greg Amy]

While I disagree with Tom's "black Nissan helicopter" paranoia, I have to agree with his technical points.

The rule states you "can" return the cam timing to stock setting, but doesn't require it; the allowable method(s) to return the cam timing to stock are outdated. Simply require stock cam timing and allow easy methods to get it there (adjustable pulleys). Measuring cam timing is ridiculously easy and can be done without removing any significant parts. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, I think you should re-read that whole section. When they talk about gears they indicate timing shall be stock. when the talk about the key they are allowing it's use as a method of returning the timing to stock. I believe the timing must be stock period and they are providing a method of getting it there if that method is needed.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As far as the rest of it goes, what is so wrong will allowing the racer to use that car either regionally or nationally without major modifications.

Nothing, and non-adjustable cam timing does nothing to keep someone from running an IT car in production. Sure they won't be competive but no even remotely legal IT car would be.

Greg, while in theory I agree that the rule should require stock timing and allow whatever reasonable means to get there. But, what about the common argument that an allowed part would quickly be seen as required to be competitive and raise the cost to fully prep a car? I can already see people going for that ultralight weight cam pulley to shave .2 grams of precious rotating mass. The current method allows stock timing to be maintained and does not offer a performance advantage, why expand the rule and give people more room to exploit it?

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

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

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Greg, I think you should re-read that whole section. When they talk about gears they indicate timing shall be stock. when the talk about the key they are allowing it's use as a method of returning the timing to stock. I believe the timing must be stock period and they are providing a method of getting it there if that method is needed.

If you are allowed to shave the head to within the factory limit (plus or minus a percentage) but not to exceed a predefined compression ratio, than there is a good chance that the cam timing will be "off" because of the relationship between the centerline of the crankshaft and the centerline of the cam. So therefore unless you have an equitable way for ALL marks to re-adjust the setting back to factory, theoritically all of those who can't use "offset" keys are cheating.

If you look at the lap times of the front running IT cars at Lime Rock, they are not far off of the front pack within production, (and for that fact GTLite), so if I want to put some slicks on my car and run GTL but still want to swap back to ITA why not.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
Yes my slant is against a particular manufacturer expecially since I have listened to the tirates that went on about bushings and then did some research on what is available to all the competitors.

So, this attack boils down to someone calling you on an obviously illegal part? Nice form...

I can appreciate you wanting to make racing "easier", but if you recall all those conversations about "unintended consequences", this one has them written all over it...

Let's boil this down to brass tacks... WHO is being kept off the track because they can't use adjustable timing gears on the cams???

[sound=Crickets Chirping]


That's what I thought...

This is classic rules creep and not something that the current ITAC or CRB is interested in doing to this class...

The coil-over rule... that was totally outdated and we fixed that... This cam timing "issue" that you are creating here... it's every bit as relevent today to return cam-timing to stock with an offset pin or keyway as it was 20 years ago...

Let me put that another way... NO ONE in the automotive industry is out there installing $250.00+ adjustable timing gears to return their cam-timing to "STOCK"... It's ALWAYS done to adjust the timing to optimize performance... If anyone has experienced otherwise, feel free to correct me...

AND, if there are some cars where it's harder to do than others... that's the choice you made in cars... Every car has it's positive and negative points...

This whole converstation is ironical really... two years ago, all we heard about was preserving the "integrity of IT"... ("PCAs will be the end of IT", etc...) Now that the ITAC/CRB has been making suttle moves to correct some traditional issues with the class, suddenly the "integrity" of the IT rules aren't a concern anymore... ("Let's allow open ECUs", "Adjustable Timing gears", "short Shifters", "Lexan Winshields", etc... $$$$$ )

They are to the ITAC and CRB still... and will continue to be so long as we are selected to serve...

The bottom line here, in my opinion,... this is a strictly performance based notion and unnecessary for the purpose and intent of IT...


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

[Joe Harlan]

Tom , You really need to get all your facts.

The L series engine has 3 factory holes in the gear to return the cam timing to stock.

Every car out there runs a keyway on the crank pulley which is where you can offset the key to return your timing to stock. NOWHERE in the book soes it say it is ok to run anything other than stock cam timing.

As far a personal issue about bushings that is BS, I used to make the exact bushing for the 240z's until I realized it was not legal. Taking pot shots at Nissans because a person that drives a nissan proved you wrong is BS..... ANd trust me if it weren't for me Darin would be in an ITS GSR rather than the 240sx that I talked him into.

[Knestis]

Classic.

Joe is arguing with Greg when they appear to be saying the same thing.

Tom accuses Darin of Nissan favoritism without any evidence.

People argue against using a non-allowed part to do an allowed thing, on the grounds that unscrupulous indivdiduals do an illegal thing that they can current do with the ALLOWED part.

The only reason that I know to go to the Mercedes parts desk to buy offset keys to correct the timing on an 8v Golf - legal, legal, legal - is because it was common knowledge among people who ran SS versions of the same car.

There are two arguments here - at least - and mixing them up is NOT helpful.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
.. theoritically all of those who can't use "offset" keys are cheating.

Tom,

The rule states, and I quote:

From ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.f
Cars originally equipped with plastic/phenolic timing gears may substitute metal gears, provided that the design, dimensions, and cam timing remain as stock.

From ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.l
An offset key may be used to return cam timing to the factory specifications.

The only time in the rulebook that there is a REQUIREMENT for the cam-timing to be "remain stock", is when you are using a replacement gear IF you had a plastic gear to start with...

Otherwise, the book says you "MAY" use a key to return the timing to stock... You are NOT required to do it. I suppose it can be implied that the cam timing must otherwise be "stock", but if you'll note, the allowance for the offset key is in the section discussing shaving the head, so it can also be implied that if you shave the head, you are not "required" to return the timing to stock... you "may" use an offset key to do it, if you so choose...

There are many allowances in the rulebook that you MAY do, but are not required to do... If you perform an allowed modification, and it causes "other" effects to the motor, such as IF you shave the head and that throws your cam-timing off, you are given a method where you MAY correct this... BUT, you shaved the head at your own discression and the consequences of that action SHOULD have been taken into consideration prior to making the modification...

Race cars are a package deal... and understanding how one thing is going to effect another is all part of the racing equation...

If an allowable modification causes a negative effect on the performance of your car, I don't think it's good practice to change the rules to give another allowable modification. Case in point... Production and their ride-height rules, or lack there-of... Many of these LP cars KNOW that if they lower their cars too far, even though it's allowed by the rules, their handling will suffer, so they DON'T lower them...

Again, the rules give you a method for correcting your cam timing... Just because you don't like the method doesn't mean it's wrong, outdated, or that the rules need to be further opened up to make your life easier...

Here's an interesting side-note that goes right along with this discussion...

We received a letter asking us to allow the removal of idler pullies, etc.. The reasoning?? Now that crank pullies are free, these idlers, etc., get in the way of using really large diameter alternate pullies...

Ummmmm... then don't use such a large pulley...

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



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

[Joe Harlan]

The only time in the rulebook that there is a REQUIREMENT for the cam-timing to be "returned to stock", is when you are using a replacement gear IF you had a plastic gear to start with...

Otherwise, the book says you "MAY" use a key to return the timing to stock... You are NOT required to do it.

Sorry Darin but I don't see the allowance for anything other than stock valve timing. I see a method (if needed) to return the cam to stock timing . Not all car need that method to return them to stock timing after shaving the head. But what I don't see is the allowance to have anything other than stock valve timing. Does the FSM give a timing spec after you cut the head to the allowed amount? I don't think so. Not being anal here just trying to get it correct.

And yes Kirk you are correct that Greg and I are saying the same thing I just don't read well all the time.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
But what I don't see is the allowance to have anything other than stock valve timing. Does the FSM give a timing spec after you cut the head to the allowed amount?

OK, if the head were allowed to be milled and you were NOT given the allowance to return it to stock, what would the "requirement" for cam-timing be??? In my opinion, and by any traditional reading of the GCR/ITCS, if the rules say you "may" do something, it is at your discression... If you mill the head, and it throws your cam timing off, you MAY return it to stock... I don't see anything in the rules that says you MUST return it to stock. Likewise, if you replace plastic timing gears, you are REQUIRED (MUST) retain the stock cam timing...

As with other rules, (pistons come to mind)... Once the rule allows something (head milling), there are some things that are implied from that allowance. In this case, one of those "things" is that your cam-timing could possibly be off... That is acknowledged by the allowance to correct it...

Now, should we make it "easier" for everyone to adjust their cam timing? Would we really be doing that? OR, would we only be making it "easier" for those with popular cars supported by the aftermarket??

There are many angles to this arguement, but it boils down to just HOW far do you want to open up the rules? I don't know how many cars are actually hindered by this supposed cam-timing issue, but I'm pretty sure it's far fewer than those that would be effected by us changing the rules to open up the allowances even more and increasing the prep-costs for an IT engine... Especially when there is little evidence that the change is truely needed to "enhance" the IT experience...

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

[Catch22]

Damn.
While I'm almost sorry I brought it up, I'll just restate it again and go away.

An adjustable cam timing gear won't get you anything that an offset key can get you. So you're not really changing anything by allowing the timing gear.

In short, someone that will cheat with a timing gear is likely already cheating with an offset key anyway.
Cheaters are cheaters. Making it harder for me to get back to stack timing isn't slowing them down at all.
Just my humble opinion.

You know, I once had a great uncle who never locked his house or his car. He figured a thief is a thief, and leaving the doors unlocked *might* keep him from having to replace a window along with all his stolen stuff.
<shrug>

[John Herman]

You're right, an adjustable cam gear (as in one) or an adjustable crank gear doesn't matter. However, for DOHC engines, you need two adjustable cam gears, so now not only can you adjust the cams with respect to the crank, but also to each other.

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That is acknowledged by the allowance to correct it...</font>

Almost Darin, The allowance is a method to do the legal thing and correct the timing to stock. Please find me a copy of a FSM that has specs for timing with a head milled .025?

Either you have to return it to stock or the rule is not enforcable.

[Tom Blaney]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Classic.

Joe is arguing with Greg when they appear to be saying the same thing.

Tom accuses Darin of Nissan favoritism without any evidence.

People argue against using a non-allowed part to do an allowed thing, on the grounds that unscrupulous indivdiduals do an illegal thing that they can current do with the ALLOWED part.

The only reason that I know to go to the Mercedes parts desk to buy offset keys to correct the timing on an 8v Golf - legal, legal, legal - is because it was common knowledge among people who ran SS versions of the same car.

There are two arguments here - at least - and mixing them up is NOT helpful.

K

If any of you knew anything about how a honda worked you would know that the "camkey" is part if the pulley and cannot be replaced" SO, as I have stated before (and some seem to want to ignore the fact) If you allow a modification than that modification should be allowed by ALL competitors. If the Nissan has 3 holes or a VW has a removable cam key that can be replaced with a offset key that can be filed to fit to adjust the cam timing, than the ability should be allowed to all cars. If the rules "imply" that the cam timing is not suppose to be modified to improve performance than the "assumption" should be that if it is checked than it should be at the factory stock specification (not may, not might). Otherwise how is it fair for the VW to replace the keys when the Nissan cannot rotate the cam gear and the Honda cannot. The argument is that the engine is suppose to be stock with the exception to specifice modifications. If the modification causes one motor to be "illegal" and another "legal" then why have the rule. If one motor can get back into specification within the rules and the other can't because the rule didn't account for all the motors that the rule is broken and should be fixed, otherwise the rule provides an unfair advantage to one or the other.

Again the bottom line is that the factory specifications for all modern motors are available, the rules define what range of modifications can be made to the specification. These specifications are the base line for how a motor is expected to perform, the method to get the motor to specificaion is basically immaterial provided if the motor is checked and out of specification than it is illegal. If the rules allow you to modify the motor to the defined specification but then rule you can't get it back in line than the rule is broken.

If a racer is going to run out of the defined specifications be it cam timing, popup pistons, big valves, whatever it is illegal, the fact that they used an adjustable part to get there makes no difference and the idea of it will control costs went out the window as soon as you said .40 overbore

[Bill Miller]

Here's an interesting thought, after reading the two different rules on cam timing. IF your car came w/ plastic/phenolic gears (like my old '74 Capri 2.8) that you replace (and who in their right mind wouldn't?) AND you mill the head, the way I read the rule, is that you are REQUIRED to run stock cam timing. Which means, you MUST use an offset key to get there. I agree that there is no requirement to return the cam timing to the stock value, if you have milled the head (excpet in the above mentioned scenario).

All that being said, I've reconsidered my position on the cam gear. People have made valid arguements that either an offset key, or an adjustable gear, get you to the same place. They've also made the arguement that cheaters will do it any way.

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