Cant blame me for trying Darin, get the car back to the front and it might be worth half what I have in it, right now its worth $2500 as a drivers school rental and keep the car package. oh well, back to bondo and fiberglass on the EP, bet ill have plenty to say after 10 hrs of that, snarl.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 23, 2004).]
Senior Member
Darin, please instruct me on a letter so that I may write Mazda so that Mazda will write the correct letter to the CRB with respect to there being ZERO OEM RX-7 1st gen front rotors.
Thank you
David Dewhurst
SCCA #250772
[email protected]
PS: Can't wait till the 1st gen front brake rotors protests start flying. Should be interesting. I have brembo's.
Senior Member
David,Originally posted by ddewhurst:
...with respect to there being ZERO OEM RX-7 1st gen front rotors.
...
PS: Can't wait till the 1st gen front brake rotors protests start flying. Should be interesting. I have brembo's.
Refer to last months fastrack concerning a rule change to allow non-OEM "exact equivalent" replacement parts... It should pass the BoD in August, which would make what you just suggested doing a mute point...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
Wow. You boys have been busy.
I've been ignoring this thread for a while because it seemed pretty open and shut to me.
Darin's a brave soul and I'll jump in to his rescue of sorts. Actually, Darin certainly doesn't need rescuing, but I'm sure he could use a respite and some support.
Darin is 100% correct in terms of the rules being discussed here. No surprise. But some emphasis needs to be placed upon the fact that NLA is not a legal excuse to use alternate parts. That is the long and the short of it. In the case of brake rotors I think pretty much everyone is probably willing to look the other way until the rules are updated (but that's an assumption for sure) simply because it makes sense.
But, allowing alternate parts that are not the exact equivalent to the proper OEM parts is never going to fly. I understand Greg's point about keeping cars on the track. But, there is zero allowance for such a thing today and it would set a bad (VERY BAD) precedence IMHO that will almost certainly have unintended consequences (sp?).
Basically, when parts are NLA, they are simply NLA. Anything else is a big can of worms. I'm sure that since the TR8 V8 is NLA from the manufacturer, Jeff would like to replace his engine with a small block Buick (the original source of that engine). It could keep him racing his TR8. What a great idea.
Getting down to cases (pun intended), you cannot tell me that it's impossible to find a 13B engine anywhere in the country (or 12A for that matter). There were too many of these made and plenty in the bone yards. Sorry.
I agree with Darin 100% on the issues at hand.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
A couple comments.
The issue of 12A rotor housings becoming unavailable is more serious that you might think. While the car was produced in large numbers, the last 12A imported to the states was 20 years ago. When was the last time you saw a 1st gen RX-7 on the streets? They aren't too common anymore.
The surviving examples are largely pretty tired. Boneyard examples are there for either crash damage (good) or motor problems (bad). Of course, even the boneyards are pretty thin pickings these days.
The part in question, the rotor housing, is special coated, and shaped in a weird "8" shape. Not the knid of thing the local machine shop can "claen up". Usually they wear mildly, but they get ruined when an apex seal goes. Which is the number one cause of a "blown" rotary.
While the lack of replacement parts won't be an immediate problem, it will be the end of the line to a lot of cars down the road. (*due to the cars unusual popularity in racing, vis a vis Jeff's TR-8, for example. And just to explore the situation further, IF Jeff used an idetitical block from another source, and if it had no performance advantage, it would be a victimless crime, and be undetectable to a vast majority of racers. 12A drivers have no option as the closest parts are different. I won't run those parts as they provide some, if marginal, performance gains, and are illegal)
If no source is found, it could be a big issue for a lot of people. (And yes, I see the "tough luck, you're driving an old rustbucket, get with the program and get a current car" comment coming, but we're not talking about insignificant participation numbers, or 'orphan' cars here.)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 24, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 24, 2004).]
I hear the GCR quotes and the "intent" quotes and appreciate your taking the time to try and explain the clubs shortcomings to me Darin, but what is being missed here is that my car and more than half the 7's in cal club are not old race cars, they were built in the last few years for ITA and pro7, brand new racecars built for CURRENT SCCA CLASSES, being told to go race vintage. but what will bring change to this is economics, club economics, basicly when we need need housings, we park our race cars, not 1, not 50, but hundreds of them, each paying $200 to $450 into club coffers for each race missed, there are close to 45 7's running in cal club alone in PRO7 and ITA, cal club only gets 160-200 entries per race total and were supposed to park the 7's when we need a part? can you say regional supplemental regulation change, thats what will happen in order for regions not to go bankrupt. or maybe we should all take our cars to NASA and ask for an alternate housings, think they we be willing to discuss the issue without mentioning we go race vintage !!!!! the more I think about whats been said here reguarding the NLA not being a good reason to consider a alternate part, the more I think ill just run the car in NASA this year with the alternates, theres about $5000 worth of reasons SCCA can chew on to rethink stupid, rules that chase away members, and no I dont have OEM brake rotors, those have been NLA for years.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 24, 2004).]
Senior Member
While I understand the concern over NLA parts, what is the solution? How do we solve the problem without going down the road of Production?
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
It never ceases to amaze me how people will fight like mad to keep the rules the way they are... Until one of those rules directly effects THEM...
What's the solution guys? You allow an alternate part here for this guy... suddenly the next guy has precedence to go off of and pretty soon you are on your way to an entirely new class of racing...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
"For this guy"? I'll take that as a "I dont know". Were not talking about six caterhams, its every 7 in the country now sitting like mine with no motor Darin, when 25% of our cars dont have parts to run what are we going to do about it, play golf? This is a simple problem with a simple solution, PCA's are here and we all know it, 7's are 10 HP down and 150# heavy to run with the hondas, you allow the mazda part #6513322example rotor housing for 8-10 hp and drop their weight by 50# and see what happens. if we dont NASA will, these people deserve a place to race in a decent classification. meanwhile i've told my engine builder to wrap up my motor parts in plastic until new housings can be obtained, turbo or whatever. There the car sits in my driveway until this is resolved. heres what that looks like if case you want to picture your own car there.
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...&cat=500&page=1
------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page=
EP this summer
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 24, 2004).]
Senior Member
I hear you Darin, and I'm not sure if I should take it personally, as I asked for no favors, but since Geo asked....Originally posted by Banzai240:
It never ceases to amaze me how people will fight like mad to keep the rules the way they are... Until one of those rules directly effects THEM...
Some off the top of my head thoughts:
1-Determine the actual situation. Are they gone forever? Really???
2-Determine if Mazda will supercede the part, and if so, with what.
3-Assign a performance advantage or disadvantage to the supercede part, if there is one.
or.....if there is no supercede part, contact Mazda to ascertain the most likely and appropriate replacement part, and assign performance parameters to that part.
4-Line item that part with an appropriate penalty weight.
I can see both sides here, and I know that there are issues to be resolved. Best case scenario is that there is no real issue, it's just a temporary shortage.
Second stage requires the cooperation of Mazda. Luckily that won't be hard to gain. But determining the performance potential, or lack of of the new part may need the services of an independant shop. Right off the top of my head, I know of people on the CRB that have the facilities and ability to aid and oversee such a project. Worst case scenario is that there is a slight perfomance advantage. If so, then a weight line item is needed.
The last hurdle other than determining the appropriate weight is the issue of easy determination of which cars run which components. If the RX-7 (12A) turbo housings are determined to be the best option, it is a simple manner to unbolt the 4 header bolts and measure the port size. Slightly bigger ports means that that car needs to match the higher spec weight.
I certainly don't like the situation nor the need for a solution, and if we were talking about an orphan car that nobody has seen turn a wheel on a track, it would be a different story. Note that without the BODs approval of PCAs, this is just wasted typing!
I would be interested to hear other solutions and thoughts.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 25, 2004).]
Jake, I called maz comp, they said and I quote
"when then there is a sufficient stock of RX-8 housings completed, production MAY resume on RX7 housings"
no garrantee or exact date given, Maz comps best guess was 8 weeks (2 months) but no garrantee.
RX3 housings are NLA as well, all we have that are comparable are the japanese 12A turbo housings that have a slightly bigger exhaust port. As I pointed out before they may produce 8-10 hp more. Dial back your rev limiter guys, pop it and your done.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 25, 2004).]
Senior Member
Interesting issue for sure. Daryl, You say these japenese housings are good for 8-10 hp in an IT-prep motor. What's that, like a 7% - 8% gain? Are they gonna throw another 75# - 100# at these cars if they allow those housings? I don't care if Mazda supercedes the p/n or not, if they provide that much of a performance advantage, they should come w/ some lead as well. I know that's probably not a popular position, but how many folks would give their eye teeth (not to mention, spend a boat-load of $) to get that kind of a gain, out an already developed motor?
BTW, all the folks that support moving the RX7 to ITB, what would you say about that, if you get these new housings?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
Guys, I don't have the GCR handy, but doesn't it say factory OEM replacement parts or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT? Or something to that effect? So that if someone is making a 12A housing other than Mazda, that is identical to the Mazda 12A housing, you can use it?
For older cars, this is a must have. I've got two blocks, the original that came in the car (being built into a spare) and a Rover SD1 block that is in the car now. Exact same block that came in the TR8 in 1980, just probably from a same vintage Range Rover or Rover 3500. If I had to find one of only the 2200 or so blocks that originally went in the car, I'm out of luck.
So with the 12A, is it the case that an exact 12A replacement housing, identical to that originally installed, CAN'T be found anywhere? If so, I agree, this is a problem. The 1st Gen RX7 is too important to SCCA Road Racing now.
Senior Member
Jeff, I don't believe exact replacement are currently allowed except in the cases of gaskets and such. Darin has a new rule in the works to allow exact replacement for a larger group of parts, such as brake rotors.Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Guys, I don't have the GCR handy, but doesn't it say factory OEM replacement parts or THEIR EXACT EQUIVALENT? Or something to that effect? So that if someone is making a 12A housing other than Mazda, that is identical to the Mazda 12A housing, you can use it?
For older cars, this is a must have. I've got two blocks, the original that came in the car (being built into a spare) and a Rover SD1 block that is in the car now. Exact same block that came in the TR8 in 1980, just probably from a same vintage Range Rover or Rover 3500. If I had to find one of only the 2200 or so blocks that originally went in the car, I'm out of luck.
So with the 12A, is it the case that an exact 12A replacement housing, identical to that originally installed, CAN'T be found anywhere? If so, I agree, this is a problem. The 1st Gen RX7 is too important to SCCA Road Racing now.
THe rotor housing is one of those wild parts, that, when you see one, you know will never be made by anyone but Mazda!
A temporary outage is a problem, but more of an inconvienience. We can deal with that. A complete and forever outage is another issue, but it looks like thats not the case.
And Bill, read my post for my opinion on lead.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Jeff, nobody makes rotor housings except mazda, ironclad patent issue im sure and Bill, why throw lead at a car already being considered for a weight/ performance adjustment. I could understand dropping the weight for cars with "stock" VS "turbo" housings by 75#. basically my season is will be half over IF im one of the lucky ones that get 2 of the first shipment, they didnt say how many would be here maybe in 8 weeks, just that SOME would be arriving maybe.
Senior Member
Jake, you got me digging into my rule book.
Found this:
ITCS D.1.p: All engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall meet factory specifications for stock parts.
So, I do think if you have an identical part to a stock part, it is ok. Your thoughts?
Senior Member
The ITAC has a new rule in the works... etc., etc., etc....Originally posted by lateapex911:
Darin has a new rule in the works to allow exact replacement for a larger group of parts, such as brake rotors.
I'm just one of several voices, all of whom work to make this stuff happen...
As for ITCS D.1.p... Keep in mind that the specifications they are mentioning are for the VEHICLE in question... That means port size, position, etc., must be stock for that vehicle.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
What is the availability of the 13B? What is the performance of the 13B powered 1st gen relative to the 12A powered 1st gen? Someone suggested perhaps listing both on the same line in ITA with more weight. If the 13B is still available and the 12A becomes permanently NLA, perhaps this would solve the problem?
I'm not pushing this mind you, just trying to explore a possible solution that would stick to US market parts that were originally used in the platform.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
George, the rotary guys will chime in, but it is a completely different motor. The 12a has a nominal displacement of 1.1 liters, I think the 13B is 1.3. The stock 12a had 100 hp, the stock 13B GSL-SE (1st Gen 13b) had 135 hp, I think. Maybe more.
Senior Member
Yes, I understand they are different. What I'm exploring is the possibility of listing both on the same line so that those with a spent 12A could replace with a 13B. I know there are a lot of other issues, but this is just a preliminary gathering of information/issues regarding what could prove to be the cleanest solution since it would not allow parts never used in the US on that platform, and it could provide a solution to making the RX-7 reasonably competitive in ITA again. Just pondering. Thanks for the informatin though!Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, the rotary guys will chime in, but it is a completely different motor. The 12a has a nominal displacement of 1.1 liters, I think the 13B is 1.3. The stock 12a had 100 hp, the stock 13B GSL-SE (1st Gen 13b) had 135 hp, I think. Maybe more.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks