cranksfaft sleeves

[joeg]

Good point, Carl.

This forum gets strange at times...

[JohnRW]

This forum gets strange at times...
[/b]

You are the master of 'understatement'.

[64oeg]

Okay, I don't resond on these boards often. Certainly not to these nit picking hair slitting rules interpretaion threads. However, this thread has gone beyond the silly, and into the obsolutly inane rehlm.

GEO, et al, I understand your reasoning that IIDSYCYC means you can't sleeve a crank. However, as an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician, who has been earning a living turning wrenches since 1977, I'm telling you it is an accecpted repair practice. Not in the FSM? Of course not. Guess what a FSM is really for. To act as a guide/tool for the factory authorized technicians who are going to work on these cars when they are fairly new, and most likely still under warrenty. Well guess what, while under warrenty, this issue isn't going to crop up, therfore it is never addressed in a FSM.

Besides which, how would you ever catch such a "modification". Because someone told they had??? Certainly not because someone beat you on the track, (because it isn't a performance enhancement it is simply an accepted repair procedure). So, how would you even know to protest someone on such an issue??

And yes, I've worked in a Dealership for 5 yrs in the past, so I'm not just blowing smoke out of my buttocks. It's all well and good to be a rules nerd. Heck, as a Comp Board member and CSOM at WHRRI I'm practically required to be one. Still, isn't it time to stop some of these asinine hair splitting threads???

Okay, enough posturing on my part. Hope I haven't offended anyone personally. Not my intent. Flame away

George H.

[Geo]

Okay, I don't resond on these boards often. Certainly not to these nit picking hair slitting rules interpretaion threads. However, this thread has gone beyond the silly, and into the obsolutly inane rehlm.

GEO, et al, I understand your reasoning that IIDSYCYC means you can't sleeve a crank. However, as an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician, who has been earning a living turning wrenches since 1977, I'm telling you it is an accecpted repair practice. Not in the FSM? Of course not. Guess what a FSM is really for. To act as a guide/tool for the factory authorized technicians who are going to work on these cars when they are fairly new, and most likely still under warrenty. Well guess what, while under warrenty, this issue isn't going to crop up, therfore it is never addressed in a FSM.

Besides which, how would you ever catch such a "modification". Because someone told they had??? Certainly not because someone beat you on the track, (because it isn't a performance enhancement it is simply an accepted repair procedure). So, how would you even know to protest someone on such an issue??

And yes, I've worked in a Dealership for 5 yrs in the past, so I'm not just blowing smoke out of my buttocks. It's all well and good to be a rules nerd. Heck, as a Comp Board member and CSOM at WHRRI I'm practically required to be one. Still, isn't it time to stop some of these asinine hair splitting threads???

Okay, enough posturing on my part. Hope I haven't offended anyone personally. Not my intent. Flame away

George H.
[/b]

George, I understand and appreciate your comments. As a competitor I couldn't care less if someone sleeved their crank. My point is that I wouldn't go telling somoene it's legal. It's not IMHO based upon my reading of the rules. Take this a step further to hypothetically say to someone "I would do this to my car despite not being specifically legal."

I appreciate your comments of why it would not be included in an FSM, although I will disagree with it. I have Nissan and Porsche FSMs and they all cover repairs and refurbishment for wear. I submit, if sleeving is not included in the factory authorized/recommended (or choose some other word) repair, it simply is not legal. Again, I personally would never protest someone over something like this. It would be a weenie protest for sure. But I would not tell someone it's legal.

I understand this might be a common repair in the real world. I understand folks are doing it. That does NOT make it legal for IT. Even if nobody will protest it, that doesn't make it legal. I just would not tell someone it's legal. If y'all can find someplace in the ITCS that makes it legal, I'm all for it. Remember, I personally don't care either way. But telling someone that something is legal that isn't is not a good idea IMHO. Let folks draw their own lines they will cross or not cross.

So now the question becomes where the line is drawn. Do you allow the E36 drivers to weld in rear suspension reinforcements because it's a known problem and it's the way the dealerships repair the problem of these mounting points tearing? If not, why is this different?

Lastly, I will absolutely agree that there is a lot of bickering over small issue like this including whether steering wheel quick relaases are lega or not, or even if method of attachment of the QR or even the wheel affects legality. Or we can discuss what the 0.040" overbore rule really means. Or we can discuss exactly what you can remove when the ITCS says you can remove the radio. Or we can disuss whether one can remove the heater. Some are more petty than others, but how does one make the distinction of what it petty and who gets to choose? God, one can look at this board for a week and come up with a half dozen such discussions.

I personally think IT prone to more of these conversations because we don't have races where cars are torn down and people just don't protest. And that's not to say I'd like to see protests written all over in IT. I'm just saying that the lack of it causes different interpretations all the time that just don't get resolved.