Not a "Done Deal"

[Andy Bettencourt]

The process weight in ITB is the same weight it is currently listed at in ITA. THAT is how bad this classification is. October Fast Track, page 48.

You mean you didn't know the proposed weight before you started this thread?

And what does 'custom cam' mean?

[Knestis]

I didn't know IT allowed custom cams?
[/b]

[RSTPerformance]

[/b]

:026:

[Gary L]

My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom camera, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

Did I understand the weight will not increase?
RW [/b]

Fixed that for ya.

[Dave Ebersole]

How did I miss the rules change regarding cams??

[Rabbit07]

You mean cams aren't open?

[Wreckerboy]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.

[Rabbit07]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.
[/b]

Got it!

[Greg Amy]

[...insert sounds of crickets chirping...]

[rlward]

Cam timing and grind have been set to exactly the factory dim and settings, alloed in rules.
RW

[ScotMac]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.
[/b]

ITB and ITC get screwed *again*!!!

Cam timing and grind have been set to exactly the factory dim and settings, alloed in rules.
RW
[/b]

I see....so, not so much "custom" as "stock", then?

[Matt Rowe]

Where are those pesky rules nerds when you need them?

I can see where you are trying to pull that interpretation from, but I don't agree that it's legal per most people's interpretation. of 9.1.3.D.1.p.

[Greg Amy]

I can see where you are trying to pull that interpretation from, but I don't agree that it's legal per most people's interpretation. of 9.1.3.D.1.p.[/b]

Here's where we get to picking nits.

First of all, aftermarket cams are allowed in 9.1.3.C, "Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts."

Problem is, one has to wonder why someone feels the need to have one "custom ground". After all, a brandy-new factory cam perfectly meets the rules, is optimal to the spec (you can't get any better than brandy-new) and is, no doubt, even cheaper than having something custom ground.

The implication is clear: someone does this because they've taken the workshop-listed specs and ground a cam that meets those specific numbers but improves performance in other ways; e.g., meets the lift and duration specs but is reprofiled such as to gain torque and power.

But, this is illegal, plain and simple. That part is not "...the exact equivalent of the original parts."

"But," you may say, "it meets the specs!" Yep, it meets the workshop specs, but it's still cheating. Also, you're missing a key component: the GCR specifically states that camshafts are checked by providing a known good stock example to compare it against. Topeka has the tools to compare profiles of the cam, not just the lift and duration, ergo anything that deviates from a stock cam - including profile - is easily discoverable as illegal.

So, why "custom grind"? Well, one of two reasons: one, it's cheaper (unlikely), or two, it's not the stock profile.

Or am I missing something here...?

GA

[lateapex911]

Well, there is a third answwer, although I don't know if it holds water...

Perhaps a new one was impossible to source, so the old one was reground?

Now, the question begs, reground to what profile??

I'm just sayin' .... (SG)

(Maybe the power in the Dodge isn't a "done deal"....

LOL.

(And while I've maintained all along that track performance is rather irrelevent to this discussion, I'd be interested to know Roger, what was the build state of that Miata you were chasing a year ago? And how do your times fare against other ITA cars (what models), and how do you stack up against the ITB guys?)

[mom'sZ]

I think I might even know a fourth one. I've heard tales of lore where engine builders have had to run multible cams through the cam doctor to find one where the phasing is correct. (not sure if that is the correct term or not) To explain further, take a bunch of OEM cams, run them on the cam doctor, all are factory cams close to the stock spec, but lobes are misaligned with one another due to sloppy manufacturing. Some cylinders are getting their events at the correct time and some are not. 'Cheater cams' as I've heard them called, just optimize the factort specs exactly, lift, duration, ramp profile, rate... everything, but to a 'T' since sometimes even lift and duration can vary from lobe to lobe and cylinder to cylinder. Just what I've heard. What say you rule nerds? is this illegal?

[Knestis]

Choosing from a basket full of stock parts, the one piece that is most optimal within factory tolerances? TOTALLY legal. Also totally expensive.

I&#39;ve told the story here before but a long time ago, i did a cost analysis of a few class options for a guy who wanted some ideas about what to race. I learned that a TransAm-spec Pontiac short block was LESS EXPENSIVE than a Showroom Stock GT Pontiac short block (Firebird), because the labor time to weigh and measure all of those OE pieces was way <strike>less </strike> MORE than the cost of buying the NASCAR-derived stuff for the real racing engine.

If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.

I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.

K

EDIT - oops. Thanks! MORE.

[mom'sZ]

edit (kinda figured that is what ya meant Kirk)

If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.[/b]

Would not to create one that is most optimal within factory tolerances be a rational motive for doing so? Would that not still be an &#39;equivalent replacement part&#39;? If that is what you&#39;re stating then, I&#39;m sorry, I&#39;m not trying to be a smart a$$, I really am this dense.

I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.
[/b]

Again with the dense thing here, what is your new opinion? Are you saying a cheater cam might have legit reasons and be legal or I&#39;m I all at sea? (wouldn&#39;t be the first time... not even in this post)
Andy R

[rcc85]

You can get "stock replacement" cams for the 2.2 from Auto Zone and Advance Auto Parts (Melling/Sealed Power/Clevite). So "stock replacement" cams are both cheap and plentiful. Finding an optimal stock cam is another story.

When I was racing karts our engine builders used to buy cams in large quantities, check them all, keep the optimal ones and return the rest. The WKA relented and changed the rules to allow aftermarket cams ground to stock specs ("cheater cams"). Crane Cams even started making 5 horse Briggs cams after that! It ended up lowering the cost of the cam.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[Andy Bettencourt]

If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.

I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.

K [/b]

Cams were/are one of the reasons Spec Miata pro motors are $7K. They include &#39;perfect&#39; cams. Before full cam specs were researched, documented and placed in the rules, builders were building to existing spec and slightly &#39;optimizing&#39; other portions of the profiles. Good for 1-2 dynojets some said.

Now that the specs are out, there is a &#39;range&#39;. Albeit a small range, cams are being ground to the &#39;peaks&#39; of the specs - the &#39;perfect cams&#39; if you will - all within stock specs. Could a stock one have come like that? Sure - and there is no way to prove otherwise.

A nice set of new cams will get you pretty dang close as Greg has said...and in a non-spec class, the potential hp gain is just dyno noise IMHO.

[mom'sZ]

Cams were/are one of the reasons Spec Miata pro motors are $7K. They include &#39;perfect&#39; cams. Before full cam specs were researched, documented and placed in the rules, builders were building to existing spec and slightly &#39;optimizing&#39; other portions of the profiles. Good for 1-2 dynojets some said.
[/b]

Right, I remember when the spec came out and a bunch of protests ensued. My understanding though, was that builder were grinding to the stock lift and duration (at the time the only things checked) but using ramp profiles that were better then stock (perhaps gentler on the valve train allowing higher revs or different opening or closing rates)

Now that the specs are out, there is a &#39;range&#39;. Albeit a small range, cams are being ground to the &#39;peaks&#39; of the specs - the &#39;perfect cams&#39; if you will - all within stock specs. Could a stock one have come like that? Sure - and there is no way to prove otherwise.

A nice set of new cams will get you pretty dang close as Greg has said...and in a non-spec class, the potential hp gain is just dyno noise IMHO.
[/b]

A nice set as in choosen from a bunch of stock cams? (as in expensive?) And would not your dyno noise be another man&#39;s ten tenths build? Wouldn&#39;t not doing so constitute not ten tenths? I&#39;m just saying