Not a "Done Deal"

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

I consider having custom cams done that MIGHT produce 1 dynojet to be static and not really measurable within a class that has so many different types of cars and platforms. A new set is 100% legal and probably just as good. I don't consider 'custom' cams part of a 10-10ths but some may.

I will say that there are probably cars out there with vague specs and very grey cams - and owners that let that info slip. Hell, a quick perusal of teh IT classifieds will net you more than one light flywheel, short shifter, etc.

[Knestis]

>> 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 'equivalent replacement part'?

Presuming it were within all factory tolerances - and not just the ones that apply to easily measured variables - yes, it would be reasonably considered "equivalent." Simply having the stock lift, for example, doesn't get it done. Nor lift and duration. Nor lift, duration, and degrees of intake-exhaust peak separation. NOT even lift, duration, between-peak angle, and timing relative to the crankshaft...

I don't buy that someone replicate all of those dimensions PLUS the base circle diameter and valve acceleration values (front and back side of the lobe!), all within the factory +/- range, in the situation we're talking about - that it's rational given the costs and benefits.

My new theory - or newly supported theory? - is that the car in question would be slower with an OE cam and that, given it is currently at its new ITB race weight and already "faster than all the B cars" (I think I read that someplace in the various discussions?), that it's a problem.

K

[mom'sZ]

I consider having custom cams done that MIGHT produce 1 dynojet to be static and not really measurable within a class that has so many different types of cars and platforms. [/b]

agreed Andy agreed

A new set is 100% legal and probably just as good. I don't consider 'custom' cams part of a 10-10ths but some may.
[/b]

But is it legal? In your opinion? (I respect your opinion) To me, if jeremy in topeka runs it on the cam doctor and is to spec... it's legal. Doesn't matter where it came from (book says we can get replacement from where ever) Purchased from manufacture, auto parts store on corner or created in engine builders lathe. My humble opinion.

Anyhow, Kirk, you're a funny guy, ya gave me a tickle
And Andy, dog gone ya edited yer post before I could hammer out my reply. But I think to add to your vague specs and gray cams comment, I think there are probably some cars with greater tolerance deviations then others. In other words some are junkier then others (from model to model) thus where this could possibly make a difference with some cars, it could just be dyno noise to others.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But is it legal? In your opinion? (I respect your opinion) To me, if jeremy in topeka runs it on the cam doctor and is to spec... it's legal. Doesn't matter where it came from (book says we can get replacement from where ever) Purchased from manufacture, auto parts store on corner or created in engine builders lathe. My humble opinion.

.[/b]

Yes. BUT I am betting that in IT people are doing it to go 'way grey'. Jeremy has enough cam experience now so that he would consider something like that (way grey) illegal. Remember, just because a spec isn't published doesn't mean one can't be determined by the SCCA.

[Rabbit07]

Did the 2.2 have a particular year or model cam that was better? I know that with the Neon 2.0 we use the '95 cam because its profile is a little better than the rest.


The old VW 1.6 with the G-grind was another one.

And then there is the secret special non verifiable Volvo cam that seems to allow a stock push rod 2.0 to rev to 8000 rpm.

[Gary L]

And then there is the secret special non verifiable Volvo cam that seems to allow a stock push rod 2.0 to rev to 8000 rpm. [/b]

Yeah, right. IMHO... if you see a Volvo B20 running an honest 8000 rpm in any gear (vertically down a mine shaft doesn't count) you don't even need to check the cam, just write him up for illegal valve springs.

But since you brought it up, and since it seems to fit the current tone of this thread, I'll relate a Volvo story that may upset some, particularly those that think cheating in IT is rare. Over the past few years because I've broken some engines in a big way, I've always been on the lookout for, and have subsequently purchased, ITB-ready short blocks, full up engines, and in one case an entire (used up) ITB car with spares. This ultimately meant I've had the opportunity to peek inside a total of 4 B20's that were raced by 4 different individuals from various parts of the country, none of whom even knew each other AFAIK. Here's what I found, in no particular order...

Engine #1 - Iskendarian VV71 camshaft - no question whatsoever about the grind, based on valve timing and lift, neither of which even resembled the legal Volvo "D" camshaft. (And BTW, I don't care what you've heard, the D is the only legal cam for a US spec D-Jet Volvo B20.)

Engine #2 - Stock D camshaft, but blatantly illegal dual valve springs, as well as lightweight lifters & pushrods

Engine #3 - Apparently custom ground camshaft that met D camshaft specs for "valve open" timing and lift, but had 19 degrees extra duration on the backside of the exhaust.

Engine #4 - Camshaft, lifters, springs, pushrods all legal... but with an offset key in the camshaft stub that advanced valve timing nine (9) degrees.

So yes, I tend to be a bit cynical when I hear how honest most IT racers are.

[gran racing]

[lateapex911]

A few years ago I came across a guy's ads for "Cheater cams" for BMWs in ITB. he has a aftermarket firm in CA.I shot him a scathing email, and got a equally terse response. "Gotta make money" was the message, and "If I don't sell them, someone else will", and "Get a clue, this is racing...you want it all nicey nice go play jacks"....or something along those lines. I kept the email but I lost it when my house, and computer got hit by lightning last summer.

Indeed, it is rather pervasive in certain circles.

However, I think that it is rarer at the top.

Nonetheless, the autocrossers make us look like pu$$ies when it comes to writing paper. Difference is there it's often for silly stuff, but this kind of stuff wins races. We should take a lesson from them from time to time, and write paper when it counts..

[Knestis]

Cameron and I were laughing about this stuff today, when I told him the story of a 1.6 Rabbit (then in IT that I drove a few times back in the old days. It belonged to a friend who wanted me to buy it, so he let me run a couple of Regionals at Seattle and Portland. I got about half way through the first practice session before I realized that I could hang with the 2002s pretty much everywhere...

...at which point I wondered if maybe I should be sandbagging or something. Amazing what a cam and a little more squeeze did for that car.

When I got back to the pits, another guy (ex-SSC RubOffs contender in cheated-up MkII Golfs) came by to ask me how the "fastest Rabbit in the world" was running, with a big smirk on his face. He'd built at least one of the 2002s I was racing with.

Moral of the story is that one of the most common modes of cheating in this game is, "getting a slow car to the middle of the pack." It's easier, less expensive, and requires less actual skill to cheat just enough to get in the thick part of the race. One is advised to not be TOO good at it, or one might accidentally win and attract attention. It's also easier to rationalize cheating if one thinks his/her car is getting screwed by the process, and can't be competitive.

So they GET competitive.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

A few years ago I came across a guy's ads for "Cheater cams" for BMWs in ITB. he has a aftermarket firm in CA.I shot him a scathing email, and got a equally terse response. "Gotta make money" was the message, and "If I don't sell them, someone else will", and "Get a clue, this is racing...you want it all nicey nice go play jacks"....or something along those lines. I kept the email but I lost it when my house, and computer got hit by lightning last summer.

Indeed, it is rather pervasive in certain circles.

However, I think that it is rarer at the top.

Nonetheless, the autocrossers make us look like pu$$ies when it comes to writing paper. Difference is there it's often for silly stuff, but this kind of stuff wins races. We should take a lesson from them from time to time, and write paper when it counts..
[/b]

They're still around, I just googled cheater ITB cams and they came up. This reminds me of my friend who drives a pinto-engined FC. He mentioned having a custom ground cam as a prerequesite for winning the run-offs, pre-Ztec. There's appearantly one shop that has the know-how to make the cam hard enough to last, but only the truly initiated know who they are. Of course you could always just order a bunch of stock cams and sort throught them and cherry pick the best, then sell some of the good ones as ITB "cheater" cams,( but keep the best for yourself.) There's a lot of aftermarket parts sold on the pants-seat improvements. Put in the "cheater" cam and now you have a reason to go faster, do you go faster because of the cam, or because you think you should?

James

[Stan]

This reminds me of my friend who drives a pinto-engined FC. He mentioned having a custom ground cam as a prerequesite for winning the run-offs, pre-Ztec.[/b]

Very interesting and enlightening discussion, but this comment reminds me of something I saw in the tech barn at the Runoffs last night. The 3rd place FC (pinto) had his cam removed and put through the Cam Pro (all smiles from the tech staff). And since this is the first year of having a Zetec show up at the Runoffs in FC, and the Club has had the Cam Pro for several years, I wonder how true the stories of cheater cams in FC at the Runoffs are.

Stan

[Z3_GoCar]

Very interesting and enlightening discussion, but this comment reminds me of something I saw in the tech barn at the Runoffs last night. The 3rd place FC (pinto) had his cam removed and put through the Cam Pro (all smiles from the tech staff). And since this is the first year of having a Zetec show up at the Runoffs in FC, and the Club has had the Cam Pro for several years, I wonder how true the stories of cheater cams in FC at the Runoffs are.

Stan
[/b]

Hey Stan,

I didn't intend to call the FC guys cheaters, I'm sure that's not my friend's intent either. This came up when he was discussing getting a full build on his motor after having gone with a local shop to do a ring and bearing job. The point being if you're going to run with the big dogs at the Run-offs or any other championship event, you need to make sure that everything is as close to max'ed as legally allowed. Whether Andy considers a reground cam 10-10ths or not, the camshaft can't be ignored if you intend to get everything possible out of your motor. Surely a speciallist can get a closer tolerance between lobes more uniform grind that matches the best of what's avalible from the factory.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whether Andy considers a reground cam 10-10ths or not, the camshaft can't be ignored if you intend to get everything possible out of your motor. Surely a speciallist can get a closer tolerance between lobes more uniform grind that matches the best of what's avalible from the factory.

James
[/b]

Just to clarify, I agree with you. My point is that I don't consider a POTENTIAL 1hp from custom cams part of a 10/10ths IT build as there are far to many differences in cars for that to register. Now in SM or SRF, you bet I do.

[rlward]

I been out so maybe I have missed somthing. But, inasmuch as manufacturing tolerances for off the shelf engine components, i.e. blocks, rods, heads, etc. have tolerances, the term "bluprinting" came about. Blueprinting is maching to optimum specifications. Now, because my cam follower took a dump and chewed up my only stock cam and good head, and the wrecking yards are full of turbo cams that come with a wrecking yard head, the head and cam were brought , by way of bluprinting, into the optimal range of "stock". Isn't this legal under the blueprinting rule?

[Matt Rowe]

Having looked at similar machine work (on other projects) in the past I find it difficult to believe that remachining a cam to an alternate profile was cheaper than buying a new correct cam. Also, you need to be careful with using heads from turbo cars. The castings are potentially different as are the valves. Check the casting number on the water jacket housing and make sure it matches the previous casting.

If I was competing against a car with an alternate cam I would find that to be highly suspect. It would be a good item to write paper against.

[Quickshoe]

I'm totally with you, Dick - right up to the point where the process said, "1945 pounds." That's completely unreachable so it make exactly zero sense to even go to the trouble to put it in the book.
[/b]

-K

It makes some amount of sense above "zero", the process doesn't say the car must weigh 1945#, the process says that the minimum weight should be 1945#. It isn't unreachable for the car to be "compliant", what may be unreachable is competitiveness, which there is no guarantee. If the minimum weight isn't attainable and someone wishes to build it anyway, where is the harm?

Or is this just a dual classification slippery slope issue? If that is the case, I'll have to bow out, as I just had my car dual-classed in FProd and GProd (not SCCA) of course I think it is a great idea. Many of the cars in the Production classes have multiple options--perhaps that is what the IT racers are trying to avoid.

[Knestis]

My opinions are influenced by some first assumptions, like it's a fundamental goal of "racing" classes to combine cars in such a way that they have some reasonable chance of being competitive. If a car can be listed in a class in such a way that it fits the parameters for that class, it makes no sense to list it in an "adjacent" class within the same category where it does not fit the parameters - regardless of whether it's "too fast" for that class, or "too slow."

It's RACING.

If we wanted to call it "participating," then we wouldn't have classes. Or the classes would be about the drivers' skill levels rather than the type of car involved. Oh, wait - we have those HPDE things...

I wouldn't put a junior high school basketball team up against a high school team "so they could enjoy participating" or get another game in their schedule. Or I would call it a something other than a "real game" and wouldn't pay refs to show up.

Opinions may differ.

K

[Knestis]

...Now, because my cam follower took a dump and chewed up my only stock cam and good head, and the wrecking yards are full of turbo cams that come with a wrecking yard head, the head and cam were brought, by way of bluprinting, into the optimal range of "stock". Isn't this legal under the blueprinting rule?[/b]

If I'm understanding correctly, no.

You're talking about using a non-original, non-stock part (assuming the PNs are different from what your car came with, on the turbo head and cam), and machining them into the spec's defined for your car...? That's not blueprinting by any definition I understand. If you'd started with ORIGINAL STOCK parts and whittled on them to maximize their spec's within factory dimensions and tolerances, sure.

That's a pretty important difference to my way of thinking.

K

[Greg Amy]

Kirk, I agree with you, EXCEPT for the "alternate source of parts" gig we have going on now. Granted, he can't call it 'blueprinting' but if the manufactured part matches the OE part in every way, even though it stacks up all the specs in his favor, I'd still call it a legal part.

Bottom line: if the damn thing passes a Cam Doctor test compared to a stock part, you're good to go. But, if it deviates from OE in places where there's no discretely-listed specifications because you're trying to take advantage of gray areas, it's illegal. - GA

[Knestis]

Good point. I confess that I'm assuming that the part isn't actually exactly the same in every single respect, which might be completely incorrect. IF this is the case, then indeed - a sensible case can be made under the "replacement" rule.
K