ITR legality question about hub.

[JeffYoung]

What about:

aluminum flywheels?

Carbon fiber body panels?

Ceramic brake rotors?

The piston rules specifically allows forged pistons for reasons I don't honestly remember. No where else is anything other than an exact OE equivalent allowed. If stronger or lighter, or heavier or weaker for that matter, illegal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wasn't going to go there, but since Jeff opened the door....

I find it the ultimate irony that Andy doesn't think this is legal.

As far as the piston rule goes, it sounds as if Andy felt that forged pistons were not legal prior to the additional language being added to the ITCS. Is that a correct assumption Andy?

I agree w/ Joe, the way the rules are written, these would be legal. [/b]

Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?

[Joe Harlan]

What about:

aluminum flywheels?

Carbon fiber body panels?

Ceramic brake rotors?

The piston rules specifically allows forged pistons for reasons I don't honestly remember. No where else is anything other than an exact OE equivalent allowed. If stronger or lighter, or heavier or weaker for that matter, illegal.
[/b]

Come on Jeff, you can argue better than that, Those Items would be different material under any ruling

Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?
[/b]

I would say making a billet hub or crank of the same weight a dimension will be no problem, When you consider stock manufacturing differences it is very possible. Billet Miata cranks balanced perfect would make for a nice starting piece. Connecting rods no problem.

Do I want all this? Nope but this is what happens when you get just a little bit knocked up.

[JeffYoung]

True dat. Too much holiday spirit.

[ddewhurst]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacture.


Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.

[Bill Miller]

Once again Bill, you don't read the posts well. I DO think its legal - provided they match 100% dimensionally - and that INLCUDES weight. It just seems impossible that in this hypothetical something of exact external dimensions that was forged instead of cast could be the same weight. If it could all be a perfect match, then like Joe said, the rulebook doesn't legislate method of mfg.

And remember Jeff Young, we are talking hypothetically about items of the SAME MATERIAL, just a different mfg process. All your examples are different materials - which is an obvious no-no.

Again, can someone give us an example where this would be applicable anyway? Something where a forged 'exact equivilant' was not lighter (taking weight out for illustration purposes)?
[/b]

So Andy, alternate parts have to weigh exactly the same as stock parts. What do you use as your standard? Do you think stock brake rotors all weigh exactly the same? Heck, stock rods don't all weigh the same (if they did, there would be no need to balance them). What's the allowable tolerance? And I seriously doubt that you'll find a factory spec on something like brake rotor or hub weight. BTW, I believe the piston rule states that the forged pistons can be no lighter than stock (not 100% sure w/o pulling out the book).

As I said, I find it the ultimate irony that you take such a strict constructionist stand on something like this, when you trampled all over the rules w/ your own ECU. You claim that you feel that what you did was legal, and that when you asked others, they agreed w/ you. Point of fact is, it was never actually put to the test via the protest process or the clarification process. And there have been enough people just on this board that are not convinced that it was legal. You used a modification that you claimed was legal, but was never actually vetted, as justification for a rule change. What's even worse, is that by your own admission, it was not consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (others have stated that they didn't feel that it met their interpretation of the intent either). You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the IT ship, leading the charge for rules creep, in what is arguably the biggest departure from the IT philosophy that we have seen to date.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Come on Jeff, you can argue better than that, Those Items would be different material under any ruling




I would say making a billet hub or crank of the same weight a dimension will be no problem, When you consider stock manufacturing differences it is very possible. Billet Miata cranks balanced perfect would make for a nice starting piece. Connecting rods no problem.

Do I want all this? Nope but this is what happens when you get just a little bit knocked up. [/b]

Again, just asking questions:

Billet is a term that refers simply to a part machined out of a bar of metal. As long as that type of metal is the same type as what you are replacing - and you create the EXACT part as stock, I see it as legal. No?Again, the same as stock. I guess we could go back to 100% stock replacement parts..........

[Bill Miller]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacture.
Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.
[/b]

David,

The use of e.g. does not limit one to only auto-parts distributors. It uses auto-parts distributors as an example of a standard industry outlet. Explain to me how a shop that fabricated custom hubs would be any less of a 'standard industry outlet' than say a place that fabricates custom pistons (e.g. J-E or Wiesco)? They are both operations that fabricate components to customer specifications. Unless of course, you don't think that people are allowed to use J-E or Wiesco pistons in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy, alternate parts have to weigh exactly the same as stock parts. What do you use as your standard? Do you think stock brake rotors all weigh exactly the same? Heck, stock rods don't all weigh the same (if they did, there would be no need to balance them). What's the allowable tolerance? And I seriously doubt that you'll find a factory spec on something like brake rotor or hub weight. BTW, I believe the piston rule states that the forged pistons can be no lighter than stock (not 100% sure w/o pulling out the book).

As I said, I find it the ultimate irony that you take such a strict constructionist stand on something like this, when you trampled all over the rules w/ your own ECU. You claim that you feel that what you did was legal, and that when you asked others, they agreed w/ you. Point of fact is, it was never actually put to the test via the protest process or the clarification process. And there have been enough people just on this board that are not convinced that it was legal. You used a modification that you claimed was legal, but was never actually vetted, as justification for a rule change. What's even worse, is that by your own admission, it was not consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (others have stated that they didn't feel that it met their interpretation of the intent either). You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the IT ship, leading the charge for rules creep, in what is arguably the biggest departure from the IT philosophy that we have seen to date. [/b]

Bill, you just don't get it. All I was doing was agreeing with Joe that the method of mfg is not specified in the rulebook. Flaw in the rules? Certainly up for debate.

On the ECU thing, I won't debate it anymore. You refuse to read the posts so it's like discussing a book with somone who hasn't read it. Some think it was legal, some don't. I can accept that 100%.

[seckerich]

Certain Hondas that will go unmentioned have used replacement hubs for 10 years. A cast steel hub will actually be lighter than a billet piece. No performance advantage there weight wise. I will stay out of the intent part. Once it is machined you have zero chance of telling the difference.

[Joe Harlan]

ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacture.
Part of the rule ^.

Lets forget all the crap you guys are using to convince yourselves it's legal. How are you going to beat this part of the rule?

"obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors,"

Are you going to call the fab shop that's going to fabricate your dingle dangal a standard industry outlet, e.g., auto-parts distributors? Forget ALL your other crap excusses why you think you specially fabricated dingle dangal is legal how are you going to talk your way around standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors?

As I used to say if you want to play in the big pond step up to Production & when you have Production covered move on to GT. Please don't attempt to drag their rules into IT cars.
[/b]

David my friend you can cry all you want I did not write the rule. I promise if I want a billet crank I can by a scat through any autoparts chain I want. This is just a function of an open rule set. I am playing in a different pond now but the facts are that a question was asked an bad info was given. I

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you just don't get it. All I was doing was agreeing with Joe that the method of mfg is not specified in the rulebook. Flaw in the rules? Certainly up for debate.

On the ECU thing, I won't debate it anymore. You refuse to read the posts so it's like discussing a book with somone who hasn't read it. Some think it was legal, some don't. I can accept that 100%.
[/b]

No Andy, what you said was that they had to be EXACTLY the same, including weight. I simply asked you what you would use as a standard.

As far as the ECU thing goes, no, I don't refuse to read the posts. In fact, I think I've read most, if not all of them. You used unsubstantiated legality as justification for a rule change. Say what you want, but that's what you did. And you're ok w/ people thinking that you cheated, especially after you admitted that you didn't feel that what you did was consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (and didn't seek any kind off official position)? That speaks volumes.

So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....
[/b]

Not sure why you feel that a solution is necessary. Some feel that it's legal, some don't. I'm surprised that your not 100% ok w/ that.

[ddewhurst]

If we ALL are to understand the rules like a few have shown in this thread we can now make any part we want as long as it's identical/equivalent/whatever. Capital BS all the way. While at the same time some of you called the subistituted Dewhurst lower links ILLEGAL. Please select which side the fence you want to play on & stay there.

Nuff of this BS for me.

Say By
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Andy, what you said was that they had to be EXACTLY the same, including weight. I simply asked you what you would use as a standard.

As far as the ECU thing goes, no, I don't refuse to read the posts. In fact, I think I've read most, if not all of them. You used unsubstantiated legality as justification for a rule change. Say what you want, but that's what you did. And you're ok w/ people thinking that you cheated, especially after you admitted that you didn't feel that what you did was consistent w/ your interpretation of the intent of the rule (and didn't seek any kind off official position)? That speaks volumes. [/b]

I would use the stock part. It would be up to a PC to determine if they thought there was enough of a difference to warrant a penalty. I am not sure how this differs from anything that there is no spec for in any car - of which there are hundreds.

You read most? Hey, thanks a bunch! It's nice to know you are willing to come on here and sling the crap with most of the information!

I am never ok with people thinking I cheated. That could be the single stupidest statement you have ever made. What I am ok with is that what I did I believe was legal (and has been done in many parts of teh country), as do others I respect as well as race against - two of whom own ARRC winning cars - but some think it is not. I am prepared (as should everyone) to present my car as legal to any PC in the country. If I lost a protest at the highest levels, I would lick my wounds, suck it up and take my punishment...as well as being pretty embarrased.

We all know that 'MoTec in a box' is outside the orginal intent. HOWEVER, since this rule has been out for years that intent has moved completly over to the acceptance that it is legal. Sucky, but legal. Those who wrote the original rule screwed it up. We aren't talking about a 'new' grey area where the intent is being tortured (like the shift lever discussion), we are talking about something that many are doing - because it SAYS YOU CAN. The intent horse on this rule is so far out of the barn it's laughable. And if you expect me to run a stock ECU while others are taking advantage of something that is clearly legal, you have the wrong guy. I am out to win just like the next guy. I voted against SB's as bushings...but I have them now.

Now if you are pissed at me for the APPLICATION of my 'MoTec in a box', no sweat...like I said, I was always prepared to defend myself as what I had I believe to be legal.

And for the record, even the most hardened, anti-creep guys in the ITAC voted in favor of the ECU rule change given where we are in technology, price, the old rule and the ability to go backward.

Not sure why you feel that a solution is necessary. Some feel that it's legal, some don't. I'm surprised that your not 100% ok w/ that. [/b]

There is a shocker, you didn't even take the time to understand what topic that comment was made for.

The question for you Bill, is simple: Do you think the replacement part rule is bad? If you do, what do you want to do about it instead of just complain?

So now I am 100% done. It's obvious to me you don't want to see my opinions on topics in an open debate, you want to pound me personally. That is a signal to step back and let some others lay it on the line. Don't take my ignoring you as a white flag.

[Bill Miller]

Geez Andy, talk about taking things out of context. I said 'most, if not all' (guess you missed the last part). I phrased it that way, in the off chance that I may have missed a post or two. You keep saying that I don't read the posts, when what you're really saying is that I don't read them like you want me to read them.

You're the one that said you were ok w/ some people thinking what you did was illegal, not me. To me, that says you're ok w/ some people thinking that you are cheating. And I can't believe you use the 'but everyone else is doing it' argument. You also keep talking about how the MoTec-in-a-box has been legal for years. Once again, the point of fact is that creating a new vacuum circuit to feed a MAP sensor, inside the stock housing, has never been put to the test, protest-wise (if it has, please cite the case and I will admit that I am wrong and make a public apology to you). You use invalid logic when you say that just because it was accepted and that a bunch of people did it, that it was legal. That's about the same as saying it's not cheating until you get caught.

As far as the last comment, I think it's you that doesn't understand. That comment was made in response to your comment about the replacement part rule. I don't see a problem with it. I think it allows the alternate hub that the person that started this thread is considering using.

What I find ironic here is that you seem to think that if a replacement part is not 100% identical to a stock part, including how much it weighs, than it is not legal (even though there is no weight spec, and that stock parts themselves won't weigh exactly the same), yet you were ok with something that you felt was outside the intent of the rules, but was legal because a bunch of other people did it.

You can use all the anecdotal justification that you want, bottom line is, it was never put to the test. If it was just me saying that it was illegal, it would be one thing. But, you've got enough other people, just in this forum, who don't feel that it was legal. That's pretty much the way the spherical bearing discussion went. I find it interesting that you applied a different standard to the spherical bearings than you did to the ECU.

And please stop w/ the melodrama Andy. I'm not trying to 'pound' you. You've known me long enough to know that I'm a fact-based person, and that's the position I operate from. You claim that your ECU mod was legal, when in fact, it was never proven to be so. Your approach reminds me of the time that our local mayor said, in an open town meeting, that because there was such a low voter turnout, most people agreed w/ the proposed budget, even though those that did vote, voted it down. You can't effectively debate this issue because you are to close to it, and can't be objective about it.

[JLawton]

Exactly but the COA does not rule on intent.
[/b]

Yup, but I was trying to simplify it for James in his original post. Obviously much discussion on whether it's legal to the letter of the rule. But keeping to the INTENT of the rule, I can't see arguing that it's not legal.

I guess I'm a black & white person. I try to follow the intent or spirit of the rules.

Bill Miller. My ECU comment was just some joking around, not meant to stir the pot (sorry Andy). I think your view has been well voiced, it's not going to change, but we are moving WAY off the original discussion. Poor James thought he was asking a simple question and was probably looking for a simple yes or not. Healthy discussion is cool, but I think "we" are moving away from it...........

[Joe Harlan]

So what is the net/net of this discussion? Should we toss the rule? Ya'll want to go back to 100% stock parts? Should we try and tighten the rule? Lotsa bitchin but no solutions so far.....
[/b]

Andy, I don't see lots of bitchin. I see people looking at the rule and how it will be applied. There is no reason to even kid about going back to stock parts because you know the ITAC and the CRB don't have the will to take anything away. My suggestion is to break the rule down to the types of wear items that the rule was intended to cover. Hub breakage issues have been around since the begining of IT and I would not want to see billet custom parts allowed because not everone could have access to them. Hubs are a service cycle part just like pistons and rotors and brake pads. We all know what the rule was supposed to cover and allow but like a lot of things it stopped short of its goal.

[Crashtest]

Well guys sorry I was away for Xmas hope everyone had a good one.

I have read everyones replies and the discussions about the ecu and such. I was one for the open rule because there is no chip or reprogramming for the factory ECU on my car.

I do see both sides to the story and really want to upgrade my hubs not because it will give me a competitive advantage but because it may save my car.

I know the "Intent" of IT is to keep cost low and make a place for anyone to come play and I am one of the lower income brackets in that group. So with that its not like I am some guy going out with millions to try and build a perfect hub. I am just the guy trying to make it stronger so I don't have to repair a car after it comes apart.

As for it being service item I do understand that it is just that but changing a 200 dollar piece that would also need new bearings throughout the year is way more costly than just getting a better hub that would last the year or two or more....

I can see the "vote" is about split on legality so I guess I will just talk to my competitors and see what he or they think...I am sure he has read this post so we will see what his opinion is....

I really do thank everyone for the input.
James

[JeffYoung]

I would talk to your competitors. Notwithstanding the above, I think the initial reaction you are going to get from most every IT racer other than those on this board is that they are illegal.

For what it is worth, hubs and bearings are a serious issue on my car as well. Bearings get changed pretty much every weekend. Hubs once a year. My wear issue is unusual, I think anway, the hub wears and I get lots of play on the axle. New bearings and races don't help.

You can argue about technical legality but I think the clear intent here is that you use stock hubs, or an "OEM" equivalent replacement that you get at an Autozone. It was not the intent to be able to and whittle a stronger hub from a hunk of metal, but so it goes.