Diff Coolers

[Andy Bettencourt]

exactly

But you are using the outlandish to squash a perfectly legitimate - and congruent - allowance. We are allowed to mod the internals, why not allow us to cool it?

FWIW: I have no need for a diff cooler.

[Chip42]

But you are using the outlandish to squash a perfectly legitimate - and congruent - allowance. We are allowed to mod the internals, why not allow us to cool it?

FWIW: I have no need for a diff cooler.

no, I was using an outlandish argument in an attempt to get to the statement you made about want =/= need and to try and illustrate the creep. the latter wasn't so effective.

like I said, I have no position for or against trans and diff coolers, but I don't think they are necessarily outside of the philosophy. I will add that if I were to argue for one, I would argue for both trans and diff on account of the unbalance of the rule granted to transaxles if it were awarded only to diffs

[Andy Bettencourt]

no, I was using an outlandish argument in an attempt to get to the statement you made about want =/= need and to try and illustrate the creep. the latter wasn't so effective.

I knew what you were driving at but it wasn't a good example to go to that extreme in a legit request like this.

like I said, I have no position for or against trans and diff coolers, but I don't think they are necessarily outside of the philosophy. I will add that if I were to argue for one, I would argue for both trans and diff on account of the unbalance of the rule granted to transaxles if it were awarded only to diffs

A fair position and one that would have to be considered by the CRB in both transaxle and FWD cases.

[Chip42]

I knew what you were driving at but it wasn't a good example to go to that extreme in a legit request like this.

The request is legitimate, I agree. but I don't think that my statement was THAT outlandish. sure the "reason" I implied was facilitation of instalation, and that is intentionally absurd, but I think that removal of the evap system in particular is within the class philosophy and the philosophy of the SCCA comp rules in general. and it certainly would help instalation of other "legitimate" requests

power steering is one of those things I see significant IT philosophical dischord with as 2 cars with the same factory hp rating and same engine might have multiple spec lines, one with and one without the power steering, and show the same process weight, even though PS can sap a significant amount, particularly from smaller motors.

a good example is the honda civic DX 92-95, ITB: 4door and coupe came WITH PS, no option. 3 dr came without. same weight, same engine, 3 spec lines (by body style). this is correct according to the process, as the thing assumes a motor's gains, but if the losses associated with non-removable items are not accounted for by the factory then they are not accounted for by the process. but in this case, seperate spec lines breed unmatched cars. Does this fall under warts and all? could it be argued that the 3-box cars have advantages over the 2 box hatch? sure. but there is fundamental process dischord based on the factory's failure to list seperate hp numbers by equipment (an oversight in SAE net rules). by the same token, single spec cars that are currently well-processed could become too fast by such an allowance.

So I'm not convinced there is need for or that it is a good Idea too eliminate PS, but it is a legitimate request. I feel the same way about diff coolers.

[Knestis]

Your Civic DX example is a good one but that's a spec-line problem, not a process problem. The ITAC should make a decision re: whether derivatives belong on the same spec line - thereby authorizing update/backdates among them - or on different lines. If the answer is "different lines," then it does become a warts-and-all issue.

I'm not terribly confident that the various Hondae spec-line placements are the result of comprehensive planning and decision making, so it might deserve review.

K

[Chip42]

Your Civic DX example is a good one but that's a spec-line problem, not a process problem. The ITAC should make a decision re: whether derivatives belong on the same spec line - thereby authorizing update/backdates among them - or on different lines. If the answer is "different lines," then it does become a warts-and-all issue.

I'm not terribly confident that the various Hondae spec-line placements are the result of comprehensive planning and decision making, so it might deserve review.

K

actually, they were split into multiple lines based on a letter I wrote asking for clarification of UD/BD, particularly with regard to power steering, and if it is intended to be per spec line or per 100% as delivered for sale in the USA. between wheelbase, body style, and power steering, you get 3 spec lines for the civic DX.

my analogues at that time were the Ford Escort GT/LX-E in ITA (same cars under IT perspective, different body types) and the Honda Accord LXi/SEi in ITB (SEi is 2dr only, rear disks, LXi is 2 or 3dr, drum rears. otherwise they are identical to IT rules). I supposed that either we merge everything into one line (escort) or split based on a single feature crossing body types into a combination never sold in the US (accord). they chose option B.

[JoshS]

I supposed that either we merge everything into one line (escort) or split based on a single feature crossing body types into a combination never sold in the US (accord). they chose option B.

That's right, it was an explicit decision.