How About Making Adjustable Cam Gears Legal?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
If that gets turned down for reasons way outside of the question at hand, that's not surprising but it is a little unfortunate.

K

If something like this is allowed, it suddenly becomes "necessary", which means that people will believe they MUST have this on their engine to be competitive. That WOULD truely be unfortuneate...

Like ECUs... if they were open, then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...

The more you allow, the more people "need"... That makes racing more expensive...

Again, not having adjustable cam gears isn't keeping ANYONE from competing today, and Tom is the only one thus far that seems to have a problem getting a Honda/Acura to be competitive witout them... There is no "need" for this change...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...</font>

Perception is not reality; ask any magician. "Feeling" something is so doesn't make it so; ask any Marxist.

If we are writing rules on perception or "feelings" rather than reality then something is really wrong here.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...and Tom is the only one thus far that seems to have a problem getting a Honda/Acura to be competitive witout them...</font>

No need to return the cheap shots, Darin; Tom is already competitive today. - GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Perception is not reality; ask any magician. "Feeling" something is so doesn't make it so; ask any Marxist.

If we are writing rules on perception or "feelings" rather than reality then something is really wrong here.

- GA

OK Greg... then the "reality" is that people would believe they needed these parts to be competitive and would purchase them...

No rules are being written (or NOT written, in this case) based on "feelings" or "perception"... They are based on what actually happens... What actually happens, however, is that people "feel" they need these parts, and they go out an buy these parts...

Didn't we just go through this with the whole wheel diameter deal?? Many didn't want the rule to change because they were afraid of the perception that you MUST upgrade to keep up...

You are reasonable people... you've seen this all before... how does the phrase go??? "Keeping up with the Jones'"???

That's not an intangible thing... it's what really happens... It's REALITY...

As for the "cheap shot" on Tom... He's the only one complaining, and he did initiate this diatribe... admittedly in order to provoke me... He deserves the shot...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for the "cheap shot" on Tom... He's the only one complaining, and he did initiate this diatribe... admittedly in order to provoke me... He deserves the shot...

Yeah Darin, God forbid that you be the bigger man and just let it go. You sound like some of the kids in my son's 4th grade class.

Like ECUs... if they were open, then EVERYONE would feel the need to have a MOTEC, when a Wolf would have done them just as good...

And you don't think that people now feel that they need to stuff a MOTEC into a stock housing? Tell me that's not what the top E36 cars have done?

As I said, I've reconsidered my position on the cam gear issue. If you can use an offset key to correct the timing back to stock, why shouldn't you be allowed to use an alternate means to correct the timing? If the timing has to be stock, it has to be stock. Pretty obvious if you have an adjustable cam gear, so no question, valve timing has to be stock. Not too easy to hide that. Whereas, it's not so obvious if you have an offset key, but again, if you do, valve timing has to be stock.

I see a lot of similarities to the old threaded-body shock rule. You could put sleeves on, but not use threaded-body shocks. You could turn the threads off and they would be legal.

If you have to run stock valve timing (if you are using an offset key or an adjustable gear), what's the issue, and where's the performance advantage? I think the perception is, that people will cheat, if you make it easier for them to do it. Maybe yes, maybe no.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">God forbid that you be the bigger man and just let it go.</font>

Funny Bill, I read your statement and end up thinking the exact samething about you here

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Look - If I were a REALLY industrious cheater, I would buy a Dial-a-cam for the Golf, use it to determine on the chassis dyno what kind of cam timing makes the most poop, then have a key ground to replicate that offst. I would have bought BOTH and it would STILL be cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly. The current rule doesn't make it any harder to cheat with cam timing than allowing adjustable gears. The current rule, as written, in and of itself stops nothing. I could do exactly what Kirk notes above to maximize my cam timing and then have my stock cam/gear cut and keyed to that setting... Voila!
Easypeasy.

Rules don't stop cheating.
Personal integrity or fear of getting caught stops cheating.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Rules don't stop cheating.

Let's allow aftermarket hood scoops... That would eliminate any questions about people "ram-air"...

We should also allow short-shifters... that would eliminate people cheating in that area as well...

Oh, and we should also allow control arm modifications... lop off the ends and weld on heims... that would eliminate any suspension concerns over the legality of which bushings are legal...

Let's see... Open up cams???... That would do away with the concerns over the legality of "superseded" parts...

Exactly where do you guys want to draw the line???

There are a hundred things that could be changed in the rules to make it "eaiser" to build a race car, and every one of them would add $$$ to the project... The more you can do, the more you will do, or the more you will HAVE to do to be competitive...

There is a reason why Spec Miatas, etc., are popular, and that revolves heavily around the fact that you can't do anything to them except tune and drive...

The Intent in IT is still stated as being "to restrict modiciations to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Adjustable cam gears are NOT NECESSARY... not even to have a GOOD race car... IT has survived for many, many years without this allowance... I personally don't see any evidence that it won't continue to do so...

HOWEVER... Feel free to submit a letter with this request and run it by the rest of the group and the CRB... Maybe I'm alone on an island somewhere and everyone else will welcome this change...

[email protected]



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[GT240sx]

I only have a copy of the 2004 GCR in front of me but rule 17.1.4.D.1.f states: ....Adjustable timing gears are prohibited on all cars unless fitted as stock.

This leads me to think that on cars with adjustable timing gears fitted as stock, it is legal to use them and thus adjust the cam timing. Unless the car is ruled to have a stock legal part performing an illegal function??

On cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu, it seems that they could vary the cam timing within the ecu and tech couldn't verify that by just inspecting the cam position. They would have to know the stock values for the ecu and then they would have to verify they were not changed before and after a race....sounds very difficult.

I don't see a problem with changing cam timing as long as you don’t change the cams. I would think that the cars with adjustable cam gears fitted as stock equipment and the cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu are already doing this legally. If the rule is supposed to say “cam timing must remain stock” then it should say that, but it doesn’t. From reading the rules it looks like only cars fitted with plastic/phenolic timing gears that decide to make them metal have to keep stock cam timing. Because 17.1.4.D.1.f says they may substitute metal gears provided cam timing remains as stock. Also, as someone else pointed out, in section 17.1.4.D.1.l, it says an offset key may be used to return cam timing to factory specifications. It doesn’t say you must.

I probably have an unpopular view of the rules, and maybe I am missing something but I think rules should be very clear about what is not allowed. If the rules don’t specifically say “every car must keep cam timing stock” then you can be sure that people will tune their cam timing and feel like it is completely legal.


------------------
Russell White
Indianapolis, IN
'85 Toyota Supra
ready for ITS in 8 months....maybe

[DavidM]

Think I missed some logic somewhere. As I understood it, the reasoning behind wanting adjustable cam gears was because it made it easier (and cheaper I think I read as well) to return timing to stock after things like milling the head. It has since been stated as part of the arguement for adjustable cam gears that allowing them doesn't make cheating easier since you can already do the same thing by re-keying. This doesn't seem to make sense. If it's just as easy to re-time by re-keying then why do you want the rule change in the first place?

Seeems to me there are 2 possible cases here:

1) Adjustable cam gears make changing the timing easier, which also makes cheating easier.
2) Adjustable cam gears do not make changing the timing easier, in which case why ask for a rules change?

Somebody check my logic since it's been a while since I've had a logic class.

I personally don't like anything that makes cheating easier. Sure, there are people who will cheat no matter what, but I would guess a majority of cheaters are "opportunistic cheaters". Somebody gave the analogy of their uncle leaving his car doors unlocked since he figured if somebody wanted to steal it the locked doors wouldn't stop them. I keep my car doors locked so that the thief will take his uncle's car instead of mine.

David

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Funny Bill, I read your statement and end up thinking the exact samething about you here

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited April 21, 2005).]

Joe,

And you accuse me of taking things out of context and making an issue of them. When have you ever seen me justify a comment at because it was a 'tit for tat'?



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by GT240sx:
I don't see a problem with changing cam timing as long as you don’t change the cams. I would think that the cars with adjustable cam gears fitted as stock equipment and the cars with variable valve timing controlled by the ecu are already doing this legally. If the rule is supposed to say “cam timing must remain stock” then it should say that, but it doesn’t. From reading the rules it looks like only cars fitted with plastic/phenolic timing gears that decide to make them metal have to keep stock cam timing. Because 17.1.4.D.1.f says they may substitute metal gears provided cam timing remains as stock. Also, as someone else pointed out, in section 17.1.4.D.1.l, it says an offset key may be used to return cam timing to factory specifications. It doesn’t say you must.

You are missing a huge 'truth' that is stated right at the start of the ITCS, which is, "except for these items listed, everyting must remain as stock", or something similar, but in legalese.

So, as it doesn't say that you CAN change from stock cam timing, you can't.

However, it does allow alternative gears as a nicety, but reminds you to remain at stock timing. (often the inclusion of a reminder to remain stock in a particular area leads people to conclude that they DON'T have to remain stock in a similar area....an unforunate supposition) It also allows stock adjustable gears but doesn't allow their adjustement beyond stock specs... Remember, if it doesn't say you CAN, you can't.

As for VANOS, yes, it IS allowed, but it was accounted for during classing on a case basis. All other cars were classed based on their cams remaining at the stock position.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Renaultfool]

I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

I would be for a more liberal set of IT rules that would make it simpler, cheaper, and easier to police. After all we race for fun, not to be hasseled by the tech guys (I am one).

There is much distance between IT and Production and within this distance we could make things simpler for us all, remembering that there is no guarentee of competitivness of any car. Freeing up cam timing (hard to police) while requiring the stock cam (easy to measure) removes an area of suspected cheating. Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiots, after all who wants to worry about the paint color of their intake manifold anyway.
All the rules in the world will not stop people from spending a fortune to win a $5 trophy, so let's quit worring about stopping them from spending their money. Spend if you will, you don't have to.
How about everyone run the stock induction system or a Weber 32/36. Run the stock front brakes or any production 10" (or whatever is average for the class) junk yard available brake, etc. You are not talking big money here, just the laws of physics. Outbraking a guy with your factory four wheel disk setup while he/she suffers with some inadequate inferior system that came on their brand is just being a bully, you didn't "beat them". Allow the things that count to become more equal in each class. Keep the internal engine rules the way they are other than as suggested above. Less possible cheating, easy to measure, cheaper to maintain, more fun. If cutting 3" off your shifter or running an alternate 10" brake against the 10" brake that came on my car lets you beat me, go for it. At least we are equal and I know you out drove me.

Until the rules are changed we live with what we have, and the interpretations thereof.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
I'm sure that they took cam timing into account when classing cars. More likely a coin flip.

I would be for a more liberal set of IT rules that would make it simpler, cheaper, and easier to police. After all we race for fun, not to be hasseled by the tech guys (I am one).

There is much distance between IT and Production and within this distance we could make things simpler for us all, remembering that there is no guarentee of competitivness of any car. Freeing up cam timing (hard to police) while requiring the stock cam (easy to measure) removes an area of suspected cheating. Making the cars simpler, safer, and more equal in the area of brakes, shifter length, ECU's, wiring harness etc. in reality might shift the status quo in each class a small amount, but in the end make a cheaper, simpler, safer class to race and keep IT viable into the future. People worrying about shifter length, washer bottles, etc. just run off normal people that might be interested in running in a fun, entry level class. The rules freaks make us all look like idiots, after all who wants to worry about the paint color of their intake manifold anyway.
All the rules in the world will not stop people from spending a fortune to win a $5 trophy, so let's quit worring about stopping them from spending their money. Spend if you will, you don't have to.
How about everyone run the stock induction system or a Weber 32/36. Run the stock front brakes or any production 10" (or whatever is average for the class) junk yard available brake, etc. You are not talking big money here, just the laws of physics. Outbraking a guy with your factory four wheel disk setup while he/she suffers with some inadequate inferior system that came on their brand is just being a bully, you didn't "beat them". Allow the things that count to become more equal in each class. Keep the internal engine rules the way they are other than as suggested above. Less possible cheating, easy to measure, cheaper to maintain, more fun. If cutting 3" off your shifter or running an alternate 10" brake against the 10" brake that came on my car lets you beat me, go for it. At least we are equal and I know you out drove me.

Until the rules are changed we live with what we have, and the interpretations thereof.

Well hell lets just pitch the rule book completely and let the whole class run the same size brakes as the guy with the biggest brakes in the class? You know some of us actually enjoy racing in a class with a proper set of rules that we all have to live with. I know of a case where a track record was set by a car many people spent tons o money and time trying to go after that record. Years latter that car ended up being bought by me. When I pulled the car apart it had a 2.0l crank in a 1.6l engine. How do you fix that. That's the problem with treating people that believe in the rules like A-holes and acting like they hurt your fun. Fact is a protest every now and and again is a good thing. Jake thanks for the correct reading of the book. I have asked several times where anything other than stock was allowed. NOw I guess we have the answer.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
... When I pulled the car apart it had a 2.0l crank in a 1.6l engine. How do you fix that. ...

Hmm. Was it a red ITC car?

K

------------------
PhilsTireService.com Team GTI - ITB Class Winner, 2004 13 Hours at VIR - Tuned with Cobalt Friction brake pads, KONI racing struts, and quality OE Volkswagen and racing parts from Bildon Motorsport

TOYO and HOOSIER Racing Tires available at Phil's Tire Service

[Joe Harlan]

No but I think I know which car you speak of...

[zracre]

Adjustable cam timing will just make us twin cam guys faster...

Evan Darling
ITA Integra

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
When have you ever seen me justify a comment at because it was a 'tit for tat'?

Another winking smiley complety lost on Bill...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Joe Harlan]

yeah but he did say TIT [insert best beavis laugh here]

[golfracer]

Just a note about sunbelt.....how they get away with it I have no Idea, but if you buy a engine from sunbelt for a spec miata, they have machined the keyways on the cams and gears that allow adjustment. Thats sort of thing is what happens with SPEC RACING. Now I know sunbelt engines have pasted tech in pro races, I just dont see how it is anywhere near stock. Seems like "fuzzy machining" to me, but what do I know I dont make over $5k a motor.

As far as IT, and I am sorry I have to disagree with you Scott, but an IT car is not allowed to adjust cam timing with a key, you are only allowed to return it to stock. Allowing adjustable cam gears directly conflicts this rule. I guess some of us have one more thing we need to police...

[lateapex911]

But he also said "tat", so will there be a tat on that ti......?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]