September 2011 Fastrack

[Matt93SE]

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that. There's too much ambiguity in some of these things, and too much that's being disallowed that should be pretty simple and straightforward.

Toyota made the Pontiac Vibe. Toyota also made the early Geo Metro. Mitsubishi made/makes the engines in Dodge Caravans, eagle talons, and dodge stealth.

So does that mean I can put a 4G63 turbo in my Neon?
Or how about a 2JZ-GTE in my GTO or Grand Prix, which would allow either of them into STU?

At one time, Toyota built trannies for Chevy too. So how about a 2JZ in my Camaro?

Hell, almost all OEMs use Mahle pistons anymore.. maybe we should just say they're all the same damn thing since the parts come from the same factory..

you want tortured interpretations, I'll give you tortured!!

[lateapex911]

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

If not, that's what he SHOULD have been saying, LOL.

On the surface, at first glance, I find the allowance surprising and seeming inconsistent. I'll think harder about it though.

[Matt93SE]

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob!
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....


No, I'm not bitter.....

[Z3_GoCar]

And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob!
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....


No, I'm not bitter.....

You're forgetting the ultimate intorturation on motor swaps....

the Bugatti motor in a VW Golf

The VW/Audi/Porsche connection is best exemplified by the 924, which (btw isn't it too old to use in ST?) has a motor sourced from an Audi, and the 912/914 which uses the 1.7/2.0 type 4 motor which is also used in the later type 2 buses.

[Greg Amy]

...the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later.

It was a long topic of conversation, on both the private forum and on the concall. In the end, we could take one of two tacks: specifically list all the allowances (kludgy, subject to reasonable omissions, likely a long list, and likely not to be approved by the CRB ) or we could take a more open interpretation of allowance-and-see. We chose the latter. The primary basis for that choice was that the category is engine-centric to begin with anyway, as weight and restrictors are all based off of what engine you choose to use. Since any engine that can be installed into a chassis will have to have been allowed to begin with, what chassis you choose to install it into has much less effect on the engine's specific competitiveness in the class chosen. In other words, the engine you want to use has to be already approved for the class you want to run, it's not like we're suddenly allowing new engines in.

Once convinced of that, I took the primary position of "think of the very best engine you can, one with the highest power-to-displacement, and put it into the very best chassis you can think of". My standard for the chassis was the Mazda Miata, and I tried to think of the very best "family" engine you could install into it, even using FoMoCo products as an extreme potential intorturation. Granted, I can't think of all possibilities ("crowd sourcing" will take care of that soon enough) but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now.

Same goes for the 944. Sure, a VW normally-aspirated 2.0-16V Golf engine would put it into STL, but so what? Is that a better choice than an 2L MZR-equipped NB Miata? Would the 2L turbo in the 944 (with an appropriate TIR) make it a better STU car than if it used the 944T engine? I suggest not.

Bottom line, yes there's potential for "abuse" here. And I'd encourage anyone thinking out-of-the-box to send in a clarification request like this bloke did, as if you get too wacky you may very well lose a protest. But out-of-the-box thinking is one of the underlying ideals of this category and a purpose behind allowing alternate engines.

Remember it's an engine-centric category and other things tend to fall into place.

...Chris Rallo...was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

Ah, he's chewing on the JDM bone again. Gotcha. I've not heard back the results of his letters to CRB and BoD members? S**t ain't gonna happen on its own, you know...and no one's gonna spoon-feed you on it. Just sayin'...

GA

[Greg Amy]

BTW, while I consider Jeff's "p/s lines made out of air" to be intorturation, I consider his bearing-pulley to be legal. Rule states:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

We considered that many moons ago but did not pursue it on the NX, primarily because I did not want to fight against all the hydraulics. Which is why I requested de-powering and looping the stuff...and was rejected....

GA

[JeffYoung]

I think the bearing pulley is 100% legal. I think "alternate" pulleys means you can put a bearing inside the pulley if you want, and technically even that meets Andy's limitation on the "free" pulley rule to different diameter and material as you just say the bearing is different "material."

On the lines, I'm not saying they are can be like the "air" bushings on the rear suspension of an RX7, as i understand the "trick" it is to put a restrictor in the line that effectively renders the system useless.

Do people add coolers to the power steering lines? If so, I don't see how the restrictor is really any different.....

Still, this "feels" like creep and I'm only strongly advocating one side to hash this one out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW, while I consider Jeff's "p/s lines made out of air" to be intorturation, I consider his bearing-pulley to be legal. Rule states:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

We considered that many moons ago but did not pursue it on the NX, primarily because I did not want to fight against all the hydraulics. Which is why I requested de-powering and looping the stuff...and was rejected....

GA

Still not buying it. It's not 'no further restrictions'. It's 'no further ALLOWANCES'. It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.

[JeffYoung]

I changed the pulley material. The pulley "material" is now a bearing in the center.

Still not buying it. It's not 'no further restrictions'. It's 'no further ALLOWANCES'. It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.

[Greg Amy]

It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.

Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.

See "How To Write a Rule".

GA

[pballance]

I have enjoyed the discussions about the PS issue. Looping lines work for hydraulic assisted steering, how about the RX8 that uses electric power (assisted) steering?

I think the RX8 steering is also proportional and adjusts steering effort based on speed etc. so you may have to go into the ECU to change parameters. Just to throw another wrench in the works, the ECU of the RX8 also "learns" and will trim the air/fuel settings based on "driving conditions."

I agree that it should be legal to eliminate power steering but it sure appears to be a rules creep. That said, maybe it is time to re-define IT racing in total
<----------------- Runs and hides

Back to the regular rules debate

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.


GA

Of course you can make it out of panties, it says you can. There is no reason to specify the parameters if it was meant to be open. Think it would have been easier to write "alternate PS pulleys are allowed" if they meant for them to be free?

You may change them, with those two allowances as your specific boundries. IIDSYCTYC.

[lateapex911]

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

GA

Well, you're interpreting intent.


The allowance states nothing along those line. Altering diameter could increase speeds as well.

It allows any material, not any materialS, so it COULD be argued that a bearing design would be illegal if it used more than one material.

We need a devils advocate smiley.

[Greg Amy]

Well, you're interpreting intent.

No, I'm not. I'm simply telling you what the rule says. It's the responsibility of the person(s) writing the rules to worry about the intent and convey those limitations correctly.

Jeff's pulley with the bearing in the center meets all allowances and limitations of the rule*. If that's not what was intended then shame on the rulesmakers...so don't wave your finger at me if you assumed something that wasn't there....

GA

[tderonne]

The power steering rule would be a tricky one. The Miata rule doesn't work. Miatas came with or without power steering. The rule as written for IT could open it up to aftermarket racing racks, no thanks.

I see two cases that would need to be covered:

The first, where an alternate OEM rack is available, but never came on the exact model classed. Like the Escort GT. All Escort GT's (and LXE's) came with power steering. The base Escort had power steering as an option. The base manual rack will swap right in.

The second, where there isn't an easily swapped in OEM rack. Don't know an exact car, but easy to think about. There is no manual rack to swap in. Looping the hoses would suit here. Hate to loop the hoses for case 1 though, when a proper rack is available.

Maybe the best way to handle it is on a spec line basis? No rules creep. No open door for the Widget SUX to gain 1500 HP. But a way to deal with getting rid of the system is cases where it's asked for?

[Ron Earp]

but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now.

Alright, let me try. What years from Ford can I use?

Hell, I think you should use whatever motor you like and forget the "from the same manufacturer" rule, but I'm sure I'm a minority.

[JeffYoung]

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

Alright, let me try. What years from Ford can I use?

Hell, I think you should use whatever motor you like and forget the "from the same manufacturer" rule, but I'm sure I'm a minority.

[Ron Earp]

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

No Slopars in the Rustang.

[Z3_GoCar]

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

You know the proper motor to put in a Ford is a SB Chevy

[mustanghammer]

Once convinced of that, I took the primary position of "think of the very best engine you can, one with the highest power-to-displacement, and put it into the very best chassis you can think of". My standard for the chassis was the Mazda Miata, and I tried to think of the very best "family" engine you could install into it, even using FoMoCo products as an extreme potential intorturation. Granted, I can't think of all possibilities ("crowd sourcing" will take care of that soon enough) but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now. GA

This reasoning seems to assume that a Ford engine will ever be as good as a Mazda engine so it would be "safe" to allow Ford-Mazda swaps because no one would every do that. That may very well be true but who in the SCCA is qulaified to predict the future?

The Porsche/VW relationship is interesting and I can see the logic behind why it was allowed based on corporate ownership, some shared plateforms and engines. But this does open the need for a rule that defines what a corporate family relationship is with respect to engine swaps.

One of the variables that will need to be addressed is what happens when a corporate relationship is ended? For example Ford used to own Jaguar and Volvo. It was a realtionship that is similar to the one that VW/Porsche has with shared engines, platforms, etc. But what about the fact that this relationship has ended? Would engine swaps only be allowed with chassis and engine combinations that existed when these three companies were together? What happens to swap allowances if VW sells off its interests to Porsche?

Another area of concern that can not be addressed by rule changes is Manufacturer involvement in the ST catagory. If the ST rule set further blurrs the lines between the various manufacturers how can we expect them to support us? Why would Mazda continue to offer me support for my RX7 when it has a Ford engine in it?

As I said I can see the logic but at this point I don't agree with the direction that this will take the ST catagory in.