Open Coolers

[rsportvolvo]

So...you disagree with the the current rules-set, and you'll just disregard the ones you don't like ?

Doesn't everyone at some level? That's why folks search for loopholes and work arounds.

What other rules might you rationalize away ?

The ITCS 37mm exhaust valve that is only 35mm from Volvo. Care to discuss more issues with the 240 and the ITCS? My reclassification request is in process and I'm awaiting the results.

You've been building that Volvo for many years, and while you've never turned a lap, you seem to have all sorts of problems with it that others don't. Dana 30 rear end, big axle tubes out each side, holds lots of oil and has a reasonably big surface area to dump some heat. When I was racing a 142 with a Dana 30 solid axle, I had all sorts of issues (gearbox, engine, etc) but never a problem with the diff. None of the other Volvo guys with that same axle seem to have overheating diff issues. A friend with a "flat-nosed turbo" 240 rally car had diff & axle issues, but he was running ballistic power levels in a difficult (pro rally) environment.

A 142 is not the same as a 242. Hence Bob Griffith's ITB 242 being termed a "toad" by Eric Curran in testing. That is part of the issue in developing a new car, it takes a lot of time and research. I've done my research, helped other running ITB 240's and worked to reclassify the car with correct specs (weight is not a big issue with me). Now I'm ready to build the car and run it. Additionally my job travel requirements have prevented my cars completion. My car will be on the the track this spring.

The axle held together, but was it running too hot? What type of differential was used? TORSEN, Salisbury, welded, etc. Moot point without actual recorded temps.

Most likely, you've picked the wrong class for your project. Feel free to build a GT car...the rules are right there in the GCR...you can modify and add all sorts of whizz-bang stuff, legally.

I can run a 3-link with a Mumford-link or Watts-link in the rear with a custom bevel gears in an alloy M30/Dana 30 axle and still be 100% ITB legal. I can also run trick aluminum Tilton style clutches and adjustble blade-type ARB's in ITB. All whiz-bang IT legal parts. GT/Production requires more engine work, not much to gain on the suspension end. I picked the correct class for my project. Same ITCS rules in the same GCR.

Sorry about the thread hijack, but isn't this about the letter written to allow additional oil coolers?

[JohnRW]

Doesn't everyone at some level? That's why folks search for loopholes and work arounds.

It's quite a leap of logic to describe adding non-compliant items as "loophole- & work around- bait".

The ITCS 37mm exhaust valve that is only 35mm from Volvo. Care to discuss more issues with the 240 and the ITCS? My reclassification request is in process and I'm awaiting the results.

...and...

A 142 is not the same as a 242.

...are "red herrings".

A Dana 30 solid axle rear is a Dana 30 solid axle rear, regardless of whether it's in a 140 or a 240. An error in the GCR re: valve diameter is just that...an error. Is the lack of language allowing trans & diff coolers an error ? LOL.

The axle held together, but was it running too hot? What type of differential was used? TORSEN, Salisbury, welded, etc. Moot point without actual recorded temps.

So...you've never raced, and you're putting together a car that, to this date, has never turned a wheel on a track, but you're finding all sorts of weak links that you wish to be addressed by changes in the rules (or as you suggested, you'll just ignore the rules), even though you've never had these problems, and those with experience with these elements have never had these problems ? Am I getting this right ? So, we should consume the time of the CRB, to solve phantom problems ?

I can run a 3-link with a Mumford-link or Watts-link in the rear with a custom bevel gears in an alloy M30/Dana 30 axle and still be 100% ITB legal. I can also run trick aluminum Tilton style clutches and adjustble blade-type ARB's in ITB.

A whole net-full of red herrings. Yeah..those are allowed by the current rules. So what ? Trans & diff coolers aren't.

Sorry about the thread hijack, but isn't this about the letter written to allow additional oil coolers?

LOL. Thread-trajectory nannying.

Overt message: You'll ignore the rules you don't like.

Subliminal message: You really wanted to build a GT car.

[rsportvolvo]

One weak link: the Dana 30. I crewed for a friends ITB 242 and he had axle issues. Other friends racing Volvos recommended looking at options to keep diff temps down as they've had issues. You didn't have any issues or didn't check temps to see if you did, not sure which.

240 has a different engine and gearbox. So the next item down the power path is the differential.

Sorry my approach doesn't meet your approval. But then again neither does my car choice. I apologize for not asking first.

Like I said, when I get to the track come by and protest away.

[lateapex911]

Like I said, when I get to the track come by and protest away.

I hope you'll regret saying that, and it was a rash comment.

You have two honorable choices:

• Campaign to get a rule you don't like changed.
• Run a legal setup, and adjust your setup legally to deal with whatever issue confronts you.

Actually, a third. Put stickers on your car more in keeping with the prep level.

David, to be blunt, your current stance shows no respect for me, or my fellow rules abiding competitors. You are stating that you will choose to increase your performance via cheating. An accidental issue, I can understand, but this is a conscious and premeditated plan, which results in a malicious cheat, and I hope your fellow competitors are aware of your approach, and your lack of respect for them.

Greg, I believe you mean "Prop wash"...or in this case "Jet wash"....

[mbuskuhl]

fellow competitors

As long as rsportvolvo stays in the SOWDIV, there are no competitors to even file protests.

Latest standings have avg. car counts at:

ITA - 6.09
ITB - .36
ITC - .36
ITE - 1.09
ITR - .82
ITS - 2.73

It's a moot point.

Anyways, back to trans coolers. How about the competitive advantage "washer bottle".

[rsportvolvo]

CRB letter sent.

My intended tone is the lack of respect for how SCCA deals with IT issues. Not my fellow compeititors.

My point is that my car is going to be 100% legal and I welcome any protests regardless of the forum banter and subsequent speculation.

Does anyone have gearbox/transaxle/differential temp logs to provide some empirical evidence to the CRB?

[JohnRW]

"What's past is prologue" - William Shakespeare, "The Tempest" (Act 2, Scene 1)

My intended tone is the lack of respect for how SCCA deals with IT issues. Not my fellow compeititors.

Hmmm. In this thread in early 2006 ( http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=18440 ) about this very same subject, you stated:

I was boasting about running shot peened rods. But let me ask you this, if you protest my car for the rods being illegal how can you prove that I shot peened my rods? Did Volvo shot peen the rods from the Factory? Were the rods shot peened from another rebuild by a shot that uses shot to clean engine parts? Basically this modification only increases the life of the rod by increasing the rods fatigue life. If you're going to complain abou that I feel sorry for you. Same goes for someone who would protest the use of a diff. cooler. That makes for a satisifying victory!

If you suspect my car's illegal, put up or shutup. Not trying to be rude, but if you aren't going to protest, then you're just a whiner. No one likes a whiner and you are doing nothing about keeping IT honest. Oh, and the accused is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.

So...where is the "respect" that you claim to have ?

In that same thread, you wrote:

The differential is a Dana 30 and can easily handle the IT power ouput. Plate style limited slips can create a lot of heat. I am thinking about solutions before the problem arises.

...then in your most recent post, today, you write:

Does anyone have gearbox/transaxle/differential temp logs to provide some empirical evidence to the CRB?

Hmmm, again. You're only now looking for evidence to back up your requests for a rules change, that you had previously stated (2006 again) was based on looking for problems that didn't actually exist. Big thumbs up here.