Not unless you ask for it...it snuck in before CRB started adding adders...
April 2014 Fastrack
- Thread starter pfrichardson
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What an awesome rule!!!! Now I have no visual evidence of what you claim is in the car and what your weight is based off of. I effectively have to throw paper and tear you down just to know. Ugh.
Edit: Make JDM stuff illegal unless approved on a spec line, period. Are JDM blocks that much easier to find or something? What's the point in sourcing something from overseas if it's the 'same' as the local sauce?
Last edited:
mossaidis
New member
Assembled, low mileage JDM motors which meet the USDM-spec rule and are compliant with the STL regs are plentiful in the US. Here's one example:
http://www.jspecauto.com/
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Are they cheaper and more 'available' than US spec units?
mossaidis
New member
More available yes. In better shape yes. Cheaper... maybe in the 3rd hand market. Chip is correct as well.
Andy, we've already argumentated this, many times (see the link you quoted for the thread for the last time you complained about this). The number that's on the block is irrelevant, as it is absolutely no evidence of compliance, nor is it required on the block for it to be compliant.
If you think seeing the number stamped on the block is sufficient evidence that someone is not cheating in Super Touring - and Improved Touring, too, since it's the same exact reg - you're not using your imagination.
GA
If you think seeing the number stamped on the block is sufficient evidence that someone is not cheating in Super Touring - and Improved Touring, too, since it's the same exact reg - you're not using your imagination.
GA
I have seen swaps that were well cared for babies and others that were outright abortions.
But stillborn best describes the car I pulled mine from.....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
OK, just trying to justify to myself that the JDM flow of some of these engines is a source that can actually benefit the average racer. If they are more plentiful, in better condition and in most cases cheaper than USDM products, then it is worth it to not single them out as problem children by their JDM designation, even if they are potentially the 'same' as their cousins.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Of course that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that in a class that is based in the cc's of the motor, fostering a 'need' of grinding off the identification numbers that tell people at the very least what that lump started life out as, is ridiculous. Help the competitors by specifically allowing non-USDM motors in the STCS that have been submitted and verified as 'equal' to their USDM counterparts.
And it's NOT the same reg. We have arguedmentotured that too. No place in the ITCS does it specifically disallow part 'X' but then say that if part 'X' is the same as part 'Y' it's legal. The ITCS says that both parts 'Y' AND anything exactly the same as part 'Y', are legal regardless of origin...certainly not necessitating the need to 'hide' the original origin. It may be symantics but I am hung up on it. So be it.
Last edited:
Yes it is.
ITCS 9.1.3.A: "...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States."
ITCS 9.1.3.C: "Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts."
And leaving the block number on doesn't make it non-compliant; grinding it off just stops the bitching.
Oh, wait a sec...
Last edited:
you haven't missed anything. we've stopped the blockade on new classifications and "easy" corrections just to keep things moving, but the class-wide update is not complete.