Originally posted by grjones1:
But the problem is that because of the situation as you aptly describe it, ITC cars other than the VWs are, and have been for years, racing against a camshaft that out performs any other in the field (I have no specs immediately at hand but one must assume the lift, duration , and ramp speed are superior to other federal stock cams).
All manufacturers may supercede parts at anytime.
Disallowing a supersession part would not be fair either. It's a complicated issue. We're not trying to skirt the issue, just make sure if we do anything (including accepting status quo) that we are doing the right thing.
BTW, if VWoA superceded the original federal cams with the g-grind, I have to assume they are also federalized (although this has me wondering). I can't say I know for sure, but I would have to imagine any such part that is superceded must also be approved by whatever agencies approve engines for use in cars sold in the US. Maybe that's a federal loop hole though.
Originally posted by grjones1:
And we have no means presently to match the "good fortune" of the VWs.
Let's step back from this a bit.
Some cars have better cams than others. Or better
something than others. In the case of a superceded part, you simply must accept it as if that part came on the car when it was built. The Wabbits did not get a performance adjustment. The manufacturer simply changed cams if we believe all the lore around these cams (and this is open to investigation and debate right now).
Originally posted by grjones1:
I believe this is not a question of particular cars not having been competitive (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are not responsible), but a case where rules have been inadequately imposed that grant a competitive advantage to one marque (for which SCCA, the CRB, or the ITAC are responsible).
I don't look at it quite the same way. I think the rule may have been written in mud, but I don't know that I agree it is being inadequately imposed and certainly not unfairly imposed.
Manufacturers can and do supercede parts every day. It's their prerogative. IT rules are written to simply accept this.
We're down to semantics, but it helps us draw lines. If one manufacturer supercedes a NLA part with one that happens to perform better, that's their prerogative. If others simply list the part as NLA with no supersession listed, despite a part that may work from another car, that's their prerogative as well. It's a subtle distinction, but one that must be made.
Originally posted by grjones1:
Now, whether or not the cam is a replacement or a supercession, the situation is other marques don't get the same break. And although I believe the "ITAC has spent a lot of time on this issue and continues to do so," it may be time to resolve it one way or the other.
Again, it's semantics, but nobody is being given a "break" here. The issue of supersession vs replacement is critical and though they are quite similar, they are also different. IMHO the wording in the rules got screwed up and we also don't have clear working definitions to help us either.
All of this said, my personal concern (and that of much of, if not all of, the ITAC) is whether the proper documentation actually exists somewhere. We hear about it a lot, including in this thread. If the documentation exists, we are only left with poor rule writing and/or lack of clear definitions. I think we'll settle this one. It honestly may not happen immediately because quite frankly there are bigger fish to fry. But it's clearly on our radar screen. Even if all we end up doing is confirming the stories about this cam and its legality, that will still be an accomplishment.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
