Beetle in ITC

Bill Miller · Jul 26, 2004

Darin,

I also asked you to 'run the numbers' for the Rabbit GTI, in both ITB and ITC. Guess you missed that in this interesting discussion.

Jones,

Yep, that's what I said, the rear brakes don't do anything. In fact, you could probably remove them.

Guess I should have spelled out that the point I was making is that they play such a small part in the overall breaking, that there's no significant advantage to having rear discs. Not surprised that you didn't get that.

As far as Kirk's comment about the G-grind being and 'administrative error', if I may be so bold, I believe what he was referring to was that it was an error that it was never included on the spec line of the car, not that it was allowed. But again, I'm not surprised that you didn't get that either.

Kirk,

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your comments.

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

Banzai240 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I also asked you to 'run the numbers' for the Rabbit GTI, in both ITB and ITC. Guess you missed that in this interesting discussion.

Ahhh... Yes, I did miss that part...

In ITC it would come in around 2700lbs...

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

Knestis · Jul 26, 2004

Actually, my point on the G-grind cam - ramble, wander, diverge - is that I think it was an error that it was allowed in the first place. I won't profess to know for sure WHY or HOW that error was made but its allowance seems to me to be at odds with some fundamental assumptions about the IT category.

My sense - again, not having seen the actual paper on which the decision was based - is that someone got a favorable call on the G-grind cam in a way that is unlikely to be duplicated consitently for other cars/manufacturers.

I've never seen the documentation but if it is in fact an official "supercede" part, then it doesn't need to be on the spec line. It's covered by the broader clause in the ITCS and any other part for any other car that is so designated in any fashion by the manufacturer should in fact be allowed as well, whether there has been an official sign-off by the club or not. Either that or NONE of them should be allowed. I'd frankly be more comfortable with the latter...

The Olds front hub/bearing exception is another example of an oddity that seems to follow this pattern. I don't frankly care what the rationale might be for allowing alternate parts for individual models - scarcity, safety, or whatever. I just don't think it's wise to allow them.

If we ARE going to do so, then the CRB should not "aye" or "nay" each individual decision through spec line changes. It should issue an official statement of what standards will be applied (much like the legislative branch of our government), let drivers document their decisions, and allow the protest/appeal process - the judicial - establish case law precedents.

K

ITSRX7 · Jul 26, 2004

This is a big mistake but...I am going to disagree with Kirk's symmantics...

The REPLACEMENT parts are the ones that do not need to be approved and mentioned on the spec line. The SUPERCEDED parts are the ones that do need to be specifically listed.

By definition, a superceded part can be listed IN ADDITION to the stock part, like the carbs on the Z-cars. Basically, superceded parts obsolete their originals because of better design and must be specifically approved. A REPLACEMENT part is used when the original is not available.

That is how I read - to the letter of the rules. KNowing Kirk is WAY better at this than I, please correct me...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Banzai240 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
That is how I read - to the letter of the rules. KNowing Kirk is WAY better at this than I, please correct me...

AB

Awe... Kirk isn't all THAT great at this... (

JUST KIDDING!!)

I agree completely with Andy on this one... Read those two sentances VERY carefully... the second SPECIFICALLY states that "Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies..." etc., etc... It says nothing about having to list "replacement parts"...

OK... the snowball has once again been started down the hill... I have a feeling this is going to be a LONG thread!

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

Greg Amy · Jul 26, 2004

Having worked in the automotive industry as a parts manager for many years (not currently, thank goodness), I want to make sure that everyone is aware of some basic industry definitions:

"Replacement Parts" are any parts you buy to replace what was delivered on your car from the factory. That includes oil filters, gaskets, ANYTHING that is used to REPLACE a part.

"Superceded Parts" are any parts that have a part number that is different than the prior part number, including what was originally delivered on the car. This does not necessarily mean that the part is functionally or technically different, it simply means that the factory changed the number for some reason (e.g., source, material, thickness, heat treating, etc)

Part numbers are SUPERCEDED on a CONSTANT basis. I'd wager you will not be able to go to your dealership and find ONE part that is the original part number delivered on the car from the factory. Not one.

To rely on a part number supercession to indicate a functional difference is fool's gold. Part numbers are changed for the silliest of reasons some times. If you require that all superceded part numbers are to be specifically listed within the ITCS vehicle line, you will have one of two situations:

- Cars that cannot get parts because the numbers have been superceded and are no longer available; or
- An ITCS that is volumes long with literally THOUSANDS of superceded parts listed for each vehicle. Does the ITAC and CRB have time to review all of these...?

The solution is to revert back to the current parts books (manuals, microfiche, computer listings, etc) from each vehicle manufacturer. If VW (or Volvo, or Ford, or whoever) lists part number 123.456.789.B as a factory-authorized replacement part for that car, then that's the legal part, plain and simple. To try and play the game any other way will result in your chasing your tail into a dizzy, spinning mess of doggy doo.

(Edit: after submitting and reading Darin's post, I'm not going to get into a drawn-out pissing match over this. What I wrote above is the facts, ma'am, and no amount of ITCS rules is going to change it. You can try and tilt this windmill all you want, but if you *insist* on all superceded parts must be specifically listed, then we should get together and let his former parts manager protest your car and see how far that goes.

If you continue to insist that all "superceded parts" must be listed on your vehicle line, then I insist you're a cheatin' SOB... - Greg)

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 26, 2004).]

grjones1 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by lateapex911:
The only number I suggessted you supply in my responses was a figure for driveline loss in a modern Volkswagen.

AND FRONTAL AREA AND POTENTIAL CHIP HP INCREASES!

And don't anyone admit to being wrong about K's agreement with "some" of my argument.

And Bill if you are not using the rear brakes on your race car, let's match race sometimes for pink slips.

And don't any monitor jiump in here and yell about "stealing a thread."

And Jake I'm sorry I accused you of being on the ITAC.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

Al Seim · Jul 26, 2004

GRJ:

Scirocco went in shop for cage work just yesterday. Just adding better mounting pads for front and main hoop - cage started off in 1980s as a SS cage with small bolt-in mounting pads. Will now be welded in and tied to rocker boxes (legally of course!).

Hope to see you at MARRS in Sept or VIR in Oct.

As a token gesture to keeping on topic, I think the big unknown re the NB is the HP from the large-but-low-output VW 2.0 engine once IT-built. Kind of surprising to see it in C rather than B, but I do think the ITAC and CRB guys are acting in good faith.

Banzai240 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by grega:
If you continue to insist that all "superceded parts" must be listed on your vehicle line, then I insist you're a cheatin' SOB... - Greg)

Greg,

RELAX... take a DEEP breath... It's OK... We'll get through this thing...

I'm not "insisting" anything, I'm just quoting the rules...

However, I do believe there is a BIG difference between a "replacement" or "supersede" piece that is NOT discernibly different than the part it's replacing, and one that has a different design/specs altogether...

No one is going to protest you over a different part number door hinge... Cam or Carbs... that might be a different story.

When push comes to shove, and if someone wants to be chicken $%!^ enough to protest such things, they'd win, however, based on the written rule...

NOW, this will all be pretty much a moot point if the BoD approves the new wording in the ITCS that the ITAC recomended, which basically says that you may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications... (this is paraphrased... you can read the exact wording in one of the last couple of Fastracks that were released... I think it was the July or August version...)

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 26, 2004).]

grjones1 · Jul 26, 2004

Good to hear from you Al, and good luck with Production. I'll look for you this Fall.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

grjones1 · Jul 26, 2004

NOW, this will all be pretty much a moot point if the BoD approves the new wording in the ITCS that the ITAC recomended, which basically says that you may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications... ([/B][/QUOTE]

Now this makes sense. Thank you.
GRJ

Greg Amy · Jul 26, 2004

...just quoting the rules...

And I was jus' bein' sarcastic. Guess that's what smilies are for...

The problem with trying to codify something like, "...use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications..." is that you'll have a hard time proving both the negative and the positive, for multiple reasons. First, 'what' were the original specs? On a camshaft, for example, on whose authority do you accept the duration, lift, and timing values? The OEM workshop manual? What about if the specs of that part are not in the WSM? You can't buy one of the original parts to compare it against if they're no longer available. You're caught in a Catch-22.

Second, define "factory specifications"? Isn't "the factory" (i.e., the original equipment manufacturer) the one that is specifying the replacement camshaft, thus it *is*, de facto, the factory-specified replacement camshaft? At what point, and on what authority, do we override the factory specifications? Another Catch-22.

And, since the onus is on the competitor to prove that an installed part is legal, how will I know that the part specified by the factory, and handed to me over the dealership parts counter as a factory-specified replacement part, deviates substantially from the one that was delivered on my car?

What if no one had noticed that the camshaft handed to the Rabbit owner, and ordered and purchased in good faith by the competitor, was different? Would we be having this debate? It's obvious that the competitor had no intention of cheating, so how can we label it as such? This reminds me of the old saw, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I really don't want to pursue this much further, but rest assured there are significant unintended consequences with trying to "outguess" the factory when it comes to replacement parts in Improved Touring. Further, this is such a small-scale problem as to be irrelavant, especially if PCAs get approved. I recommend the best course of action on this issue is to let this sleeping dog lie and simply rely on the factory to specify 'factory-approved original replacement parts'. Accept the part numbers that the factory specifies as approved replacement parts and this whole issue dies a quick death...

GA

Greg Amy · Jul 26, 2004

...may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications...

Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?

Remember, unintended consequences. Pandora's Box. Can 'o worms. Whatever you want to call it.

Motec, anyone? - GA

Banzai240 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by grega:
Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?

Actually, if you can fit the Motec into your factory box and attach it to factory wiring, it's legal...

This is getting way off topic, so we should move this to another thread... but:

To address your question... the burden of proof is on the competitor. There are ways of measuring the factory timing events, and you could be made to provide a factory example to be tested along with the camshaft under your hood... (Or the PROTESTOR could provide one...) There ARE ways to measure this stuff... and the SCCA tech department has this type of tool at their disposal... There may be a few cars out there where this is an issue, but I'm pretty sure that it's not as many as one might think...

It seems to be a trend around here to think of the odd-ball case and make a big issue of it, but I don't see this as being a widespread problem...

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

grjones1 · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by grega:
Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Remember, unintended consequences. Pandora's Box. Can 'o worms. Whatever you want to call it.

Motec, anyone? - GA

Just for claification: New stock Fiesta cams are no longer available, nor are any other Fiesta OEM items.

And the supercession rule is not a can of worms?
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

Greg Amy · Jul 26, 2004

...I don't see this as being a widespread problem...

I agree, so why make a widespread rule to cover it?

And the supercession rule is not a can of worms?

Of course it is, which is why it should be dropped.

Whatever, guys, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. All I have to say is don't forget:

"I told ya so!"

OTLimit · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by grega:
Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?

This is already going on in SM on a pretty major scale. I wouldn't be surprised if people have been doing it for a long time in IT. And from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

gsbaker · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by OTLimit:
...And from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.

Until you plot the lift on polar graph paper (or use a similar method) and compare it to the original specification, you don't know if the cam meets spec. And then you would have to compare the intake lobes to the exhaust lobes to get absolute relative positioning, which determines overlap.

One can't do this in the pits with a mic.

Gregg

x-ring · Jul 26, 2004

...and from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.

I understand it's particularly difficult with a Miata cam. The head of tech for the Pro Miata series told me that cam blanks are readily available from Mazda - with the proper part number roll marked on the blank. You can measure lift and duration fairly easily, but timing is much more difficult.

------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Geo · Jul 26, 2004

Originally posted by grega:
I agree, so why make a widespread rule to cover it?

It's more complicated than that Greg.

Without the proposed rule, aftermarket replacement rotors, balljoint, tie rods, etc. are no legal.

The problem is, writing a rule brings certain issues and NOT writing a rule brings others.

The problems with cams of course is that they are extremely difficult to police effectively. You cannot even go by factory parts from the dealer because some are NLA. Then there is slop in the tolerances of factory parts.

What to do? I suppose I could get skooled though.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Beetle in ITC

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

Administrator

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Administrator

Administrator

New member

New member

Administrator

New member

New member

New member

New member