December 2013 Fastrack

[Knestis]

But, you're not installing the US-spec engine, you're installing the JDM-spec engine and calling it the same as the USDM plus allowed modifications. To do this you have to violate the stock intake manifold rule, because the JDM and USDM manifolds aren't the same. It seems pretty clear to me, you need to specifically allow the JDM motor or remove the intake manifold/throttle body number rules to make this legal.

You're not listening.

I used a bunch of parts from all over the world, all of which are per the OE US market spec, and I ended up with a OW US market spec engine.

I. Did. Not. Use. Non-US. Spec. Parts.

Set free the assumption that an "engine" is one part. It's a lot of parts.

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

....Edit: James, just to clarify: I'm not saying you can use the intake from a JDM engine to build an STL engine, I'm saying you can use the parts from the JDM engine to build a compliant STL engine as long as the parts are exactly the same. Axe/Handle/same axe.

Happy Turkey Day!

- GA

Happy Turkey Day: Greg, Chip, Kirk, Andy, and anyone else who might be lurking this thread

the point of the USDM only engine rule is compliance enforcement and staying away from small run homologation specials which we colonists rarely get.

....
happy Turkey day everyone - I'll be racing this weekend, in a way underbuilt MR2 on street tires having fun and getting passed.

So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target. When you mix and match parts, what's the motors original intake manifold and throttle body? And how do you spec and control this? Net-Net, we end up down the same garden path the Mazdaspeed turbo allowance took us.

 

[Knestis]

>> So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target.

Eggs-actly.

"Original" is defined by what came in the car, not the lump from which any parts were sourced. There's no allowance that I can run the JDM (or whatever exotic) intake manifold and throttle body, so I can't.

If my Frankenstein looks just like Bob from the block, and is made of the same parts as him, it's still just ol' Bobby - not some monster.

K

 

[Chip42]

So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target. When you mix and match parts, what's the motors original intake manifold and throttle body? And how do you spec and control this? Net-Net, we end up down the same garden path the Mazdaspeed turbo allowance took us.

Not frankensteins, just a part from here and a part from there that happen to be the same in every way as the part you need for the specified engine. you can't take a B16A3 head and a B18B3 intake and call it compliant to anything. they never came in that config. but to my knowledge, the B18C/B17/B16 are all the same blocks. the ASSEMBLY is stamped as whatever it was, but that doesn't make the shared parts unique.

yeah, you might have some 'splainin to do if you call your car a 1600 and there's the block from an 1800 in there, but measure the stroke and come out B16 spec and you're fine, IMHO.

the mazda turbo thing was pretty sneaky - the alternate MSP part was allowed as an alternate replacement for the MSM and not well vetted by the rulemakers when approved. but it was SPECIFICALLY approved, then rescinded. alternate parts that match OEM are allowed by the category rules and do not need a line item, nor does using them open a box labeled "Pandora, keep closed."

legality is an enforcement via measurement and material issue, not a stamping one.

happy 4th thursday in November to my Can"eh"dian friends.

 

[Knestis]

Too close for roasting, Goose. I'm switching to sandwiches!

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Too close for roasting, Goose. I'm switching to sandwiches!

K

From Carmina Burana:
Olium Lacus Colueram
The English translation goes something like:

Once I had dwelt on lakes, once I had been beautiful, when I was a swan. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!
The cook turns me back and forth; I am roasted to a turn on my pyre; now the waiter serves me. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted! Now I lie on the dish, and I cannot fly; I see the gnashing teeth. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!

Better make that a Veggie sandwich, maybe with Hummis

 

[lateapex911]

Ummm, that was very bizarre.

Gregs right.

Jakes Motor Blocks makes engines.
He makes a B26A.
It's just like a Honda B16A that everybody runs, but, he want's to make sales, so he charges less.
Would that be legal?
Damn straight it would.
If HONDA made it, would it then suddenly become ILLEGAL?
Of course not.
And if they lableled it B16, and to keep track of production numbers and warrantees and crap, they sold that one, labeled B16, but the same in every other way, only in Japan, would it now be suddenly illegal?
Of course not.
Now, if that engine uses a sooper flowy intake but only in Japan, does that mean the intake is legal because that labeled block came with those parts?
Of course not.

It's really very simple.

 

[Bill Miller]

And there you have the rub, because:

e. It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine.
1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same as the installed engine.

and:

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.

If you install the JDM motor then you have to install the JDM ITB manifold, which as you point out isn't allowed as the JDM is a non-USDM item.

First off, let me say that I'm with Andy on this one. I agree w/ Greg/Kirk/Chip on the interpretation, but the wording of the rule could be better.

As far as the quote above, when I read through it the first few times, I thought "Yeah, that doesn't allow the JDM motor". But after the 5th or 6th reading, it occurred to me that the "unless noted otherwise" clause is covered by "it is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine". Otherwise, 2. would invalidate e., even if you were talking about all USDM stuff.

Hope everyone had a great holiday!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Final thoughts:

IT rules state that they are to be 'models' offered in the US and must be prepared to the MFG spec unless an authorization is given in the rules. Then they go on to deal with replacement parts and what is ok...properly circling back.

ST rules say that non-USDM engines are illegal. It's a core principle of the rules which one then has to assume is overridden by the 'exact replacement' clause regardless of origin. The confusion is created when you say something is expressly illegal and then you can override that. That isn't how the IT rules work, actually the 'no legal modification may perform an expressly illegal function' wording in the IT rules makes it different in my mind.

BUT...I agree that you can run through the wording and get to a 'legal' JDM block but I certainly don't think it's clear enough. Maybe something like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent' would be better. Maybe not.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ummm, that was very bizarre.

Gregs right.

Jakes Motor Blocks makes engines.
He makes a B26A.
It's just like a Honda B16A that everybody runs, but, he want's to make sales, so he charges less.
Would that be legal?
Damn straight it would.
If HONDA made it, would it then suddenly become ILLEGAL?
Of course not.
And if they lableled it B16, and to keep track of production numbers and warrantees and crap, they sold that one, labeled B16, but the same in every other way, only in Japan, would it now be suddenly illegal?
Of course not.
Now, if that engine uses a sooper flowy intake but only in Japan, does that mean the intake is legal because that labeled block came with those parts?
Of course not.

It's really very simple.

It seems simple. Except you need to add a rule:

Jake's Motor Blocks are specifically ILLEGAL per the rules.
There is a reason that JMB are illegal, most of them are not the US spec that is required.
But some of them are exactly the same at the US versions that are legal.
Are those now legal? ESPECIALLY if they have stampings that say they are JMB's, which are indeed specifically illegal

Do we need people to have to know JDM or NUSDM specs?

 

[lateapex911]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

 

[Bill Miller]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

But there's a rule that specifically states that your engines are illegal. That's what the paper will refer to. If you want them to be allowed, I think it would be incumbent on you to get the rule changed the expressly prohibits them.

Seriously, I think that if they're dimensionally and metallurgicaly the same, they should be allowed. But outlawing JDM engines was the EASY button.

 

[dickita15]

The question comes down to the definition of engine. Is it the block or is it just a collection of specifications?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

Ahhh but they aren't exact clones. They are cast with the JMB logo and serial number easily identifying them as specifically illegal from the get go. Spec for spec notwithstanding, the rule specifically calls your product out as illegal.

Jake's Brake Discs however flourishes. Why? No specific rule disallowing them exists in the rulebook and they are exact replacement parts.

In all seriousness, saying something is explicitly illegal as one of the core rules and then hinting that it could be legal later on isn't a great rule. There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here. IT talks about specs and equivalency, while the ST rules say no right up front and then allow exact substitutions...but really not the original. It's specific in that regard.

There is a better rule to be written here and it's not because the original rule was bad, but because the class continues to evolve as to what is acceptable and what isn't IMO.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question comes down to the definition of engine. Is it the block or is it just a collection of specifications?

I would think the latter. That is why I like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent'or something like that.

 

[Greg Amy]

Spec for spec notwithstanding, the rule specifically calls your product out as illegal.

No it does not, Andy. The reg states:

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer...

...which has a clear Roffe Corollary implication that as long as the parts meet dimensional and material specifications as the original, they are compliant, to both ITCS and STCS. Nowhere in the regs are these parts limited to exact logo and inking equivalents; if they were, then why specifically call out material and dimensions?

Remember, "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!"

And, as I noted before, it is clearly against most copyright and patent law for any aftermarket parts manufacturer to produce a part that uses the exact same markings, logos, etc as the OE manufacturer; it is impossible for any aftermarket manufacturer to legally produce parts in that manner. There is not one aftermarket part in the world that would meet that requirement.

By arguing otherwise, Andy, you are attempting to change the intent of the aftermarket parts allowance and/or make it completely impossible to comply. The allowance would become moot.

There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here.

No there's not, Andy; they're exactly the same. Same IIDSYCTYC philosophy, same exact "you can only use cars and engines from the US market". The only difference is that STL allows the opportunity for non-US engine designs from other markets to be specifically approved.

But we're not talking engine designs here, Andy; we talking individual component parts, whose source is unregulated (insert George comment here...)

And in the end, if the individual parts from a JDM/EDM engine are completely indistinguishable from those in a USDM engine, why would anybody care where they came from? How does this is even come close to violating either the spirit of the letter of the regs?

Finally, I'm further offering that my position allows use of JDM/EDM engines as parts sources in Improved Touring as well (I've done it, and I've explained to others how they can do it while staying compliant to the ITCS)

So this discussion has absolutely nothing to do - zilch, zero, nothing, nada! -with the STCS's JDM engine allowance.

There is a better rule to be written here...

Nope, no rule re-write needed - and none will be pursued - simply because your position is based on faulty logic and mis-reading of the intent of the regs.

There is nothing here to "fix".

"Thank you for your input."

That is why I like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent'or something like that.

Again, we're not talking engine assemblies. I think that's where you're getting all hung up. We're talking individual component parts, the sources of which are unregulated, as long as they're identical in dimensions and materials.

And...they are. Same exact parts.

- GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well we will agree to disagree. IT rules says US chassis and US specifications. ST rules state no JDM engines allowed unless seen on a spec line. There is a difference there. And to add a rule later that allows exact replacements is great and all but flies in the face of the core rule...that does NOT exist in IT land.

Again, I see the argument and I can draw the line to legality. But I also can see how it is viewed the other way...and to me that's a bad rule.
You can only use that red stick from the US.
You can not use any red stick from the 'non-US'.
You can use a different red stick as long as it's the exact same as the red stick from the US.
The red stick I found was a 'non-US' red stick but is exactly the same as my US red stick except that it is definitely the 'non-US' version you told me I couldn't use.
So my new red stick is exactly the same as my old red stick an should be legal, so why say I can't use it in the beginning?

Still feel like there is better wording to be had. But trust me, I hear the thought process and I would tell anyone the line of thinking to get to a legal spot.

We will agree to disagree.

 

[lateapex911]

Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??

I can see that a clarification could make this easy. But, as it stands, I'd say identical trumps a label.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??

I dunno, why specifically call them out as illegal?

Obama just past sanctions on all Jake's products. It's moot.

 

[Chip42]

and people say the SCCA is too officious...