is it cheating??

Just because it is a Mazda part for a 13B doesn't make it legal. If that rotor never was installed on a factory 2nGen RX7, it's not legal.
 
I don't know about SCCA rules for certain, but WCMA IT rules state that if a part is no longer available from the manufacturer, you are allowed to use the superceding part.

ie: if honda decided to stop making crx pistons and supercede the part number with d16a1 integra pistons, we'd all be allowed to run 10:1 compression or whatever those pistons come up with
 
Now were getting theoretical. For a case example, look at the recent Datsun 510 cam supercede issue that Darin has been working on.

IIRC it wasn't an easy deal to just use another part.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Although I feel that the question is quite clear...illegal.

But if Mazda was just to supercede the whole 13b, and show the renisis engine as the new replacement block...That would change a couple things...
 
There is a clearer example of superseded parts in the VW Rabbit cam issue. SCCA accepted the replacement part, made by VW, as the "new" replacement cam for the car...currently run in ITC. It raised the bar for the Rabbit, as it was reported.

I hope this information is accurate. I remember it from the long, long discussion on the site.

Good racing.

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill f (edited April 22, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Now were getting theoretical. For a case example, look at the recent Datsun 510 cam supercede issue that Darin has been working on.
Click to expand...

The 510 cam supercede is dead, due to the way the Nissan lists the cam. (they don't officially "supersede" the piece...

I think we worked out that there is a VERY strict interpretation of the rules that make it legal to use (has to do with the terms "supersede" and "replacement" in the rule...), but I'll leave that up to those 510 racers who choose to go that route...

As for the VW cam... We've gone over this before... If VW did in fact "supercede" this cam for the VW, then it MUST be listed on the VW's spec line to be a legal part... The SOM ruling is only good until the end of the year it was made, afterwhich it's up to the CRB to make an official change.

Looking at the VW spec lines... I have yet to see this camshaft listed... If I raced in ITC in anything OTHER than a VW... well...

For the future, we have drafted a rule that I believe was posted in the last fastrack that will make it legal to use "exact equivalent" replacement parts, meaning that you will be able to legally use other-than-OEM, but exact replacement brake rotors, cams, etc... This should help eliminate "lack of availablility" of stock pieces issues...

But for now, we have what we have...

As for a supersede of the Renesis Rotor for the stock 13B piece... You'd better have some DARN good documentation to prove that if you are going to go this route... Because it's NOT legal to use unless it's listed on the spec line, and you have to get the CRB to accept it before that will happen...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 22, 2004).]
 
It's wandering a little further afield but the "exact replacement part" rule is one of the best to happen under the current administration. That and the coilover change.

K
 
Originally posted by iambhooper:
maybe i'm wrong, but the simple way to find out would be to stalk them to the fuel pump. if they are burning a premium octane fuel, then that might giveyou reason to be suspicious.

low compression uses lower octane, right? if not, then maybe all my wankle driving friends are doing something wrong?
Click to expand...

Its not that simple..
Running more timing would require higher octane..
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
.....Because it's NOT legal to use unless it's listed on the spec line, and you have to get the CRB to accept it before that will happen...
Click to expand...

And thankfully it will be a cold day in Hadey before they do THAT!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
all you rotary haters out there should love this one, for almost 2 months Mazda has the 81-85 12a rotor housings listed as NLA, RX3 housings here we come, im going to post this over on the "new ITA class" thread cause it will change the pecking order in ITA.
 
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
all you rotary haters out there should love this one, for almost 2 months Mazda has the 81-85 12a rotor housings listed as NLA,
Click to expand...

I eluded to it previously, and I'll say it here again... NLA is NOT justification for use, based on our current rules. It must be an officially superceded part, documented in the factory parts lists by Mazda. It then must be submitted to the CRB with adequate evidence that it is a superceded part...

Just for the record... the 510 cam is NLA as well... and the only factory available piece for this application was ruled as not meeting the requirements for a superceded part, and is therefore, not legal through that channel...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...must be an officially superceded part, documented in the factory parts lists by Mazda...</font>
Click to expand...

A Catch-22 situation, no doubt. The IT rules state they give everyone a place to play, then the rules state that unless manufacturer support is offered (for 20+-yr-old cars that they no longer support or really wish to be associated with, let alone sell) then you're "ess out of luck"...

However, there's an opportunity here. I've successfully used protests as a means of getting rules changes "de facto." An example that comes to mind was in 1990 when I was racing Showroom Stock. Back then we had to run factory wheels with no changes in offsets. However the 1987 and 1988 SSA Shelby CSX was classified on the same spec line, and the 1988 CSX had 1/2" wider wheels. Therefore, we were allowed to run the '88 wheels on our '87 cars.

The problem came in that the wheels had a different offset, thus had different wheel tracks. We tried to get the track spec changed but we were rejected with "rules creep". Instead, we chose to run the wheels and "hint" to the compliance crews that 'the other guy' was running illegal track. We all got taken down and excluded due to wheel track not meeting the specs.

But we were prepared. We appealed and sent to Denver scads of information that showed we were running an allowed wheel that must result in a change in track. We got our track allowance.

The same thing can happen here. I recommend to the Datsun 510 owners and the RX-7 12A owners to work out a deal with a buddy to have yourselves protested. One of two things will happen: you will pass the protest and your cams/rotor housings will become "de facto" legal, or you will be excluded, you will appeal, and your case will go in front of the National Appeals Board. That board will have no choice but to decide one of the following:

A) your replacement cam is legal because there is no other option, or
B) you can no longer run in Improved Touring because the "legal" camshaft cannot be replaced.

I *sincerely* doubt that any reasonable person or board will take the B stance; if they do then all my cynical fears about SCCA will have been realized. I strongly suspect (and sincerely hope) that in the end your cams/rotor housings will be declared legal, either de facto or de jure.

GA
 
thanks greg, good point, Darin, are you telling me all those 510's running in ITC are running old flat cams? dont buy that one for a minute, had one in SFR give me a run for my money last year. Im going to call maz comp and see what can be done to supercede the part number asap.
 
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
thanks greg, good point, Darin, are you telling me all those 510's running in ITC are running old flat cams? dont buy that one for a minute, had one in SFR give me a run for my money last year. Im going to call maz comp and see what can be done to supercede the part number asap.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the 510s are actually running, but I do know that a factory replacement for the stock L16 cam is NLA from Nissan... Since our current rules don't actually allow other-than-OEM replacement pieces, you can think what you want about what they are running... There were a LOT of L16s made, and I doubt that they all ended up with flat cams...

OH, and Mazda Comp isn't going to cut it... It has to be OFFICIALLY superceded by Mazda in general. Parts offered through the competition department only aren't considered OEM, unless they are likewise equally offered in normal, run-of-the-mill Mazda parts guides FOR THE APPLICATION.

Been there, done that already for the 510...

One more thing... I'd love to know just HOW you guys plan on using the Renesis rotor housings on an earlier 13B (since they would be too wide for a 12A and couldn't be used, I'm assuming a 13B is what we are talking about here...), when the Renesis engine has the exhaust ports in the side-plates...
confused.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 23, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by grega:

A) your replacement cam is legal because there is no other option, or
B) you can no longer run in Improved Touring because the "legal" camshaft cannot be replaced.
Click to expand...

You forgot option "C", which is up for approval by the BoD currently...

C) Make other-than-OEM exact equivalent replacement parts legal, thereby legalizing any number of aftermarket suppliers of OEM replacement pieces...

Doesn't help the rotor-housing issue, but for just about everything else...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
The fact that I cant rebuild my motor with new OR aftermarkets parts at this time forces the issue of alternates being allowed IMO. Mazda has alternates that will work in my 12A now, they are 12A Turbo housings that have a slightly larger exhaust port, they are NOT rx3 or rx8, but 81-85 rx7 japanese housings, they have always been available over the counter here in the usa from your mazda dealer and have a factory mazda part number. Dave lemon petitioned for a similar change but was denied because the originals were still available but at doulble the price, thats not the case here. Darin, are you saying as a ITAC member you would not support an alternate part from mazda to keep 70% of the IT field on the track? no disrepect, just curious.
 
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
The fact that I cant rebuild my motor with new OR aftermarkets parts at this time forces the issue of alternates being allowed IMO.

...but 81-85 rx7 japanese housings, they have always been available over the counter here in the usa from your mazda dealer and have a factory mazda part number.

... Darin, are you saying as a ITAC member you would not support an alternate part from mazda to keep 70% of the IT field on the track? no disrepect, just curious.
Click to expand...

First, show me in the rules where any of what you stated above is LEGAL???...

I can save you some time... There is NOTHING in the rules that allows you to use anything other than FACTORY original rotor housings and sideplates that were standard on the model years listed on your spec line AS AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES on regularly produced base models of the car.

There is NOTHING in the rules that would allow ANY Japanese-only spec part as an accepted replacement for these factory pieces. This is why the 510 can't use the SSS head, etc... It was never sold on a car destined for the USA...

You may be able to get away with using rotor housings/rotor/sideplate combinations from different model years of '79-'85 RX-7, but even this may be suspect by the "as an assembly" update/backdate rules.

The rotor housings and sideplates are equivalent to a block and head on a piston engine, and there is DEFINATELY NOTHING in the rules that would allow you to use anything here but the factory pieces standard on the US model of these cars. Even replacement rotors must be specific to the US models and the years listed... as the piston rule obviously doesn't apply to rotary engines...

If the Manufacturer has OFFICIALLY superceded (not NLA, not also-available, not over the counter...) a different part number for the original pieces, and real documentation exists of this, then it would STILL Have to be submitted to the CRB for inclusion on the vehicles spec-line before it would be legal to use.

As an ITAC member, this is how I read the rules concerning this matter.

As for how I'd treat situations like this... I'd have to see what the case was. If we are talking about a legitimate supercede that performs the same function and offers similiar levels of performance, then I'd obviously be in support, because our rules allow that...

However, if manufacturers suddenly start superceding entire designs and say, for instance, just supercede the Renesis package for the original 12A package, then I'm going to fight to get the rules loophole filled up to keep this kind of non-sense from happening in IT.

If Mazda has truely superceded some higher performance parts in place of the orginal pieces, then I think this is BS and needs to be controlled in some way.

I doubt that you can come up with a real, rules based arguement, for why any currently classified rotary IT car can legally use any of the Renesis engine parts that are not already common between the two... If guys are using Renesis Rotors, they are illegal... If they are using Renesis sideplates (don't see how that is possible...) they are illegal... If they are using anything beyond what came on these cars between the years of 1979-1985 for the 1st gen or '86-?? for the 2nd... they are illegal...

I'm more than willing to hear your arguments otherwise...

Also... there is NOTHING in the current rules that allows you to use "Factory OR Aftermarket" pieces for most of the components... From Engine pieces to brake rotors... if it's NOT spelled out as acceptable in the ITCS, then you are currently required to use factory OEM replacement pieces...

Not my rules, that's just the way they are currently written... Remember, this class started from SS rules...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 23, 2004).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top