IT Piston Rules - Overbore

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 12:35 PM
Um I think we are forgetting the factory manual requirement.

[snapback]66169[/snapback]​

No, Joe, I haven't forgotten anything. Explain to me how the factory manual is relevant? The rules allow something (FORPs), with no reference to the factory manual, the vehicle, the engine, anything. How does the FSM resolve this when its reference is no longer valid?

I think this is gonna be fun...

Next?

 

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

What we are debating here, is not the intent of the rule. I'm right there w/ you, and agree that everyone should be allowed to bore their motor .040" over. I've already said that. What's at issue here, is what exactly allowed, vis-a-vis the written rule. The way the rule is written, if you don't have a factory spec for an .040" over piston, you can't run one, by the letter of the rule. I'm all for taking a pragmatic approach to things, but what we're trying to do here, is figure out how to change the wording of the rule to allow everyone to do it, but make it fair to everyone at the same time. At least that's what I think Darin's intention was.

What's a red herring here, is you using issues that are already addressed in the GCR. Do I think spherical bearings constitute bushings? Hell no, but that's already been ruled on. I don't agree w/ the decision, but it's been made. Same goes w/ MoTeC et. al. I don't agree w/ it, but the ruling has been made. No such ruling has been made in the case at hand.

And you just supported my arguement. Find me someone that thinks it's a logical arguement to use a piston from another make/model just because it came out of the same factory. But, if we're tightening up rules, it shouldn't take much to add the extension "for the same make/model/displacement." to "Factory oversize replacement pistons (FORP) or their exact equivalent shall be used."

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 11:39 AM
No, Joe, I haven't forgotten anything. Explain to me how the factory manual is relevant? The rules allow something (FORPs), with no reference to the factory manual, the vehicle, the engine, anything. How does the FSM resolve this when its reference is no longer valid?

I think this is gonna be fun...

Next?

[snapback]66170[/snapback]​

Greg, Where do you think the specs for the protest are gonna come from? When I protest you for .040 pistons I am gonna also include the in the protest the factory manual requirement. You can't just make up a spec for a piston that does not exist in the factory manual. The factory manual also provides proper limitations for reconditioning of the engine. The word maydoes not overide the requirement for a factory spec to cover it.

O and BTW I would prefer we have a 040 spec for everyone so we don't have an issue.

 

[Greg Amy]

Whoa, whoa, wait a second, Bill: are we debating the logical meaning of the rules, keeping in mind the philosophy of the class and the most logical original intent of the rulesmakers? Or, are we arguing the (idiotic) extreme literal interpretation of the rules as they are written today?

If we are arguing the former, then this whole (four page now) thread is utterly pointless and wasted, for anyone with a reasonable and logical brain understands that any engine can be overbored +0.040". However, if we are arguing the latter then it only follows that Honda NSX JDM pistons (as an example) are legal in the Acura Integra...

So, which is it, brother? You just can't have it both ways... - GA

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 12:47 PM
Greg, Where do you think the specs for the protest are gonna come from?

[snapback]66174[/snapback]​

That's exactly my point, Joe: using the idiotic extreme literal interpretation of the written words, there are no specs for replacement pistons! As long as I can produce a "factory oversize replacement piston" that fits within the allowed bore and keeps the compression within 1/2 point of original, they are totally legal. It simply doesn't matter what the original engine's specs were; once that sentence was added it becomes a free-for-all, limited only by the subsequent requirements and the remainder of the ITCS.

Thanks for playing, try again. - GA

 

[Bill Miller]

Well Greg, there's the rub. Are those whiz-bang NSX pistons listed as a replacement piston for the Acura? If not, you can't use them. Just because they happen to be the same size, doesn't make them a 'replacement' piston for the application in question. If you're going to claim that these are 'factory replacement' pistons, you need some documentation that they are a replacement for the application in question.



You're right, this is fun! NEXT!

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 12:59 PM
Are those whiz-bang NSX pistons listed as a replacement piston for the Acura?

No, and they don't have to be; that's my point! Where in the IT piston rule does it specify they have to be a replacement for the Acura Integra? You're 'assuming facts not in evidence', Bill. Nowhere in the ITCS rule does it state - or even imply - that those "factory oversize replacement pistons" have to be originally intended for the Acura Integra.

So, if you protest me, saying I am not running legal pistons, and I produce one and say "this is what I am using, and it is a factory oversize replacement piston" and I provide the documentation proving that it is, truly, a FORP (despite being a FORP for an NSX), how am I illegal?

...doesn't make them a 'replacement' piston for the application in question. (You must prove they) are a replacement for the application in question.

Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Where is that requirement in the ITCS? Remember, "FORPs" are allowed, and unless further restricted are wide open...

So, are we being logical, or are we being literate?

Check, fast approaching -mate... - GA


P.S. I feel sorry for all those that actually have to WORK this week...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 12:09 PM
No, and they don't have to be; that's my point! Where in the IT piston rule does it specify they have to be a replacement for the Acura Integra? You're 'assuming facts not in evidence', Bill. Nowhere in the ITCS rule does it state - or even imply - that those "factory oversize replacement pistons" have to be originally intended for the Acura Integra.

So, if you protest me, saying I am not running legal pistons, and I produce one and say "this is what I am using, and it is a factory oversize replacement piston" and I provide the documentation proving that it is, truly, a FORP (despite being a FORP for an NSX), how am I illegal?
Again, assuming facts not in evidence. Where is that requirement in the ITCS? Remember, "FORPs" are allowed, and unless further restricted are wide open...

So, are we being logical, or are we being literate?

Check, fast approaching -mate... - GA
P.S. I feel sorry for all those that actually have to WORK this week...

[snapback]66181[/snapback]​

I am not gonna type it so go read it complete .17.1.4c Checkmate pal...

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 01:20 PM
I am not gonna type it so go read it complete .17.1.4c Checkmate pal...

[snapback]66182[/snapback]​

Sorry, Joe, there's nothing in there that disallows what I'm suggesting.

Para. 1, requirement to publish specs? Not relevant.

Para. 2, updating and backdating of components and assemblies? Not relevant. This section is in regards to swapping STOCK parts and assemblies between vehicles, but ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j allows the replacement pistons; that trumps this paragraph.

Para. 2, source for stock replacement parts? Not relevant, same as above. ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j trumps it.

Para. 3, requirement for a shop manual? Not relevant.

Para. 4, VIN requirement? Not relevant.

Para. 5, minimum weight? Not relevant.

Para. 6, initial vehicle classification requirements? Not relevant.

Para. 7, reclassification/weights/restrictors? Not relevant.

Let's even step back one: read 17.1.4.B, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage." Guess what? 17.1.4.D.1.j allows this...

So just where is that checkmate, my friend? the board looks awfully tilted in my favor still. Good try, though, you get nerdie points for that. - GA

 

[Greg Amy]

Let me just nip further discussion in the bud: you won't find a way to refute this. Trsut me: you can try, and I'll respond to you, but it's clear: if you were to take this discussion to its idiotic literal extreme as is has been going over the last few days, I could literally justify a CHEVY "factory oversize replacement piston" used in an Acura. Taken to the literal extreme, it's completely legal.

But is it "right"? Of course it's not.

I just wasted a few minutes (hours?) of your time to demonstrate a point, that if you try to read into the rules something that's not there, it will bite you. By trying to literally interpret the rules in order to "legally" find against someone that is trying to use logically illegal parts (e.g., lightweight pistons, improper ring sizes), you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is, you need that baby - reasonable logic, as is described in GCR 1.2.4 - in order to justify a whole lotta other rules. Do I believe it's within the intent, philosophy, and spirit of the rules (IPSOTR) to run Chevy or NSX pistons in an Integra? Of course not. Do I believe it's within the IPSOTR to run lightweight overbore pistons or incorrect ring lands if the factory doesn't offer them? Of course not.

But, do I believe it's within the IPSOTR to block someone from running +0.040" pistons as long as they meet the factory physical characteristics of the stock piston, save bore diameter? OF COURSE NOT.

If you try to enforce that last point by literally interpreting the rules, you leave yourself open to other people literally interpreting other rules to their advantage. By doing so you create an environment of entrants who have seen where those in charge decide to do this to their advantage, "so why can't I"? Good for the goose, good for the gander, right?

Don't go there folks. Don't open yourself up to such silly things, because once that Pandora's box has been opened (further), it will get totally out of hand, MUCH worse than what I've been describing. - GA

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 01:01 PM
Let me just nip further discussion in the bud: you won't find a way to refute this. Trsut me: you can try, and I'll respond to you, but it's clear: if you were to take this discussion to its idiotic literal extreme as is has been going over the last few days, I could literally justify a CHEVY "factory oversize replacement piston" used in an Acura. Taken to the literal extreme, it's completely legal.

But is it "right"? Of course it's not.

I just wasted a few minutes (hours?) of your time to demonstrate a point, that if you try to read into the rules something that's not there, it will bite you. By trying to literally interpret the rules in order to "legally" find against someone that is trying to use logically illegal parts (e.g., lightweight pistons, improper ring sizes), you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is, you need that baby - reasonable logic, as is described in GCR 1.2.4 - in order to justify a whole lotta other rules. Do I believe it's within the intent, philosophy, and spirit of the rules (IPSOTR) to run Chevy or NSX pistons in an Integra? Of course not. Do I believe it's within the IPSOTR to run lightweight overbore pistons or incorrect ring lands if the factory doesn't offer them? Of course not.

But, do I believe it's within the IPSOTR to block someone from running +0.040" pistons as long as they meet the factory physical characteristics of the stock piston, save bore diameter? OF COURSE NOT.

If you try to enforce that last point by literally interpreting the rules, you leave yourself open to other people literally interpreting other rules to their advantage. By doing so you create an environment of entrants who have seen where those in charge decide to do this to their advantage, "so why can't I"? Good for the goose, good for the gander, right?

Don't go there folks. Don't open yourself up to such silly things, because once that Pandora's box has been opened (further), it will get totally out of hand, MUCH worse than what I've been describing. - GA

[snapback]66191[/snapback]​

I guess we agee to disagree until the protest happens because I think there is enough reference to the factory manual and factory replacement parts and specs for the model that I will make enough of a case to win a protest.

You have to make a stretch to get to a factory part being any factory blah,blah. I have 125 bucks wanna share in the COA ruling. Looser pays the second half back?

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 02:15 PM
I have 125 bucks wanna share in the COA ruling. Looser pays the second half back?

[snapback]66192[/snapback]​

Bravado doesn't work on me, Joe; besides, I typically don't respond until the taunting gets to the "triple-dog-dare-you" stage.

However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 01:27 PM
Bravado doesn't work on me, Joe; besides, I typically don't respond until the taunting gets to the "triple-dog-dare-you" stage.

However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

[snapback]66194[/snapback]​

Greg, I am not trying to exclude anyone. Second it was not a dare it was an offer to secure a ruling. The second part was a bet do we need to look up the definition of bet?

I think everyone should be able to legally bore .040 over the standard bore given in the factory manual for their make model and color and weight and date of construction for said vehicle. I agree with the absurd way rules get tortured but let me say I specifically asked about this one based on an engine I may be building and believe after a complete reading that Darin has read the rule correct.

 

[Knestis]

Veddy interrresting.

The problem here is that the only really good solution would be a REAL re-write of the pertinent bits. The addition of "clarifying" language simply puts more specific fodder for literal interpretation into play, methinks.

K

 

[HOOSER 99]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 21 2005, 08:27 PM


However, I believe your money would be much better spent getting the rule changed so that you are satisfied everyone can run 1mm overbore pistons, rather than trying to exclude a large portion of the classified vehicles. - GA

[snapback]66194[/snapback]​

I think changing the rule so everyone has the same option is the only way to do this. Leaving it up to the COA could result in an answer nobody wants.(remember functional reverse gear protest in Prod a few years ago?)
jerry

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by HOOSER 99@Nov 21 2005, 11:39 PM
I think changing the rule so everyone has the same option is the only way to do this.  Leaving it up to the COA could result in an answer nobody wants.(remember functional reverse gear protest in Prod a few years ago?)
jerry

[snapback]66245[/snapback]​

Damn Jerry, I thought I was the only one that remembered that!!!

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 11:43 PM
Damn Jerry, I thought I was the only one that remembered that!!!

[snapback]66246[/snapback]​

Oh, I am sure my friends on the CRB will NEVER forget that one!

(Wasn't it the case where the rule said you had to have a functional reverse, so a competitor rigged up a way to get a 5 speed with the shift lever, but you had to get under the car and change something with a wrench to get the car in reverse??)

It was...functional...

The CRB, as I recall, rolled their eyes, and used the word "tortured" more than once, and in several contexts....

 

[lateapex911]

Regarding the piston debacle...

Do we like the idea that big engine shops are building 40 over pistons to their own specs where no factory part exists...(because with nothing to match, it's all good to go, LOL)?

Well, we'd be fools to think that, regardless of intent or philopsphy, that it aint happening. It sure as hell is, and I *bet* there are guys out there with nice 40 over, but lightweight pistons that have no idea they have them....but their builder does...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 21 2005, 09:47 PM
Regarding the piston debacle...

Do we like the idea that big engine shops are building 40 over pistons to their own specs where no factory part exists...(because with nothing to match, it's all good to go, LOL)?

Well, we'd be fools to think that, regardless of intent or philopsphy, that  it aint happening. It sure as hell is, and I *bet* there are guys out there  with nice 40 over, but lightweight pistons that have no idea they have them....but their builder does...

[snapback]66252[/snapback]​

I'll go you one better. I bet there are guys out there that do know they have them and they'll be the ones kickin dirt.

 

[lateapex911]

LOL, well I was trying to take the high road, but I'll go YOU one better and say there are probably enough of both...