IT Piston Rules - Overbore

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 16 2005, 04:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that you would be the only one!  :bash_1_:

:023:
[snapback]65588[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


So what am I, chopped liver?? :P

Guys,

I'm w/ Darin on this (duck, was that another flying pig?). If the factory never offered a .040-over piston, the way the rule is written today, you can't just have one made up. Do I think the intent of the rule is to limit people that happen to pick a car where no 040-over factory offering was made? No, I don't, but it doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what's written in the rule book.

Darin, you get a gold star on your rules nerd hat!! :023:
 
If the written letter of the rules trumps all and intent and philosophy mean nothing, then bearings are bushings, wire is a resistor, "is" is what you make of it, and some participants don't get to maximize the preparation of their engines.

Be careful what you ask for, and don't bitch when you get it... - GA
 
It's a shame that it comes down to an vague pronoun antecedent.

Darin's right about the literal wording but in my 20 years experience with these rules - and DOZENS of conversations about oversize pistons - I have never seen this explicit interpretation trump the intent that Greg describes.

K
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 16 2005, 09:50 PM
OK so if the factory doesn't have a 040 piston as an example then how do you determine weight for the replacment? In a protest How do you determine ring thickness and spacing with no original replacement part to compare to? Believe it or not I have 1 stock rod 1 040 piston as samples for every IT engine I build. Maybe I am going to far to be legal?
[snapback]65597[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, when you get to the protest, it's up to the protestor to privide any required information (even the factory workshop manual if the car owner has documentation showing it wasn't available). Credible proof that the oversize pistons in question were NEVER available will surely be difficult to come by. Even then it's left up to the interpretation of several people who probably would not have had any significant exposure to the rule beforehand.

Grafton
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 16 2005, 08:38 PM
It's a shame that it comes down to an vague pronoun antecedent.

Darin's right about the literal wording but in my 20 years experience with these rules - and DOZENS of conversations about oversize pistons - I have never seen this explicit interpretation trump the intent that Greg describes.

K
[snapback]65632[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I understand all the issues but what I am having a problem with is we have to ASSUME what the piston weight is that we have to be equal to.

To illustrate (just using round numbers - I ave no idea what these things weigh - YET :) )

Car X is only available with .020 factory replacement pistons (FRP). They weigh 1000 grams.

Car X's stock pistons are 950 grams (exact duplicates, just smaller)

I want to go to a .040 overbore. I source forged .040 pistons. There is no FRP for a .040 overbore. What weight do I require the .040's to weigh? Greg would submit that 950 grams would be the absolute minimum allowed by the rules...some argue that since there is no spec, you can't hold them to a number that isn't printed ANYWHERE.

I do agree that the intent of the rule was to allow UP TO a .040 overbore. But where the heck are you going to get a piston that matches the specs, at the same weight of a factory piston. Aren't forged pistons lighter by nature? I would submit that nobody is gonna pay big bucks to have a custom piston made that is the same weight as a FP, just to get the additional 1mm of bore.

Lucky for me, the .020 FRP from Mazdacomp are $39 each.

AB
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 16 2005, 09:18 PM
If the written letter of the rules trumps all and intent and philosophy mean nothing, then bearings are bushings, wire is a resistor, "is" is what you make of it, and some participants don't get to maximize the preparation of their engines.

Be careful what you ask for, and don't bitch when you get it... - GA
[snapback]65631[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Greg,

Haven't we been told that that's what the stewards are supposed to rule on, what's written in the GCR, not some unwritten intent? Isn't it the CoA's job to rule on intent?
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 17 2005, 01:18 AM
...wire is a resistor,
[snapback]65631[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Again, that's BS! A wire is a wire... a resistor is a resistor...

Just because a wire has resistance, it is not the OBJECT "RESISTOR"... No more than just because a resistor provides continuity, can it be considered a WIRE...

You guys take the cake for reading into the rules what you WANT to see...
 
Guys let be logical about this. I really don't believe that the rules would not let any car have a .040" overbore if the manufacture did not make a .040" piston. But just the opposite, they want all manufactures of race cars to have the .040". With the ECU Machines aftermarket piston manufactures can duplicate anything they want and with the engineering can match weights even if the piston doesn't exist from the car manufactures.
dj
 
So we can all agree that any overbore piston (factory or exact equivilant) that is lighter than the stock is illegal - even when a specific sized factory overbore piston is not available from the MFG...

Right? Some people aren't seeing it that way.

AB
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 17 2005, 10:26 AM
...that's BS!  A wire is a wire... a resistor is a resistor...
[snapback]65688[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Of course it is, Darin. But my point is that if you live by the literal interpretation of the rules with disregard to original intent, philosophy, and common sense, you give rise to 'legal' loopholes where the literal words can be twisted to anyone's desire. That's the nature of written and spoken language. The results go both ways, positive and negative.

Said differently, if you restrict someone from running +.040 pistons by reading the rules as literally and you propose, then you logically run the risk of 6-foot wires being used as 'resistors' in order to move the MAF to a more desireable location. All I'm proposing is a little sanity and common sense enter the discussion. - GA
 
this type of thinking seemed to be behind the spherical bearings & heim joint issues.

heim joint is a name brand for spherical bearings. some of the rules say we can use heim joints. it does not say sperical bearings. i have some aurora spherical bearings on my car.

i will be at cen-div events next summer and if anyone needs an ink pen, i will gladly give, not loan but give, them the pen to write the protest.
 
Ack.

Someone willing to push the rules should need to decide which standard he's going to apply. One cannot put forth contrary propositions, that...

1. "Despite the fact that there have never been 40-over pistons made for my engine, the rules infer that it's okay for me have a set made" - an argument grounded in non-literal interpretation of the rules

and...

2. "Since there's no specification for my oversized pistons (since they never existed) I can make them as light as I want" - taking a position possible only through a literal interpretation, grounded in the absence of a specific requirement.

Damn - that made my head hurt.

That's like claiming that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is incorrectly applied by laws intended to protect endgangered species, then ignoring that fundamental presumptive position to support federal laws prohibiting medical uses of marijuana.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 17 2005, 04:31 PM
Ack.

Someone willing to push the rules should need to decide which standard he's going to apply. One cannot put forth contrary propositions, that...

1. "Despite the fact that there have never been 40-over pistons made for my engine, the rules infer that it's okay for me have a set made" - an argument grounded in non-literal interpretation of the rules

and...

2. "Since there's no specification for my oversized pistons (since they never existed) I can make them as light as I want" - taking a position possible only through a literal interpretation, grounded in the absence of a specific requirement.

Damn - that made my head hurt.

That's like claiming that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is incorrectly applied by laws intended to protect endgangered species, then ignoring that fundamental presumptive position to support federal laws prohibiting medical uses of marijuana.
K
[snapback]65763[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I may need to apply for a medical card after reading that......I think you need to have smoked a little bud to understand it. :blink: :119:
 
When I call the electronics supplier to order a resistor, he needs to know the value, the tolerance and the specific type.

What I get is a little device, specifically engineered and designed to alter current flow to a specific value.

When I get a wire, it doesn't have that function...it does have resistance, but it isn't calibrated that at 3 feet long it will provide XX amount of resistance..it isn't designed or sold for that purpose....

The piston rule seems clear, if I was building, and a40 over wasn't available, I would use a 30 or 20, as thats what the rule says...you can't have an exact replacement if there is nothing to match...without making assumptions...

That said, I can see how the intent was something else, and the rule could be read with out a bunch of brain sweat in such a way as to result in an illegal situation.

Changing the rule would result in an ugly scene where the genie gets crammed back in the bottle, which we all know is nearly impossible without his co-operation.
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 17 2005, 09:12 PM
Changing the rule would result in an ugly scene where the genie gets crammed back in the bottle, which we all know is nearly impossible without his co-operation.
[snapback]65796[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Well, then, let's stop cramming. By bringing up this overtly-literal "interpretation" of the overbore rule, you are, de facto if not du jure, already changing the rule.

I'm personally aware of more than one person who are driving cars built with +.040 bore pistons that meet the intent of the rule but whose cars' manufacturers do not offer a +.040 bore piston. These folks are as squeaky clean as you can imagine, with pistons that meet every implied intent of the rule, and have made it a specific point to be so. You are now telling them they're illegal.

If this stands, you are asking them to spend FAR more money to "rectify" this situation than what one would have to spend if you rescended the Motec and/or spherical bearings allowances. If you're OK with cramming the +.040" bore genie back into its bottle, then we've got a HELL of a lot more rules to talk about... - GA
 
So what was the real intent of the original rule? To allow IT cars to overbore the cylinders to give greater displacement and hence power, or was the rule made to allow cylinders to be overbored due to their need to be overbored, due to smoothing of possible scoring of the cylinder walls from high use? If you wanted to freshen up an old block and wanted to smooth out the cylinder walls, then you would have to add larger diameter pistons. That is the reason that car manufacturers make available factory oversized pistons, no? Like for the Hondas/Acuras, the OEM pistons only come in 0. 010 and 0.020 over stock, not 0.040 over. So was the rule written to allow for freshening up of the block a couple times so that you didn't have to buy a new block every time you wanted to do this?
Just asking.

Victor
 
As an SIT, I find this discussion very interesting... As of right now I think that Darin is right... I have always questioned it because our Auid's have in the service manual that you can put in .020 and .060 pistons... we can't afford getting any made so the decision was easy, put in .060 pistons :smilie_pokal: (That was a joke, we have been told .020 wontmake much of a difference so we have to date done nothing). Anyway when we have thought about it we certainly questioned the legality of .040 pistons. Darin, sorta glad you brought this up... good discussion, and I think a lot of people are going, oh shit!!! :unsure:

Someone mentioned Hondas and Accuras... maybe this would be a way to slow that dominant breed down a little ;) (another joke... its late, sorry :rolleyes: ).

Anyway, as an SIT that did way to many stewarding jobs this past year I have had the experience of dealing with many teny tiny "technical" issues that I think are far less of an advantage then .020 vs made up .040 pistons. The penalties were severe when I was new and I went with the flow, toward the end of the year I might have suggested less strict penalties (on some issues, but didn't because I thought it was important to follow similar penalties within region at each race every year) when someone obviosly either made a mistake or had a very very valid argument in a "gray" area especialy those that did not in my mind give the compeditors a compeditive advantiage (you would be suprised how many protest are about stupid non-benefiting issues we get sometimes). Anyway you might win a protest with me on this issue (I said might), however I might just suggest a "fix for next race" is documented in the Logbook. The only reason I say that I might consider this is cause I do agree that most view the other interpritation (that you can make pistons that never existed) and think that probably half of our leaders run what I might consider illigal pistons as it for whatever reason has become the "norm" or "accepted practice."

I have to say though I think that a larger piston would have to have a same size/weight ratio as the factor original.

This really has me thinking... how can you make an exact equivelent of something never made???

Raymond "Maybe I should shut up :bash_1_:" Blethen
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 18 2005, 04:24 AM
Well, then, let's stop cramming. By bringing up this overtly-literal "interpretation" of the overbore rule, you are, de facto if not du jure, already changing the rule.

... You are now telling them they're illegal.


[snapback]65808[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Let's make NO mistake about what I've done here... I am not "telling" anybody ANYTHING... I simply reprinted the rule here, then broke it down...

Let's not forget that this rule HASN'T been changed in MANY years, with the exception of adding the words "or forged" to it... You know why that was done, right??? (because people were making ASSUMPTIONS about what the rule "means", and were using forged anyhow...)

It's the creative minds of you-all that has changed how these rules are "accepted" amongst competitors, and the lack of tech that has allowed it to happen...

I still am finding it rather interesting how people want to follow the "letter of the rule" in some cases, and not in others... In this case, it's very clear what the rule SAYs... Unfortunately for many, it doesn't say what they'd like it to say...

As for those who are running well within the presumed "intent" of the rule (again, funny, because many of you same people have argued that we can't go by intent... only what's written...), I tend to agree... Logically, if it were intended for EVERYONE to be able to go .040" over, and it were intended for pistons to be able to be obtained or made in the appropriate equivalent size, then these people are legal... based on "intent"...

It's the ones who take it a step further and claim that in the cases where no factory oversized .040" replacement was available/offered, there are no specs to compare to and therefore, there is no requirement to maintain any "equivalency"... i.e.: .040" lightweight, or otherwise altered pistons...

THAT is where this becomes of issue... It creates outliers in the data that hurts the classification process, and, more importantly, hurts all of you trying to do things the right way, because these outliers become data points that must be taken into consideration... You know, the ones that everyone else says "there's NO WAY they are making that kind of HP..."
 
I have to confess that part of my problem is that I was around when the first "national" set of IT rules were written, so what are in fact just intepretations FEEL like long-accepted precedents.

At least in my neck of the woods 20 years ago, the commonly held understanding was that this rule allowed a "forty over" piston, that was of the same design as the OE parts - in terms of skirt length, pin height, ring arrangement, etc. I spent some dough having a set made for the old Renault after a renter blowed it up, so we went thorugh the process of defining all of those things. They were spun out of forged blanks and ended up marginally heavier than the OE parts, so we never felt like we were pushing the limits. This reflects Greg's understanding as well - not surprising 'cause he's an old fart like me.

There's little question in my mind that the roots of the overbore allowance are in the need to clean up damaged cylinders but there's no way to allow it ONLY in these cases.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 18 2005, 01:51 PM
At least in my neck of the woods 20 years ago, the commonly held understanding was that this rule allowed a "forty over" piston, that was of the same design as the OE parts - in terms of skirt length, pin height, ring arrangement, etc.
[snapback]65837[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Kirk,

I agree and we share the same understanding of the rule in this case... It's only in the cases where someone uses the fact that there is NOT a factory replacement available as reasoning to make something other than the specs would limit one to that this really is an issue, because to prevent THIS from happening (via protest, or ???), it brings the specific wording into light, and suddenly those of you out there who are built to the "spirit" of this rule would come into question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top