Open Coolers

pfcs said:
Hold it as a possibility that the comp board is the only people left with ANY idea what this class was (should be).
This talk is total senseless bullshit-what the fuck are you thinking?? Andy-please get off the ITAC-you don't belong there and neither did your vacuum line. Kirk-come on man! Don't you remember? ...
Click to expand...

Seriously, Phil - even before the most recent kerblooie from the CRB, I'd pretty much resigned myself to the reality that my IT-Luddite ways were doomed, I was so outnumbered. As Greg has been saying for years, we will eventually end up with the IT that we (collectively) want.

I'm tired of feeling like that kid with his finger in the leaky dike. I'm tired of stupid, snotty washer bottle jokes. I'm tired of the whole thing. Chris asked about coolers at the ARRC. I told him to write the proposal because at this point, it's not IF we go sledding on that slope, it's WHEN. Unless a whole bunch of people decide they don't want to go there.

K
 
Personally, I can't see why people would be adverse to coolers. Heat kills particlularly in longer races. I really don't see this as a performance advantage. Somewhere along the line someone on the CRB thought it would be ok to add an oil cooler to the engine. What is the difference with other components in the driveline? For quite some time now I have been using REM polish on final drives to reduce temperature, but that isn't always that practical or affordable for some. To me it's like an accusump or a baffled pan on an engine. We do these things not to make them faster, but to make them dependable.
 
Rabbit07 said:
Personally, I can't see why people would be adverse to coolers.
Click to expand...

Personally I am not adverse to them. If they make components last longer then can they lower the cost for the racer. I was only against the the basic disregard for the IT rules set that popped up on the thread, a comparison of washer bottles to diff coolers, and naturally tried to have some fun with it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
Personally I am not adverse to them.
Click to expand...
Neither am I. However, there is a distinct philosophical issue that we should be all keep in mind...

Rabbit07 said:
We do these things not to make them faster, but to make them dependable.
Click to expand...

But Chris, it *is* about performance. Are there not options available in final drives and limited slips that cost less, last longer, and don't get as hot, yet offer lesser performance?

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

So the philosophical argument here, noted earlier in the thread, is neatly summed up by the "warts and all" description. You choose your car, you learn its limitations, and you prep within those limits. Can't use the much-faster final drive design and LSD without blowing up? Then choose one that lasts longer; it's your decision to make. Yep, you may not be as fast, but you'll certainly spend less money (after all, this is about cost and dependability, not performance, right...?) Within the current philosophy of the rules everyone works within the limits of their vehicles either by replacing the parts on a regular basis, or choosing a different car more suited to their limitations.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of diff coolers, as long as you recognize that it's a FAR more complex issue than about just "about dependability" or "spending less money". Since both of those options are currently available to you with different rear-end parts, it's really actually about performance, AND dependability AND about spending less money.

GA
 
I don't really care either way as the Mazda final drive does run hot. I have not killed one in 12 years so I have to disagree with the earlier post about their quality. I run a clutch type and do get heat with no problems if you change the fluid every weekend. I do know there was some junk on the market the last couple of years from someone who did them wrong.

I do disagree that there is not a performance advantage. Give me a cooler and a pump to circulate fluid and I will go faster. It is never as simple as it seems. Now back to my neutral corner.:026:
 
...and let's not forget that the bastard cousin of the dependability canard, the "safety" canard. Same family tree, different diseased branch.

IMO, IT started "wandering off the reservation" when the concept of "some cars are just turds" was forgotten.

Performance modifiers ? "Adjustments" ? If you want to close up the gap between performance of different cars...if you want all cars to have a chance on the podium...thenyou should be using tight set of rules, such as many of the formula classes, or the word "spec", as in "Spec Miata", or "Spec Racer Ford".

Allow all sorts of rules concessions...and spend enough money...on a turd, and you can possibly make it fast. There are plenty of other classes that allow for that. Why screw up IT to gratuitously accomodate the selection of turds as race cars ?

I know..."I'm sooo 1990"....

(edit)

My current enduro car, a 1.6 Miata, is a reliable car...mostly. They're known differential-eaters, and I fondly recall...recently...sticking the third diff of the weekend (really) into the car and dropping it off the jackstands ~30 minutes BEFORE the start of a 12 hour race. Never lost one during a race weekend before that or after, but it's part of the game. It's the one turd-like part, in an otherwise solid package. And....yes...I know EXACTLY how hot my diff gets...been underneath the car with an IR temp gun during an enduro pit stop. "Proper assembly techniques" and "suitable lubes" mitigate the problem.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, every Honda/Acura in ITC to ITR does just fine without a tranny/diff cooler.

BTW, can we get the ITA CRX and Civic guys bigger hubs? Maybe alternate brake rotors and calipers... they seem to go through brake components much faster at their higher (post-2005) weight.

Christian, looking for a "throwing popcorn" emoticon...
 
Now this is the IT.com I used to love. People bitchin' about this rule or that interpretation. It's been a little slow here while everyone was in the sandbox. I kinda missed it.

:popcorn:
 
Greg Amy said:
And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.
Click to expand...

Ditto 240/260/280 Zs. Hard to kill them at IT power levels. Have run them all, welded,clutch pack, Quaife, open, and haven't broken one yet. 300z's have even beefier diffs so I imagine those will be relatively immune as well.
 
Of the two Benzes that run enduros, the one with a welded dif never had a problem. The one that runs slips has lost three.
Chuck
 
Two of the coolers on an IT car are already open - radiator and oil cooler. Anyone see any large scale escalation in running costs or a few class Goliaths are a result? :shrug:

Seems that most of the argument against diff and trans coolers is philosophical.

philosopher.jpg
 
The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?
Click to expand...
Why not? What's wrong with improving the car and making it more dependable? Why is that a negative in regards Improved Touring?

The rule set is not sacrosanct. Its not a religious document. There is a process to amend it and there's nothing wrong with making the effort even if it goes against a class philosophy. Maybe its time to update the philosophy. The E36 killed the concept of a low cost racing category so why are we still clinging to the idea that IT is low cost racing?
 
You know, John, you might have a good point there: why have rules at all? Why have limitations? Why have a philosophy to guide us? Maybe we should just open it up, maybe set up a default minimum standard (something like, "used to be a production car some time in its life") and let folks do whatever they want? I mean, restrictions are so...you know, restricting, that if we open it up, let folks "run whatcha brung" we'd all have a lot more fun...

I think that's a good idea: send a request to the CRB, requesting that all sections be stricken in Improved Touring. After all, how can you be "improved" when you're still running the same rules as way back in the Pinto days?!?!

:shrug:
 
Oh Jesus, I agree with THE GREG AMY.

Besides, if you have no rules, you might end up with secret military tribunals instead of Stewards and Appeals.
 
Greg Amy said:
Neither am I. However, there is a distinct philosophical issue that we should be all keep in mind...



But Chris, it *is* about performance. Are there not options available in final drives and limited slips that cost less, last longer, and don't get as hot, yet offer lesser performance?

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

So the philosophical argument here, noted earlier in the thread, is neatly summed up by the "warts and all" description. You choose your car, you learn its limitations, and you prep within those limits. Can't use the much-faster final drive design and LSD without blowing up? Then choose one that lasts longer; it's your decision to make. Yep, you may not be as fast, but you'll certainly spend less money (after all, this is about cost and dependability, not performance, right...?) Within the current philosophy of the rules everyone works within the limits of their vehicles either by replacing the parts on a regular basis, or choosing a different car more suited to their limitations.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of diff coolers, as long as you recognize that it's a FAR more complex issue than about just "about dependability" or "spending less money". Since both of those options are currently available to you with different rear-end parts, it's really actually about performance, AND dependability AND about spending less money.

GA
Click to expand...

This.

Couple of points though. The Quad4 cars were given rear discs to replace their stock rear drums, allegedly because there was a problem with them. I've asked about this several times, but nobody seems to know when and why this seemingly radical departure from the IT philosophy was allowed. And IIRC, in response to a request for something that would increase engine longevity, the AS folks were pretty much told that increased longevity was deemed to be a competitive advantage.

BTW, I've ignored the nonsense from the guy w/ the 242 Volvo because, well, just because! :D
 
Bill Miller said:
This.

Couple of points though. The Quad4 cars were given rear discs to replace their stock rear drums, allegedly because there was a problem with them. I've asked about this several times, but nobody seems to know when and why this seemingly radical departure from the IT philosophy was allowed. And IIRC, in response to a request for something that would increase engine longevity, the AS folks were pretty much told that increased longevity was deemed to be a competitive advantage.

BTW, I've ignored the nonsense from the guy w/ the 242 Volvo because, well, just because! :D
Click to expand...

Found this link with some info about the brake thing HERE... nothing completely cut and dry but it sounds like a case of the safety and durability cards being played simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top