POLL: Alternate Crankshaft Pulley???

YES

The current rule allows similar results, but only for those who have room to fit larger accesory pulleys. Adding crank pulleys to the list makes sense in order to make the already allowed modifications more equally applicable. I wouldn't call this "rules creep" as much as "rules simplification" or "rules equalization".
 
YES

I tried to get this passed about 4 years ago, pointing out the illogical approach to the concept...change pulley sizes without changing the crank...same effect!!! I pointed out that there are many engines that can't take advantage of the larger waterpump pulley allowed because of interference with the crank pulley.

I was given the usual, "...sufficient as written" crud.

We have to limit the "race car" engine performance by cavitation of the water pump. I love it!

Good luck with the poll.

It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill
 
Originally posted by bill f:
It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill
Click to expand...

Bill... I have a feeling that they just may be listening...
wink.gif




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by bill f:
YES

It won't affect the powers that be, however. They are not, now or ever, listening to us.

Good racing.

Bill
Click to expand...

Umm Bill? I think you whipped it out and stepped all over it on that one!

I know they're listening....

(and I'm not referring to those damn black helicopters...those are hovering around others on the board, not me!
wink.gif
)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
I'm not sure of the definition of "listening" as used here...my perception was that for the Comp Board the word was equated with "reading".

I do know, however, that I wrote to the Comp Board with the suggestion to change the rule due to its ambiguity verses its application (you can do it, but not any way that will work), and also that alternate crank pulley/diameters were allowed on rotary engines...also IT cars.

I got shot down, as I indicated.

If the definition of "listening" has changed, then we are the richer for it. I am, however, the eternal skeptic, after racing/dealing with SCCA IT issues for the past few years. Not complaining mind you, just reciting facts of my experiences with hopes for the future.

Good Luck with the survey, and its outcome.

Good racing.

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill f (edited May 05, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by bill f:
I do know, however, that I wrote to the Comp Board with the suggestion to change the rule due to its ambiguity verses its application ... I got shot down, as I indicated.
Click to expand...

Bill... You may not realize this, but I am one of the ITAC members, and we just reviewed a letter asking for this allowance to be... well... allowed. There are those that were in favor, and those that weren't. I'm not sure what the CRB is going to do with this item, but I can assure you that the ITAC considers these matters at great length, and most of us read what goes on here. We "hear" your concerns/ideas/praise, etc...

Personally, I think that you should be allowed to change the crankshaft pulley as well, but I'm only one of 10 stating any kind of official opinion on the matter.

The CRB needs to hear both positive and negative feedback on issues, and all they tend to hear is the negative. If you guys have opinions on this stuff, and want your concerns heard, you have to write or call and let them be heard.

QVI TACET CONSENTIT
(He who is silent consents...)




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Let me throw a few issues into this discussion....

1) Should alternate main pulleys be allowed along with alternate accessory pulleys?

2) Should harmonic balancers be allowed to be removed? Remember, some cars have the harmonic balancer integral to the main pulley and others have it as a separate part.

3) What about the fact that an alternate main pulley reduces rotating mass - especially if the harmonic balancer is allowed to be changed?

A seemingly simple issue is not necessarily simple.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Ok sorry for multiple posts if they show. I'm having an internet issue.

But my initial vote was YES - it's silly to allow the accessory pullies but not the crank.

George's point is good - my pully is weighted and balanced - I'm pretty sure that the replacement (readily available) is much lighter. Though the diameter is different I think the functional benefit would be largely in the reduction of rotating mass.

So this is fundamentally the same as allowing a lightend flywheel (also readily available)- lets allow that too -
wink.gif


And while were at it since we are lightening the rotating mass - there are lighter connecting rods also - (available and since I have to rebuild my motor - this would be a great time to change this rule also)
wink.gif
biggrin.gif


Jason.

------------------
1989 ITA 240sx - #21 MARRS Series
Currently with a large hole where the #2 rod left the block.
 
Goofy question, but what accessories are mandatory? Air pump: removable. A/C compressor: removable. Power steering pump: removable ??(only IF there was a manual steering version on same ITCS line??)
Is there anything left besides alternator and water pump??
 
not a goofy question at all, but you really need to sit with the rule book and think about it. use these forums as inspiration to do the reasearch. not as the final word.
now
emmision can go so out with the air pump.
ac can go so out with the compressor.
power steering can be changed in total if a version on the same spec line came that way.
remember if you take of the pump you have to change everthing back to manual. (rack)
my 22 year old car has just 3 pulleys
dick
 
It seems like from a performance stand point, there is not a significant benefit to different pulleys.

If it only benefited people from overheating, then I'd be for it. But I too want to keep IT as inexpensive as possible.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Originally posted by gran racing:
If it only benefited people from overheating, then I'd be for it. But I too want to keep IT as inexpensive as possible.
Click to expand...


Well, see theres the point Dave....if the rule were opened, instead of changing two pulleys to slow things down, you could change just one, which would actually be cheaper.

So, on that hand, I am for it.

On the other, I would like to see a head count of cars that would benefit from the rotational weight loss. If there are some, and they are significant cars in any way, then No, sorry, leave it as is. We don't need to do that. It will be the equivilent of a lightened flywheel.

So, I am still on the fence.. looking for facts and numbers....


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
On the other, I would like to see a head count of cars that would benefit from the rotational weight loss.
Click to expand...

Q: What engines would benefit from reduced rotating mass?

A: All of them.

Also, don't ignore the question of "Do we allow only the pulley to be changed," and still requiring the harmonic balancer to be retained, thus benefitting a narrow subset of the community or do we allow everyone to change the pulley and remove the harmonic balancer, benefitting those cars that don't have a harmonics issue?.....

Hmmm......

Again, I personally don't have a problem with running a smaller, low mass pulley. They are readily available for my car and it doesn't have harmonics issues. But I am not convinced this is in the best interest of the IT community.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top