POLL: Alternate Crankshaft Pulley???

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Limit,
You have obviously never left the track at speed with one of your front wheels flying over the trees due to an under-engineered front hub. Sometimes we just need to use our common sense- safety is an issue whether the rules makers understand a need or not.

GRJ

Myself? No. However, besides having it happen to the car you are driving, there might not be anything worse than WATCHING it happen. And I have, several times, watched it happen to Chris and several of our friends. Usually this first thing out of their mouths was something along the line that they KNEW they should have changed it before the weekend, and it wasn't just a flip remark. It was one of the reasons we went to the Golf (okay, so there were a few others, also).

YOU choose the car, and YOU make the decisions about it.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
It was one of the reasons we went to the Golf (okay, so there were a few others, also).

Those "few others" wouldn't happen to be PONIES now would they???

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

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,


Sounds like you're saying it's ok to cheat if you feel that it's a safety issue. The VW hub issue is a pretty well known problem. I ran one of them, and had hub failures, so I know first-hand. That's also why I changed them on a regular basis, and used the German-made hubs. I've known several people that have had hub failures in A1 VWs. However, I don't know anyone that had the problem if they changed them in a timely fashion, or installed them correctly. Sure, you can get defective parts, but that can happen if you use the legal ones, or the illegal ones. I don't even need to go into how much experience Lesley has w/ VWs.

Bill,
I'm saying that my common sense tells me that if a manufacturer's part habitually fails and there is a part available that will not fail and gives no performance advantage (I can't for the life of me conceive how a heavy duty hub would make my car go faster.)then that part should be allowed, for the safety of the driver. I don't call that cheating, I call it expediency in the face of rulesmakers who lose sight of the fact that in spite of limited preparation rules, we are driving "race" cars and certain items must be made to take the strain of racing for "the safety of the driver."
The real problem is the rulesmakers are so caught up in bureaucratic BS that they don't have time to pay attention to issues that need immediate attention.
Weak hubs are a safety issue and immediate and conclusive changes should allow their correction. I don't especially want to be running beside someone who hasn't checked his front hubs and who may very likely lose a wheel at some inopportune time for both of us. Whether you call it "cheating" or not, change to a safe hub and I'll applaud your good sense, and congratulate you for beating me, if you do.
GRJ

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,


Sounds like you're saying it's ok to cheat if you feel that it's a safety issue. The VW hub issue is a pretty well known problem. I ran one of them, and had hub failures, so I know first-hand. That's also why I changed them on a regular basis, and used the German-made hubs. I've known several people that have had hub failures in A1 VWs. However, I don't know anyone that had the problem if they changed them in a timely fashion, or installed them correctly. Sure, you can get defective parts, but that can happen if you use the legal ones, or the illegal ones. I don't even need to go into how much experience Lesley has w/ VWs.

Bill,
I'm saying that my common sense tells me that if a manufacturer's part habitually fails and there is a part available that will not fail and gives no performance advantage (I can't for the life of me conceive how a heavy duty hub would make my car go faster.)then that part should be allowed, for the safety of the driver. I don't call that cheating, I call it practical expediency in the face of rulesmakers who lose sight of the fact that in spite of limited preparation rules, we are driving "race" cars and certain items must be made to take the strain of racing for "the safety of the driver." (And I would add getting rid of that glass "bomb" we're carrying around in our passenger doors.)
The real problem is the rulesmakers are so caught up in bureaucratic BS that they don't have time to pay attention to issues that need immediate attention.
Weak hubs are a safety issue and immediate and conclusive changes should allow their correction. I don't especially want to be running beside someone who hasn't checked his weak front hubs and who may very likely lose a wheel at some inopportune time for both of us. Whether you call it "cheating" or not, change to a safe hub and I'll applaud your good sense, and congratulate you for beating me, if you do.
GRJ

 

[grjones1]

[No message]

 

[OTLimit]

What you are missing in this discussion is that every item on your car has a service interval. Some of them you find the hard way. Chris is always very honest with people when they ask how often he checks and/or routinely changes a part. Given his driving style, it might be more often then you might do it, but he doesn't like me harping on him about wasting entry fees because he 'finished' a race early.

You name any car and I would bet that someone familiar with that car could name several parts that COULD be considered safety issues. Do we really want to go there, or do we want people to act responsibly?

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
What you are missing in this discussion is that every item on your car has a service interval. Some of them you find the hard way. Chris is always very honest with people when they ask how often he checks and/or routinely changes a part. Given his driving style, it might be more often then you might do it, but he doesn't like me harping on him about wasting entry fees because he 'finished' a race early.

You name any car and I would bet that someone familiar with that car could name several parts that COULD be considered safety issues. Do we really want to go there, or do we want people to act responsibly?

Leslie,
One race weekend, I broke two new "freeze-treated" hubs, both fitted with new bearings correctly. When a design is not up to racing stress, it's not up to it and needs to be replaced with something that is, if it affects the safety of the driver. This has nothing to do with "service intervals" or less-than-adequate maintenence." And I was not suggesting at anytime that Chris had done anything wrong only that if rules get in the way of safety then the rules need to be changed and the people who are making the rules need to be immediately responsive.

I don't care how responsible you are, You cannot "service" a design flaw, you must re-engineer it and replace it with something better. And as drivers for our own safety, we have to be smart enough to allow some exceptions to rules we know are inadequate when those chosen to make the rules aren't capable of recognizing a need when they see one.
I'm not going to call someone a cheater because he has the good sense to replace what he knows to be a dangerous item on his car, I'm going to thank him for looking after his own saftey and mine. And yes i think I can tell when someone is looking for a performance advantage and when he's doing what any racer knows makes good safety sense.
GRJ




[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 17, 2004).]

 

[OTLimit]

The only thing I can tell you is that whenever we have had a problem like that (multiple failures of the same part in a short period of time) we found that there was something else wrong with the car. And yes, the set up of your car (height, suspension, etc) can put significant detrimental stresses on your car that can break parts and cause failures that should NOT be blamed on the parts themselves.

Done.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

 

[Bill Miller]

Lesley is right on point w/ her comments. And, if you have supporting data, and really feel that strongly about it, write a letter.

I also agree w/ Lesley about there possibly being some other aspect that is causing the hub failures, especially if you broke two in one weekend. You state that they were 'freeze treated'. Could it be possible that whoever 'treated' them did it incorrectly, thereby weaking them?

Everyone I know that races an A1 VW changes front hubs/bearings every 4-6 weekends. I also tell this to anyone that asks me about racing one of these cars. I keep a spare set of fresh-built front knuckles in the trailer at all times. When it's time to change the ones on the car, I just swap them out, and rebuild the ones that just came off the car. Takes less than an hour.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Lesley is right on point w/ her comments.
Bill,
The hubs were treated by Cryo-One, who were supposed to know what they are doing.
Just to further my argument and I admit to being far from an automotive engineer, I only know what I see:

Fiestas use a front hub with a very thin tube that sleeves over the axle stub for about three inches. The problem with our hubs (and yes we change them out as often as possible) is that the tube attaches to the verticle hub carrier at a 90-degree angle that is razor cut, i.e. no champher or radiusing where the tube meets the hub housing. It's thin, it's not reinforced and it cracks after a few weekends and sometimes sooner. When it cracks all the way around, the wheel leaves the car. No amount of replacing bearings, perfect torquing, or hub replacement is going to correct that thin piece of jointure. The hubs need a better design and if the better design were available it should be allowed. And if it is available, I don't think anyone I race against would fault me for using it unless of course they don't want to race against me. And disallowing a car because it has been made safer is not my idea of how to win a race. (Although in listening to some of these people, it sounds like some would rather race all alone and take home a trophy than drive against healthy competition.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 17, 2004).]

 

[lateapex911]

Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

If this is such an important and well known issue I am sure that it has been "run up the flagpole" before.

I am sure there is precedence for making alternate parts available legally if the item in question can be confirmed to be faulty in design, and the replacement can be proven to be a non issue performance-wise.

The problem with replacing parts like this is the obvious issue with "reasonable". You and I might think its reasonable, and so does the guy next to you in the paddock. As a matter of fact, he liked your example so much that he utilized the same concept when he replaced his valve springs...which are known problems in the 1986 Vigaroni 2000. Seems he kept breaking them when he nudged the redline, and considered his subsequent sudden lack of acceleration a safety issue.....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[grjones1]

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

If this is such an important and well known issue I am sure that it has been "run up the flagpole" before.

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

Very funny Jake, but if lack of acceleration were a safety issue, we could protest every start on the East Coast from my experience.

As far as "running it up the flag pole," again from my experience, e.g., the exterior/interior coating issue, it would take as many years as I have left in racing to get a decision, and someone would finally answer: "the rules are adequate as written and SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness or safety of any car."

I do however find it amusing that VW was allowed to provide a camshaft that never saw an original production Rabbit as a "replacement" cam for the Rabbits. Seems as if they might work the same magic for your hub problem, i.e., if people's heads were in the right place.
I suggest heartily that all the VW people get together and use the Golf hubs. None of the remainder of us would probably know the difference, or care.
G

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Can anyone speak as to the history of this known issue from an official point of view?

Has it been brought to the attention of the CRB? The ITAC? What requests have benn made to allow alternative components, and what did the requests state? What was the response?

Well, a request was recently made to allow a alternate control arm for the Porsche 944 because control arm failure is a known issue on these cars.

The request was denied. It would set a bad precedent to allow alternate parts that are not supersessions.

I did not submit the request and I agree with the decision. As has previously been mentioned, you choose and build your choice of car, warts and all.

Is this enough precedence?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I believe precedence to allow alternate parts has been established. Wasn't it a failure/safety issue behind why the Olds Achieva/Calais were allowed to use the Saturn bearings/flanges/brakes? John Herman, are you out there?

As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I believe precedence to allow alternate parts has been established. Wasn't it a failure/safety issue behind why the Olds Achieva/Calais were allowed to use the Saturn bearings/flanges/brakes? John Herman, are you out there?

As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.

Yes, and Ford superceded the Fiesta hubs with better European Fiesta XR-2 hubs in 1981. Does that mean I get to use them?
G

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as the Rabbit camshaft goes, it's my understanding that VW did supercede the original Rabbit 1.6 cam w/ the 'G-grind' cam, which was the European 1.6 GTI cam.

It's funny how it always seems to be someone's "understanding" that this is the case, but no one seems to be able to legitimately document it.

Further, if it's NOT on the spec line... It's NOT a legal part, ESPECIALLY if it is a supercede/replacement part... since are rules specifically require it to be listed.



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

 

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I've never seen the paperwork, so I can't say for sure, that's just what I've heard. Maybe Dick Shine can shed some light on this. Also, you're 'on the inside', what have you been able to find out?

I agree that it should be listed on the spec line, as that's what the rules say. However, how many other 'mistakes' are there in the ITCS? And, didn't you say you were going to look into this, back when you were researching the Datsun 510 cam? What'd you find?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... Also, you're 'on the inside', what have you been able to find out?

...And, didn't you say you were going to look into this, back when you were researching the Datsun 510 cam? What'd you find?

I found out exactly what I've stated here numerous times... There was an SOM ruling way back in 1994 or so, based on an SS classification, that ruled some cam specs as eligible for SS. That ruling is only good until the end of that year, afterwhich the official rules need to be brought into compliance to reflect the allowance.

There was a micro-fiche referenced, of which no one seems to be able to produce, and there is nothing else available to support this allowance that has been offered, or that anyone seems to be able to come up with.

Even those closely involved at the time say "I was told that..." or "it was my understanding that...", etc...

The bottom line is that there does not appear to be any documentation supporting this allowance, and, even if there were, it's NOT listed on the spec line and is therefore NOT a legal superceded part...

HOWEVER... if someone has documentation that this camshaft was actually delivered to the USA in a Rabbit (if we are talking about Rabbits...) or a Scirocco (if we are talking about Sciroccos...), then it would simply be a matter of using the update/backdate rules and would be considered legal without having it listed...

This is actually the case with the 510, where in 1973 it was offered in the USA with a different cam profile than in previous years (I think it was the same as the L20B cam used in later cars... need to research this before taking my word on it, because the details are a little fuzzy...)... 510s could use this cam without listing it since it's a year that's listed on the spec line and was a standard part for that year...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 18, 2004).]

 

[lateapex911]

So Darin, if Mr Jones were to solicit VW and acheive a supercession of parts numbers for the hub in question, he could submit such to the SCCA boards, and be granted a classification line allowance?

Or did I read too fast!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 18, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
So Darin, if Mr Jones were to solicit VW and acheive a supercession of parts numbers for the hub in question, he could submit such to the SCCA boards, and be granted a classification line allowance?

Or did I read too fast!

Thanks for the thought, but I drive a Ford. VW's not going to help me much, And by the way neither will Ford.
G