POLL: Alternate Crankshaft Pulley???

Originally posted by grjones1:
VW's not going to help me much, And by the way neither will Ford.
Click to expand...

If Ford has TRUELY superceded these components, and documentation (Factory Dealer parts list) exists and can be obtained, then you have every right to submit this as a request to have these hubs added to the specification line, based on our existing rules... The only help you need from Ford is for one of their dealers or their Parts division to make you a copy of the appropriate paperwork clearly showing the supercession... If the part, however, is simply an upgrade part that is otherwise "avaiable" for the application, but not an official supercede, then our rules don't technically permit it's use (I say "technically", because there are some examples of just such an allowance for a couple of models in our ITCS, so apparently at one time someone figured this type of substitution was ok...)...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Darin,
I misled you. First of all, if the '81 Fiesta did indeed have a better hub, I couldn't use it because the '81 Fiesta never saw these shores and the parts for the car would not have superceded the U.S. version that I know of. My point was that eventhough the G-3 grind for the VW may have indeed been offered as a replacement for the older or other models, it was never part of the original models legal for ITC. And through some twisting of the succession rules the cam is now permitted on VW C cars. I was suggesting then that if this were the case any successive part on any model of my car could now be used on my C car, which I beleive is an absurd idea, except of course for the VWs (and it looks like the Datsuns). Forgive my sense of irony, I was simply trying to show that in light of the skewing of rules that is taking place, I am somewhat befuddled that in the case of replacing a part like a front hub with a better hub for safety reasons, a hew and cry what be raised about specific legality. Sometimes I think we can recognize the need for alternative measures when safety is an issue. And I can't comprehend why a better front hub for any car would elicit a reasonable protest (unless of course the hub required a larger rotor or the like, in which case an unacceptable performance advantage would be gained). Lord knows, we have enough issues keeping these dinosaurs running at all, than to waste our efforts nit-picking every improvement or replacement for some possible administrative breach of the rules. Let's give ouselves a break.
G
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
My point was that eventhough the G-3 grind for the VW may have indeed been offered as a replacement for the older or other models, it was never part of the original models legal for ITC. And through some twisting of the succession rules the cam is now permitted on VW C cars. I was suggesting then that if this were the case any successive part on any model of my car could now be used on my C car, which I beleive is an absurd idea, except of course for the VWs (and it looks like the Datsuns). Forgive my sense of irony....
Click to expand...

Neither the G grind cams nor the Bluebird SSS cam (510) are legal. That has already been explained.

Originally posted by grjones1:
Lord knows, we have enough issues keeping these dinosaurs running at all, than to waste our efforts nit-picking every improvement or replacement for some possible administrative breach of the rules. Let's give ouselves a break.
Click to expand...

It's far from administrative.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Geo:
It's far from administrative.
Click to expand...
I guarantee every fast VW on the East Coast is using a G-3 or otherwize updated camshaft and in their minds legally. And if replacing a part that is found to be unsafe with another safe part that offers no performance advantage is anything but "administratively" illegal (i.e., morally, commonsensibly, and responsibly legal), please explain your bureaucratic logic.
G
 
Darin,

Been able to find anything out about the Oldsmobile rear brakes?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
I did have this discussion with NASA in regards to the VW hub issue. I often race an A1 GTI in their enduro events and fear the safety issues associated with a broken hub. I've totalled a car once when a broken hub caused the front brakes to fail and I hit a tire wall at 80mph at Infineon raceway.

Back to the enduro, NASA has a 25 hour race in December. I highly doubt that an A1 hub will last 25hours w/o some rain. NASA did mention that the substitution of an A2 hub could be construed as a competitive advantage since I wouldn't be forced to schedule a pitstop at for example the 12 hour mark to change the front bearings and hubs. End result of conversation, if I update the hubs and get protested, NASA would probably DQ my car.

On the other hand, I have seen people break new German hubs on the first weekend of their use. I do not know if they had any off track excursions that put unexpected loads on the fragile hubs.
 
Joe,
I instructed for NASA at one school and they didn't even do a tech inspection- entrants supposedly teched their own cars. And their HSPE levels ran without cages and allowed engine swaps, etc. I guess my point is I'm surprised to hear they are such sticklers on what hubs you run. Iin fact if I understand it correctly they allow upgrades on brake rotors and calipers. Maybe we're not talking about the same classes?
G
Click to expand...
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...competitive advantage since I wouldn't be forced to schedule a pitstop...to change the...hubs.  End of conversation...</font>
Click to expand...

That's a classic example of stupid rules enforcement. To make such a statement implies that when the vehicle was classified this "wart" was known to everyone and was factored into the placement of the vehicle.

Patently stubborn, boneheaded, and absurd.

(edit): To get back on topic: Kinda like saying the Comp Board knew that my car was not available without power steering, and knew that my P/S system would overheat and melt lines, and knew that my water pump would cavitate, and considered all of this when they placed me into ITS many moons ago, so it would be an unfair competitive advantage to let me change out my crankshaft pulley.

If you believe that, interested in a bridge I've got for sale...?

[This message has been edited by grega (edited May 19, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Been able to find anything out about the Oldsmobile rear brakes?
Click to expand...

Bill,
I'm just curious. What's your stand on the G-3 and Bluebird?
G
Click to expand...

First, to Bill... Was I suppose to be looking into the Oldsmobile brakes??? I don't recall being tasked with that duty, so I haven't given it any thought... (though, as you did catch... that's one of the examples I was referring to above...)

Mr. Jones... I'm not sure exactly what you think the SSS cam has to do with anything here... No 510 driver believes they are legal and, to my knowledge, no one uses them... The "other" cam I was referring to for the 510 was the factory production, as-delivered-to-the-USA stock 510 camshaft that cam in the 1973 model of the car... The update/backdate rules make that cam a perfectly legal, no-extra-documentation-needed camshaft choice for the 510...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 20, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 20, 2004).]
 
Darin,

I mentioned the Olds' brake issue as an example where alternate parts were allowed. You being the information hound that you are, I figured you would either have the information, or be interested in finding out why those parts were allowed. Next time, I guess I should 'task' you w/ finding things out.

The Olds' brake issue seemed germane to the VW hub discussion The whole idea here is to give everyone a better understanding of the system.

Greg,

I don't know anything about the Datsun cam, and the only thing I know about the VW cam is what I've been told. I did some quick research on the VW cam by calling a couple of dealerships and askin for a cam for a '76 1.6 FI Scirocco. I got 3 different part #'s and a NLA. If the part is really a supercede (in either case, Datsun or VW), they should be allowed. However, as Darin points out, they need to be listed on the spec line of the car.

And there's an interesting point. The Olds' spec line says Saturn brakes, etc., but gives no part #'s.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by grega:
Kinda like saying the Comp Board knew that my car was not available without power steering, and knew that my P/S system would overheat and melt lines, and knew that my water pump would cavitate, and considered all of this when they placed me into ITS many moons ago, so it would be an unfair competitive advantage to let me change out my crankshaft pulley.

If you believe that, interested in a bridge I've got for sale...?
Click to expand...

So tell me more about this bridge....
wink.gif


My perspective...

It is not the Comp Boards job to know about all the "warts" when they class the car. They, within reason, try to put it in a class at a weight that makes sense. It is our jobs as racers to decide whether or not the car makes sense for that class warts and all.

We won't know about all the warts prior to building the car, but that is part of the risk involved in building something that isn't yet proven capable.

FWIW, I am thinking of building a Civic Coupe HX that isn't currently classed. I can not get another size water pump pulley for it. The WP pulley is driven by the timing belt, behind the TB cover. This is something that I need to figure into my decision making.

It is always cheaper to learn from others' mistakes than making our own.

Have you thought about having custom pulleys made? How much larger pulley could you squeeze in there, if the pulley was available? Are there other years available that aren't listed on the spec line that you might be able to get added and then use the backdate/update rule?

Just trying to help you with your situation within the rules as they currently are.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Mr. Jones... I'm not sure exactly what you think the SSS cam has to do with anything here...
Darin,
I was confused and that's why I asked Bill for clarification. Understand, as fast as those 510s have proven to be at times, I am just curious as to what they are using: legally or otherwise.I am happy to hear that your cams are legal.

My position on this is that the rulesmakers appear to make some decisions fairly rapidly that may give performance advantages to some makes, but they are frustratingly slow to look at some changes that would allow us all to drive safer cars. It seems to me that if some cars are losing wheels because of weak hubs (Fiestas and Rabbits), some allowance would be immediately granted to correct the situation or we as drivers would overlook corrections that give no performance advantage but correct the problem (because the rulesmakers don't appear to want to be bothered. I think the hub issue has proven obvious (that is, enough cars have lost wheels in enough races for the CRB and ITAC or whatever could have been a little proactive in coming up with a solution: something of the order of "alternate hubs may be used that give no performance advantage other than reliability." It took me 30 seconds to write that; it would take them 3 years to come to a decision not to write it.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited May 20, 2004).]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
...but they are frustratingly slow to look at some changes that would allow us all to drive safer cars.
Click to expand...

You are right Jones. It's probably because they want to avoid giving a performance advantage to some.

I believe, that as racers, we have other motives for asking for change, especially when we claim it is a "safety" issue.
 
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
You are right Jones. It's probably because they want to avoid giving a performance advantage to some.

I believe, that as racers, we have other motives for asking for change, especially when we claim it is a "safety" issue.
Granted, some would claim "safer" when they really want "faster," but plese inform me of what possible performance advantage I would get with heavier or stronger hubs. (I guess the first thing anyone is going to say is I could run a 13-hour enduro without changing my hubs. But I don't run enduros, and really wouldn't you grant me that single advantage if you knew I wasn't going to lose a wheel while you and I were entering turn 1?
G
Click to expand...
 
No. (Unless the car needs a comp adjustment)
Interesting, but off topic, conversation... Back to the pully's, it now occurs to me that changing pully's is potentially a HUGE competition adjustment. If water pump cavitation (or power steering) forces an RPM limit, then changing pullys will let the motor turn higher RPM and MAKE MORE POWER!
I know this is the case with Rotary engines. Stock, they cavitate the pump at 6000 RPM. With alternate water pump and crank pullys (both allowed for rotaries), my motor never sees LESS than 6000 RPM during a race. Comparing the 4k-6k range to the 6k to 8k range, there is a mean 20 HP (at the wheels) difference.
Perhaps this is also why the ECU rule affects cars differently? Different cars (eg Hondas) gain more RPM than other makes...
Tak
# 29 ITA (Rx-7)
SFR SCCA
 
Originally posted by Tak:
No. (Unless the car needs a comp adjustment)
Interesting, but off topic, conversation... Back to the pully's, it now occurs to me that changing pully's is potentially a HUGE competition adjustment. If water pump cavitation (or power steering) forces an RPM limit, then changing pullys will let the motor turn higher RPM and MAKE MORE POWER!
I know this is the case with Rotary engines. Stock, they cavitate the pump at 6000 RPM. With alternate water pump and crank pullys (both allowed for rotaries), my motor never sees LESS than 6000 RPM during a race. Comparing the 4k-6k range to the 6k to 8k range, there is a mean 20 HP (at the wheels) difference.
Click to expand...

Intersting info. Perhaps bringing the Wankels back in line (rule-wise) with the rest of IT and elminating the allowance for the crank pulley, the RX-7s might be a very natural fit for ITB.

What do you Wankel boys think?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
A 6000 RPM limit on a rotary will not only reduce the HP by up to 20HP, it will also force them to run a taller final drive, further limiting their performance. On top of forcing them to run 6" wide wheels.

I'd say no thanks.
 
OK guys... This is a little pre-mature, but the ITAC ended up at the same place that this thread ended up in discussing this issue, so it was decided to put the matter out for membership comment.

Keep an eye open for this to be commented on in an upcoming Fastrack and make sure to write in or call with your opinions/ideas on the matter...

Thanks,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top