OK, before continuing, please realize, the original intent of the rule change (yes I know the intent, since I share a brain with the person making the request) was to allow for a speed change of accessories for the purposes of 1) reducing water pump cavitation at high RPM and 2) reducing accessory speed to extend the life of parts, and sure, if there's a performance gain to be had, we'll take it. As far as I can glean from the rule the does exist, this allowance was made by permitting different diameter accessory pulleys. Problem is, it costs more to make custom pulleys (plural) than to get one pulley that is available, and also some vehicles have space issues that make is extremely difficult to work with the rule as written. Given that the Purpose and Intent sections of the ITCS specifically mention the idea of low cost, it makes no sense to disallow something that is cheaper to do when that can also be achieved in a much more expensive fashion, and this new method gives no other real benefit. Yes, I realize the Pandora's box I just opened here and I'm sure everyone will correct me about how wrong those statements are. Nice thing about being me is that I, probably much like most of the other intelligent posters here, realize that this makes NO DIFFERENCE in the grand scheme of things, and therefore I don't have to care
I am simply posting this so that I could hopefully encourage others who have the similar philosophy that there are those of us around here that just want to play with a race car that is truly cheap to run, and who gives a crap if we win- we just don't want to replace stuff every race. That's what GT cars are for.
So why would anyone want to vote against this rule change? The only thing is does is reduce costs. In fact, the way the rule change was written and sent to CRB, it included a disclaimer to prevent a pulley change in the event of the pulley being part of a damper assembly if applicable, but of course some moron decided to withhold that part of the request from the "request for input" thereby changing the "feel" of the rule change...
Originally posted by Geo:
Perhaps. I'd have no qualms about taking a modified OEM pulley through the COA. I'd argue that a modified OEM pulley is indeed a substitute. The choice of the word substitute simply allows you to machine one from billet IMHO.
So George, since you're one of the people on here that I typically respect, I have to ask-
Where does it say you "bloody well can" machine one? It says is that you can make your own and/or modify the crap out of a stock one? Yes, I see the part that says "Crankshaft pulleys with fewer grooves than stock may be substituted if air conditioning compressors and/or emission control air pumps are removed. Diameter and material of crankshaft pulleys shall remain as stock. Type of accessory drive (e.g., V-belt, toothed belt, etc.) shall remain as stock." but I'm really thinking that this is one of those "strained or tortured interpretations" specifically prohibited by GCR Section 1.2.4. If you really want to get technical, the alloy of steel typically used for billet is very different in chemical structure than the stamped steel typically used for pulleys. I bet my strained interpretation can beat up your strained interpretation...
If you need me, I'll be out hogging out my ports, stuffing a MOTEC into my ECM housing, and chucking up a stamped steel pulley on the old lathe to machine the thing down to the thickness of the skulls of some of the posters on the boards here... Oh wait, I wanted to REMOVE material...
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited November 19, 2004).]
