May Fastrack posted

Well, I guess that it would be more accurate to say there was a major grey area, and it made scrutineering a protest veeeerrry difficult. I think the goal is to make the stewards job easier by making the rule read correctly and consistently.
 
Argh.

"Stock pistons and rings may be replaced. Replacement pistons may be cast or forged and may be oversize in diameter to accommodate up to a .040" overbore of the cylinder, but must be identical in terms of mass, dimensions, tolerences, and configuration to the original pistons in all other respects."

If pistons other than "factory oversize replacements" are allowed, there's no point in cluttering up the wording with that term. If it's necessary to elaborate to define "exact equivalent," leave the term out and say what the heck we want the rule to mean.

If we'd quit pissing around the edges of the wording of existing rules, throw out the ones that need changing completely, and start from the beginning with clear, prescriptive language, life would be so much simpler. List the dimensions that have to match and the implication is other dimensions DON'T. Use "factory oversize replacement" in the definition and you befuddle people for whom there IS NO SUCH THING.

K
 
What part of this verbage can't you understand.

If the rule reads that you can use .40 over pistons that must be identical in all other configurations, it seems to me (as an engine builder) that you can use pistons that are .40 overbore but can't have popup's, smaller side area, etc.

If you don't understand what the rule is saying than perhaps you sould lookup the terms and understand the technology before you complain about how the rule is worded. I suspect that anybody that knows how to build an engine understands what that rule states.

Tom Blaney
 
Now if I want the best motor I need to find someone to build an Audi piston that is .040 over rather than use a factory replacement .020 piston... stupid and expensive, but hey I just enforce the rules... :rolleyes:
Raymond
[/b]
Click to expand...

Wow, doesn't this remind you about the motec issue and stuffing a small unit in a factory box? Now if you want the best you can get a motec also. :D "stupid and expensive" I do believe that the piston issue is less expensive than the motec and keeps everyone equal if they choose to be. Lets face it .040" pistons don't do much for performance (from what I'm told) if the are legal.
 
What part of this verbage can't you understand. ... [/b]
Click to expand...

You're reading what you want it to say, or what you think it says, rather than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

Riddle me this. The rule says:

Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent with the exception of diameter shall be used.

If someone races a car for which there have never been any 40-over "factory oversize replacement pistons," how is it possible to use an "exact equivalent" of them? An exact equivalent of something that never existed??

My point is that someone went to the trouble of issuing a clarification but didn't clarify one of the most illogical parts of the rule, unless the actual intent is that we only be allowed to go oversize on cars for which +20 or +40 pistons are available over the OE parts counter - and then, only for the size that is available.

K
 
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent , with the exception of diameter, shall be used.

[/b]
Click to expand...


Ummmm..... last time I checked... .020 or .040... or whatever factory replacement size may be available... IS a DIAMETER... so the rule doesn't really CARE what DIAMETER factory replacement piston IS/WAS/SHALL BE available... Only that the "exact equivalent, with the exception of diameter" doesn't exceed .040" over standard size...

Seems pretty straightforward to me...

And let's face the facts... the ONLY wording that some of you would except is the wording that YOU propose... Which means there are THOUSANDS of variations/opinions/etc... on how to do this that ALL would get the job done...

We are into MINIMAL wording changes, because we've learned in the past that the more words we put on a page, the MORE "Interpretation" that will go on and the more chance that some "unintended consequence" will occur as a result...

The wording now makes it "clear" that ALL cars are allowed to bore UP TO .040" over, regardless of the diameter of the factory replacement piece, and the replacement pistons must be "exactly equivalent" to the factory replacement pieces, with the exception of diameter, which obviously can be up to .040" over...

Stop bitching and GO RACING! The later is WAY more fun and fulfilling... ;)
 
Darin and I are finally in agreement on one thing "Stop bitching and GO RACING! The later is WAY more fun and fulfilling..."

It appears to me that the ones who can't or won't put the effort into preparing a proper race car use it here to bitch about the ones that do. Cancel your web service, and pick up a few books you'll understand more and go faster than eveybody else will start bitching about you.
 
If that's aimed at me, Tom/Darin - it's a low blow. This is the piece of shit that I'll be dragging around this year. I pretty much just put a lowering kit and rims on it, and then post aboout it on MySpace.

almostdone.JPG


If it comes to it, I hope that the stewards have the same basic preconceptions that you do because the words don't say what you want them to say. I just had a small hope that, when it was suggested this would get fixed, it would.

Back to the garage.

K
 
Than if you bought that piece of shit your the only one to blame for that move.

If you decided to build it and didn't take the time to research the car's potential (i.e. power to weight, others records, parts availablity etc) than you are the one to blame for that also.

If you decided to build it because you like the car and like the challange than that should be adequate reward in itself.

But it still gets down to the fact that you wasted a lot of effort bitching about something that works for 90% of the grid. The rule book is already way to fat with the stewards responses to all the crying. It's about time to simplify the rules and focus on why you race.
 
I just had a small hope that, when it was suggested this would get fixed, it would.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

Some pretty well respected racing peers of yours believe that the wording fixed the problem... Some fellow VW racers amongst them...

The other wording suggested is no better and no worse... just different ways of approaching the same "problem"...

I'm of the opinion that the rule was fine the way it was... people just didn't want to accept that the factory availability of replacement parts had anything to do with these rules and that .040 was a maximum, not an "allowance"... That battle being lost, the next best thing is to get the wording adjusted so as to make the allowance without opening up three more... I think this will do that, and there is a good group of people who agree (they actually did the wording... so I suppose they ought to agree! ;) ) ... Just because there are a few who don't agree..., and let's face it... that was going to be the case anyhow... , doesn't make the rule wrong and doesn't make the people who wrote it incompetent.
 
Tom, relax, Kirk's one of the more devout racers out there, but he also happens to be smart enough to race, read the rulebook, AND post about it here. I'd dare say his cars are as clean, legal, and actually raced as any of yours.

The previous rule was ambiguous, and there was a very debatable section that people were taking advantage of. Do you want other cars out there racing illegal? With ultra lightweight pistons? I don't.

So it was reworded. Trouble is, the wording that was submitted wasn't the wording that was released.

Kirk has a point, and so does Darin....we'll never please 100% of the readers...but that doen't mean we shouldn't try.

Back to the writing board, we'll see if we can get the typos fixed.
 
Tom builds nice stuff by reputation, but is being a Dick. I don't recall ever meeting him in person, and don't quite know why I deserve it but that's how it is.

Dick.

For what it's worth, I hold the same interpretation as Dick does but, unlike him, I don't trust that some other Dick tech guy won't decide to read the rule the way it's written, rather than the way I've thought it was for the last 20 years - and that the COA in a couple years won't be made up of people who will back him up and find +.040 pistons in a Honda illegal. Or a piece of shit Golf, because they're both in the same boat there.

Kirk (who up until now has done a pretty damned good job here of arguing issues rather than being a Dick but is more than willing to play by the new rules in force here)
 
Nice comment! What frustrates me the most with this is that there is far far too much bitchin and nit picking about the rules that are mostly meaningless. You all basically know what the principal of the rules are and what the class is about. But I flip back to this board and see these string of complaints about how the rules makers did this or that and this is not fair bla bla bla.

The spirit of the club (and I an far from a club flag waving member) is to have fun and give us a place to compete for a $6 trophy against each other just like real race car drivers. But it has become so bent on tweeking the rules so you can (or think you can) get an advantage over the next guy that the fun has gone away. (I imagine the rules makers must be a whole lot more fed up with the bitchin than I am).

So again I repeat, (for the sake of improving the information exchange that this board was also famous for in the beginning) STOP Bitching about washer bottle changes, rent some track time, and try and figure out why the guy who beat you into the breaking zone at the last race did that and LEARN something.

Tom "Dick" Blaney
 
Hey Darin, I put in a classification request for an IT Nissan SER-R Spec V months ago. I have yet to see any ruling on that. Has it made it's way to the ITAC folks yet, or is it lost in the bureacratic quagmire of SCCA HQ?
 
Hey Darin, I put in a classification request for an IT Nissan SER-R Spec V months ago. I have yet to see any ruling on that. Has it made it's way to the ITAC folks yet, or is it lost in the bureacratic quagmire of SCCA HQ?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Tristan,

Isn't that car only 2-3 years old? If so, it's got a couple more years to go before it's eligible for IT.
 
Andy, Thanks. Yes, it was my thinking 2007 would be the first year of eligibility. Since I am a Nissan guy I was looking for the next project car, but want to see what the car gets weight-wise before I jump whole heartedly into a build. Also, now that ITR may become a reality, the 300zx is also floating around in the back of my head. But thanks for the heads up. I just wasn't sure anything was ever received since I had heard nothing since I sent in all the paper work.
 
Wow, doesn't this remind you about the motec issue and stuffing a small unit in a factory box? Now if you want the best you can get a motec also. :D "stupid and expensive" I do believe that the piston issue is less expensive than the motec and keeps everyone equal if they choose to be. Lets face it .040" pistons don't do much for performance (from what I'm told) if the are legal.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, there is a "real" reason to use that big of an oversize- suppose that you have a lot of prep work done to a block, or the block is very specific or difficult to get. In that case, allowing the additional oversize gets you a few more seasons out of that block before you have to bite it and buy a fresh one...

For those with a large supply of good blocks it may not seem like a big deal, but for some, it's the difference between $150-200 overbore and cleanup and a $1000 or more block prep job.

And anyone who goes .040 over for the performance gain deserves what they get... (a fool and his money are soon parted...) :023:
 
And anyone who goes .040 over for the performance gain deserves what they get... (a fool and his money are soon parted...) :023:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well... There may also be a slight benefit if the valves are particularly shrouded... Moving the cylinder walls out can help flow in this case...

I'm with you, however... I think the gains are minimal. It's more of a 'rebuildability' issue as far as I'm concerned...
 
...and if someone doesn't take full advantage of that extra 2% of displacement (my example), then they get railed on for not being serious and building the car to the maximum allowed by the rules - therefore surrendering their right to complain. ;)

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top