May Fastrack posted
- Thread starter e36its
- Start date
...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
[/b]
That is the crux of it.....you've got to do these things otherwise your stance is purely conjecture. As a competitor you have to be the 10/10ths guy otherwise your prep level will always be scrutinized and your arguments are viewed as anecdotal.
Either be the 10/10ths guy and have a right to complain or not be and keep quiet. A $2000 no gain exhaust might as well be modern art. Same as $750 no gain one off pistons.
I guess you can always fall back on the "racing ain't cheap or easy" midset.
I have to safeguard against the 65k Z3 that someone may build. I would say, however, that guy would need a prescription more than a race car.
R
ShelbyRacer
New member
You know Kirk, you always make me think. And probably not in a good way.
Now we have another factor to put in the "formula". On my car, .040 gives me 2.3%. Actually, as an easier way, we could spec overbore as a percentage of cylinder diameter, rather than a standard size... Hell, if you're making custom pistons anyway...
Combine that with the unshrouding of the valves that Darryl(?) mentioned...
Actually, I wonder how much friction is added by the 1.3% increase in circumference?
I wonder how many other things we can think of?
--BTW Kirk- you know I'm not being a butthead to you, just being a butthead in general
--
I guess you guys are right. As the Eagles sang, "Take it to the limit..."
Now we have another factor to put in the "formula". On my car, .040 gives me 2.3%. Actually, as an easier way, we could spec overbore as a percentage of cylinder diameter, rather than a standard size... Hell, if you're making custom pistons anyway...
Combine that with the unshrouding of the valves that Darryl(?) mentioned...
Actually, I wonder how much friction is added by the 1.3% increase in circumference?
I wonder how many other things we can think of?
--BTW Kirk- you know I'm not being a butthead to you, just being a butthead in general
--I guess you guys are right. As the Eagles sang, "Take it to the limit..."
I haven't seen a response to this and am curious.
Prior post:
I think it is definitely clear in the language that any IT pistoned car can overboar .040 inch. The piston language has gaps I believe.
If a factory oversize is available - I assume by the language that an exact equivalent can still be used used instead of the factory piston.
We have discussed in other places before that exact equivalent also means material and I assume method of forming said material is a part of material? However, the last section would seem to have gone to quite some length to lay out an inclusive list of all metrics which determine exact equivalent and I don't see forming method listed.
So could one walk away from reading that rule with the following:
A motor that has .040 over factory cast pistons available, can instead use exact equivalent as defined forged pistons? I think so based on the language, but do not know if it is the intent.
If it wasn't the intent, then if standard are cast and an over bore size is not available and someone is going to use e.e. pistons, then e.e. should also be defined to include forming method and the e.e. in this case should be cast as well.
But I don't think the language says that.
Prior post:
I think it is definitely clear in the language that any IT pistoned car can overboar .040 inch. The piston language has gaps I believe.
If a factory oversize is available - I assume by the language that an exact equivalent can still be used used instead of the factory piston.
We have discussed in other places before that exact equivalent also means material and I assume method of forming said material is a part of material? However, the last section would seem to have gone to quite some length to lay out an inclusive list of all metrics which determine exact equivalent and I don't see forming method listed.
So could one walk away from reading that rule with the following:
A motor that has .040 over factory cast pistons available, can instead use exact equivalent as defined forged pistons? I think so based on the language, but do not know if it is the intent.
If it wasn't the intent, then if standard are cast and an over bore size is not available and someone is going to use e.e. pistons, then e.e. should also be defined to include forming method and the e.e. in this case should be cast as well.
But I don't think the language says that.
Banzai240
New member
It's DARIN... DAR---IN...
On a 155hp motor... 2.3% increase is about 3hp... that's about 38lbs of weight on a typical ITS car classification... The Process can't possibly estimate HP potential to that granularity, but it is considered when it gets down to splitting hairs on what we think a car can make...
Like it or not... if you have rules, then you have limits... unless you are pushing those limits, you really ARE NOT fully developed. However, I don't recall anyone... at least on the ITAC, disregarding someones arguement because they weren't "fully developed"... Rather, I'd say it simply puts the argument in context...
You don't really expect us to classify/adjust/spec cars based on the middle of the road do you??
Just a quick update guys... THIS is the wording as it was SUPPOSE to have read, and as has been submitted again to the CRB and Tech department to correct the previous Fastrack release:
I'll leave it to you guys to figure out what was added and what was omitted...
Hope this helps...
what is the difference between "exact equivalent" and "equivalent"?
what is the difference between a nerd and an SCCA nerd?
what is the distinction between a nerd and a bozzo?
what is the meaning of life?
if you exist to argue do you argue to exist?
these are serious issues; I'm so glad I have this esteemed community for support. phil
what is the difference between a nerd and an SCCA nerd?
what is the distinction between a nerd and a bozzo?
what is the meaning of life?
if you exist to argue do you argue to exist?
these are serious issues; I'm so glad I have this esteemed community for support. phil
ShelbyRacer
New member
Damn, I knew I screwed that up... I didn't go back and look.
Sorry if I didn't make my poor attempt at sarcastic commentary more clear.
Non-sarcastically speaking-
I agree that it will make some minute difference, and that "fully prepared" means taking full advantage of every possible may to make an improvement.
I also do NOT expect the "formula" to take these "granular" (great word BTW) items into account. I personally subscribe to the philosophy that IT gives you a place to run, and doesn't guarantee competitiveness.
Let me also say again that I totally appreciate what the ITAC has done and is doing to fix inherited issues. A year ago, I was going to skip IT and go straight to Prod in a few years when I'm ready. I'm convinced at this point that IT is the place to be and I'm already making plans to build an ITA car in the near future, especially since my foundation vehicle just made itself available yesterday (water pump died and killed the Timing belt- crash motor).
So anyway Darin- it was not my intention to try to make something like that an issue, but merely to parody those who do...
Thanks Darin, my read on the final language is that any IT pistoned car can bore .040 over and use a forged equivalent piston. Irrespective of whether a factory cast .040 over piston is available or not. In essence forged pistion equivalent replacements are permitted in all IT pistoned cars.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, just maybe the line in your sig. could stand a revision?
planet6racing
New member
1) Spelling!
2) The SCCA Nerd doesn't have taped up glasses. Just a taped up rulebook (from over use)!
3) What's a Bozzo? Is that like a Bozo? If so, then the difference is that Bozo could actually toss the ball into the buckets in the Grand Prize Game. A nerd would still be calculating the proper trajectory...
4) Why, 42 of course!
5) Let me rephrase that question. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Good to have you back, Bill!
zracre
New member
5) Let me rephrase that question. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?
[/b]
Ok that depends on the size of the woodchuck, age and class of woodchucking competition. Then it would depend on the size of the woodchuck and the pax index you rate the woodchuck on. Is this a Regional or National woodchuck competition...there are different rules...
planet6racing
New member
I've decided to take a different approach to all the silliness.
Plus, I got to drive on track this weekend. Sure, I was instructing my students and was just in my street car, but it is amazing what rain tires and Hawk Blues do to the performance of a street car!
planet6racing
New member
Well, it also comes down to what your definition of "chuck" is. The older "chuckers" will remember the original intent of "chucking" and note how the modern version of "chucking" has ruined the original intent...
Also, the more recent "chuckers" are allowed to use electronic equipment (heart rate monitors, laser sites, trajectory computers) that aren't available to the older "chuckers"...
It's a beautiful day today. I think it is about time I fired my car for the first time this year!
Also, the more recent "chuckers" are allowed to use electronic equipment (heart rate monitors, laser sites, trajectory computers) that aren't available to the older "chuckers"...
It's a beautiful day today. I think it is about time I fired my car for the first time this year!ShelbyRacer
New member
So, just maybe the line in your sig. could stand a revision?
[/b]
Well see, it's kinda like this.
A few years back, it seemed like the standard answer to ANY proposal made to CRB about IT came back with the stock response of *doesn't fit class philosophy* or *doesn't follow the intent of IT* or whatever (obviously not direct quotes, but you get the idea).
Combine that with the golden quote of, "Ain't nothin' stock about a stock car."
My best friend did just that. It was a great quote, so I just had to use it.
Perhaps though, it may be time for a change. I think you might be right on that.
BTW- I like your sig line.
I hope you guys never took it personally, because it was never a cut on the current or recent ITAC, but more a commentary on the general stonewall attitude that *used to* be the norm.
In all these years of being on the 'net, I still have never mastered the inflection key. And if you ever met me in person you'd see that I'm not the butthead that I come of as on here. I'm a completely different kind of butthead.
I'll get to work on thinking up a new cheesy sig line.
Jake-
Better?
(I am disappointed that it went back and changed all the signatures in my old posts though...)
philstireservice
New member
Didja ever wonder?
K
[/b]
I love having my name attached to the "meaning of life"........
Go Kirk !!!One comment, and then I'm back out of here.
Chris and the rest of the committee spent a lot of time on the wording only to have it botched when it was printed. After discussions with a lot of people besides the committee, and days (literally) of agonizing over the perfect wording, someone called him to complain about it 10 minutes after it was posted.
And as per usual, some of you still can't figure out what the rule means.
Small wonder I don't spend time here anymore.
Chris and the rest of the committee spent a lot of time on the wording only to have it botched when it was printed. After discussions with a lot of people besides the committee, and days (literally) of agonizing over the perfect wording, someone called him to complain about it 10 minutes after it was posted.
And as per usual, some of you still can't figure out what the rule means.
Small wonder I don't spend time here anymore.