More rules pondering...

P

PSherm

New member
With all the discussion going on concerning the ECU rules, I've had questions rolling around my noggin concerning other rules/allowances. Now, please remember I have not run in IT, nor do I have my car ready. I have only been playing in this racing game 4 years, and all of it in SSC. Also, keep in mind that I am looking at IT as a stepping stone, as it pertains to the overall SCCA classing structure (ie, SS - IT - Prod).

So here goes, and please be gentle... :D

1) No battery relocation - Okay, I understand the "keep it stock-ish" thing, but I've seen a lot of frontal collisions that certainly make the battery a hazard. Battery relocation is pretty cheap for a marine-style box and cable. I admit, this would be beneficial for me since I drive a Neon.

2) .040 overbore - What does this really buy anybody? Overbore pistons (at least for my car) are way more expensive, plus the cost of the overbore, and for what? Approximately a 1% increase in volume? I would rather see the rule keeping the factory spec bore size and allow sleeving to get back to the factory spec (see SM).

3) ANY clutch/pressure plate - Another allowance that I don't understand on essentially "stock" engines. I think it's a bit silly to allow anyone that wants to/can afford to buy super lightweight and expensive clutches when the engine makes maybe 10% more power. Isn't this supposed to be "inexpensive" racing? I'd rather see this as any OEM-type replacement clutch/pressure plate.

As stated, I don't have a lot invested in my IT car (YET!), so my opinions are probably different from most everybody else's here... :rolleyes:

Other's thoughts?
 
Paul, the ONE thing I always try to stress to folks when they question "why?" on IT rules is a sense of history: try to imagine the context in which these rules were generated, way back in 1983 (or earlier). That may be tough if you are much younger than I am (42 as of this writing) but try anyway.

With this in mind...

1) No battery relocation[/b]
Click to expand...
If it doesn't say you can...in 1983 IT was an offshoot of Showroom Stock. This was back when Showroom Stock meant "showroom stock"; we ran stock seats, stock steering wheels, stock brake pads, stock wheels. And, in 1983, even the INTERIOR of IT cars was still installed (the reasoning behind allowing removal was a combo of lack of replacement parts and fear of fire).

Finally, back then relocation of batteries was common only on full-up race cars like Trans-Am.

So, in the context of 1983 and Showroom Stock, relocating the battery was not a consideration.

2) .040 overbore - What does this really buy anybody?[/b]
Click to expand...
In 1983, worn-out engines on the street were actually "repaired." The most common repair for a worn or scored cylinder bore was to bore it out and stuff in larger pistons. Back then, resleeving engines was uncommon and expensive.

Today, engines don't wear out near as much, and worn-out ones are usually sent to the junkyard. So, in the context on 1983...

3) ANY clutch/pressure plate[/b]
Click to expand...

1983, again: we didn't have high-tech aluminum pressure plates and oddball-metal discs. We had stock, and slightly hotter than stock. It wasn't until the 90s that we started to see $1500 clutches for econoboxes that weighed half of what you could buy at the local Western Auto parts store...

Rules evolve from user input, but it should be apparent that changes come slowly around these parts. But, unless you send in the request, they'll never change on their own...
 
Greg, thanks for the history lesson. Since I haven't been around that long, I don't know when some of the rules/allowances were put in place. What I was hoping for in my post though, was some actual feedback on what others thought about these allowances. If there were others that felt the same way, I would have no problem with inquiring about changes, and asking the ITAC to make changes. It just seems like the items I brought up were were a bit confusing to me while building my car, since IT is supposed to be stock-based, and "inexpensive". :rolleyes:

And I AM older than you... :P
 
Sleeving blocks gets dirt cheap when available blocks are no longer available. It is quite common for anyone running a Ford 2000cc engine (FC, CFC, S2) that was only available here in the states from '71 to '73 or the Kent 1600 in FF or CFF. IIRC it’s about a C-note a hole.

The soap box is out and I know I’m going to get dumped on but here it goes. I too liked the history lesson and am also older than Greg. The bit about a "sense of history" has me concerned (not about Greg, the guy obviously knows what he's doing) about our rule set and the SCCA in general as I have heard this from some here and several of the much older people that run our regions, races and divisions.

I don't know about you guys but reasons like "we've always done it that way" and “who knows what that would can lead to” are a good way to find yourself behind the curve in business and everyday life let alone racing. I get concerned when race entries and numbers of available volunteers are dropping off and nothing is being done to make it easier and worth the effort to race in the first place.

Now I am not advocating a complete rewrite of the rule set but when an idea makes a lot of sense and there are good reasons (including the catch all “for safety” and my favorite “it makes life easier”) supporting the making or changing of a rule it should not be shot down with a reply like "inconsistent with class philosophy". What philosophy? The same one we’re following on a slow downward spiral?

Also, we should not hide behind "rules creep" because if you look closer it might just be "progress" and necessary for the continued health of the SCCA. If you make things difficult for people they will go do, buy or heaven forbid, race with something else.
 
I don't know about you guys but reasons like "we've always done it that way" and "who knows what that would can lead to" are a good way to find yourself behind the curve in business and everyday life let alone racing. .......

Now I am not advocating a complete rewrite of the rule set but when an idea makes a lot of sense and there are good reasons (including the catch all "for safety" and my favorite "it makes life easier") supporting the making or changing of a rule it should not be shot down with a reply like "inconsistent with class philosophy". What philosophy? The same one we're following on a slow downward spiral?

[/b]
Click to expand...

I see the need for balance.

True there are some rules on the books that could stand a closer examination, but...overall, the category is pretty darn healthy, healthier than it's been in a long time if you ask me.

I tend to look at, and work on big issues that I think are the architectural building blocks of the category. One that I see as very important is fairness and parity.

The number one reason people say they won't race Prod, (when asked) is the method of comp adjustments practiced by the PAC.

So, in IT, we went a different way. I think our method is working well...it's really NOT a comp adjustment method at all! And THAT is the reason it's better, and people have faith in the categories basic stability.

Recently I finally decided to jump into the ECU issue and take a good thorough look at that, as it's been a major rules cluster -f$#k for years, and has hurt parity.

So, things ARE changing, but I honestly lose no sleep over the little things, like battery relocation. Sure, it might be better, but I don't think THAT rule is hurting the category as a whole. Thats not to say it won't be adressed, but it's further down the list.

Here's an example of how things aren't as stuck in the mud as some think. We recently got a letter requesting a modification be allowed on a certain car for egress safety issues. The immediate consensus was "no" and it should have been, as IT rules are categorical, not car specific. But as I thought about it, I liked the idea. So now we are dicussing the allowance across the board, ...all cars that fit that description may get the allowance. Now, the vote hasn't gone down, but at least it's being discussed.

The ITAC has to remember that in some ways, "It aint broke", so changes need to be well reasoned. But there are a number of ITAC members who are very open to changes, as long as they are not just for the sake of change.
 
Greg, thanks for the history lesson. Since I haven't been around that long, I don't know when some of the rules/allowances were put in place. What I was hoping for in my post though, was some actual feedback on what others thought about these allowances. If there were others that felt the same way, I would have no problem with inquiring about changes, and asking the ITAC to make changes. It just seems like the items I brought up were were a bit confusing to me while building my car, since IT is supposed to be stock-based, and "inexpensive". :rolleyes:

And I AM older than you... :P
[/b]
Click to expand...


I would support changing #2 and #3 rules. I don't see a reason to allow the modifications as per the current rules. I think that the ITAC and CRB now has a model that could still fit cars into the appropriate class if those rules were to change. However I do recognize that we (SCCA) would see many upset people whom have invested in the currently allowed parts.

Based on only this thread and this discussion relocating the Battery is not a rule that I support. Why would you think that should be an allowance but the other rules are "far fetched." While I do think that keeping costs down is important, keeping things more towards Showroom Stock rather than Production is what I think will keep costs at a minimum.

Raymond
 
1) No battery relocation - Okay, I understand the "keep it stock-ish" thing, but I've seen a lot of frontal collisions that certainly make the battery a hazard. Battery relocation is pretty cheap for a marine-style box and cable. I admit, this would be beneficial for me since I drive a Neon.[/b]
Click to expand...

I believe a properly secured battery is just fine. No need to open this up.

2) .040 overbore - What does this really buy anybody? Overbore pistons (at least for my car) are way more expensive, plus the cost of the overbore, and for what? Approximately a 1% increase in volume? I would rather see the rule keeping the factory spec bore size and allow sleeving to get back to the factory spec (see SM).[/b]
Click to expand...

An overbore allows you to do a couple things IMHO. You get to use a block a couple times for one. Overbore pistons are not always more expensive (my .020 factory overbore slugs were $39.97 each). I get the impression you don't see any value in the allowance - then I submit you don't do it! If you perceive there to be no good reason to do it, don't. Right?

3) ANY clutch/pressure plate - Another allowance that I don't understand on essentially "stock" engines. I think it's a bit silly to allow anyone that wants to/can afford to buy super lightweight and expensive clutches when the engine makes maybe 10% more power. Isn't this supposed to be "inexpensive" racing? I'd rather see this as any OEM-type replacement clutch/pressure plate.[/b]
Click to expand...

This is a tough one. First off, think about the rule you would write and then see what people think. There are WAY more people who would complain that their 'racecar' has to have an OEM style replacement clutch and PP than have an issue with this rule. My 'super' lightweight C & PP cost me $400. That's not much more than an OEM replacement. And finally, some IT cars when prepped to the max, are making more than 30% more power. I would submit most can make 25% more, some make less, some make more.
 
In regards to the clutch;

The upgrade buys you quite a bit in road racing. It isn't the boost in power you should be concerned about in this case, its the usage.

I used to blow up stock replacement clutches all the time in my ITB car because of high revs and downshifts. As soon as I upgraded to a puck style disc I had no more trouble. The stock burst speed of most production discs is too low for what we do to them racing. The wider your production trans ratios the worse the problem. However, I run a stock clutch in the Neon because the trans ratios are so close it really isn't an issue.
 
3) I think it's a bit silly to allow anyone that wants to/can afford to buy super lightweight and expensive clutches when the engine makes maybe 10% more power.
[/b]
Click to expand...

If you're only making 10% more than stock you'll be far, far, back in the field in IT. You can figure on needing to make at least 25% more at the flywheel to have a shot, and that only takes into account engine power. Then there is all the chassis development that while on paper looks to be simple, it is anything but.

Ron
 
My 'super' lightweight C & PP cost me $400. That's not much more than an OEM replacement. And finally, some IT cars when prepped to the max, are making more than 30% more power. I would submit most can make 25% more, some make less, some make more.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy: Not completely disagreeing with you, but that $400 is 3 to 4 times what I paid for the last clutch I purchased, just last October. I do agree that limiting the clutches permitted to OEM replacement would be 1) hard to enforce 2) not in the best interest of those with fully developed motors (I am NOT in this catagory!). Car owners are going to spend what they want to spend.

As to the other rules,

1) Battery location - I'm securely right on the fence. I can see both pro's and con's to each argument - keep in stock location or relocate. I would like to feel that if I voted on relocation, it would be for safety reasons, BUT I could clean up my engine compartment more, and move some weight aft if I could!

2) .040 overbore - keep it! Let car owners do what they want, overbore or sleeve. The manufacturer of my car did not have .040 overbore pistons, but they list .050 which I can't use. Hell, let's increase the overbore to .050! (Time I ask something for me!)
 
Andy: Not completely disagreeing with you, but that $400 is 3 to 4 times what I paid for the last clutch I purchased, just last October. I do agree that limiting the clutches permitted to OEM replacement would be 1) hard to enforce 2) not in the best interest of those with fully developed motors (I am NOT in this catagory!). Car owners are going to spend what they want to spend.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bill,

Good info - consider yourself lucky that you can buy a 'track-worthy' clutch AND pressure plate for around $100.
 
In regards to the clutch;

The upgrade buys you quite a bit in road racing. It isn't the boost in power you should be concerned about in this case, its the usage.

I used to blow up stock replacement clutches all the time in my ITB car because of high revs and downshifts. As soon as I upgraded to a puck style disc I had no more trouble. The stock burst speed of most production discs is too low for what we do to them racing. The wider your production trans ratios the worse the problem. However, I run a stock clutch in the Neon because the trans ratios are so close it really isn't an issue.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny... at one point I did run a Mustang clutch in my 924, and some other Ford clutch discs swap in for a CHEAP Porsche clutch (vs $200 or so for a stock disc)... :blink:
 
In regards to the clutch;

The upgrade buys you quite a bit in road racing. It isn't the boost in power you should be concerned about in this case, its the usage.

I used to blow up stock replacement clutches all the time in my ITB car because of high revs and downshifts. As soon as I upgraded to a puck style disc I had no more trouble. The stock burst speed of most production discs is too low for what we do to them racing. The wider your production trans ratios the worse the problem. However, I run a stock clutch in the Neon because the trans ratios are so close it really isn't an issue.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I am thinking about going to an S10 clutch for just this reason.
 
To all: Thank you for the opinions and comments. This was what I was looking for when I posted this topic. I'm sure most or all of you have more experience/investment in this than I do. Since I'm coming from SSC, and converting my car from SSC, my viewpoint is probably a bit different than all of yours. Hence all the questioning of some of the rules and allowances.

With regards to the battery relocation, I really do view this a safety issue, considering how much frontal crash damage I've seen (in comparison to other actual crash damage, not just incidentals). The Neon would definitely benefit, I'm not hiding that fact, but I believe my battery is pretty vulnerable. And being able to relocate it would be "Improved", just like the IT name suggests... :rolleyes: Just as an FYI, I believe battery relocation is legal in all Solo classes except Stock.

With regards to overboring, a set of OEM replacement pistons is $85. The best price I've seen for .020 or .040 pistons for the Neon was $450 (and up), so I don't see much cost/benefit in this. As far as the sleeving goes, I had a cylinder sleeved in my RV for less than $100, so I'm not seeing sleeving as an issue.

With regards to the clutch/PP, a "racing" clutch is about 3X the cost of an OEM replacement for the Neon. A lightweight C&PP is double that number. I've run 2 full seasons in SSC with a stock replacement C/PP, running both Regionals and Nationals (2 drivers), and it's held up just fine.

If some of you are making 25%-30% more power, that's great. My brain is having a hard time getting around that much improvement with having to run the stock throttle bodies, intakes, cams and cam timing, no CC work, etc. Engines are air pumps, and with all the stock intake components, I just don't see that much room for improvement? I would be ecstatic to see that in the Neon, but my brain won't let me believe it until I see it. :lol:
 
The .040 overbore is still relevant. I started building a good IT motor this winter. I went with .020 pistons because a; there is very little to be gained going all the way to .040, b; it leaves room for another build down the road if, say I turn it into a full prep Production motor, and the real reason c; .020 pistons are much easier to come by.

Unfortunately it took.035 of a cut to clean up the bores in this motor. So guess what, I am using .040 pistons, for the original reason that they were allowed, AND I am real happy that now I can say that I have a true 'to the limit of the rules' IT motor. It is one more thing I won't need to wonder about whether it is holding me back, or could be done better.
 
The .040 overbore is still relevant. I started building a good IT motor this winter. I went with .020 pistons because a; there is very little to be gained going all the way to .040, b; it leaves room for another build down the road if, say I turn it into a full prep Production motor, and the real reason c; .020 pistons are much easier to come by.

Unfortunately it took.035 of a cut to clean up the bores in this motor. So guess what, I am using .040 pistons, for the original reason that they were allowed, AND I am real happy that now I can say that I have a true 'to the limit of the rules' IT motor. It is one more thing I won't need to wonder about whether it is holding me back, or could be done better.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Are .020 pistons easier to come by than std bore pistons? This may be the case for older cars, I just don't know. If that is the case, then I have no problem with the overbore allowance. My initial reading of the allowance was for cleaning up cyl damage, etc, but that's nothing that sleeving couldn't do, and at least in my case, cheaper.
 
I agree that the ovebore allowance for newer cars is counterproductive. Also the +.5 C/R allowance in that it generally requires you to remove and completely disassemble the block to deck it so you can get that extra 1/2 point in compression (most-maybe all-engines have less C/R than specified). I propose that all new cars homologated for ITC and ITB be more like showroom stock: allow milling the head to get compression to mfgs spec, but no overbore (40 over yields just under 2% increase in displacement/power). This would help the classes by making more cars suitable for B&C where there are less and less lower powered cars in the market, and make them much simpler and economical to prepare. Why be provoked to go to all this unneccesary expense to build a 10/10ths car if it is more economical to avoid it?? KISS! (keep it simple stupid) phil
ps: yeah, I know it's arguably illegal/gray area to deck a block (show me a spec for tot H or dech H), but I don't think you'll find any front running Volvo or Volkswagen that hasn't done it. And, yes, older cars will continue to have to do this kind of nonsense-I just don't see the sense of dealing with modern engines and metal like they were 1963 BMC Mowog castings. The +040" is 1963 production car rules which is the genesis of IT rules, circa 1980, Calclub.
 
Are .020 pistons easier to come by than std bore pistons? This may be the case for older cars, I just don't know. If that is the case, then I have no problem with the overbore allowance. My initial reading of the allowance was for cleaning up cyl damage, etc, but that's nothing that sleeving couldn't do, and at least in my case, cheaper.
[/b]
Click to expand...

They are for 1.8 liter 8v VW motors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top