Nov Fastrack - Intake Rule Change

Originally posted by mowog@Nov 8 2005, 01:11 AM
So....if the ITAC thinks it makes a difference, or they do not want to worry about anyone else being confused by the current wording, I would respectfully suggest a change to include verbage stipulating the housing containing the sensor is considered part of the restricted assembly.
[snapback]64835[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

It will be done... wording will be recommended that includes the housing and the entire MAF assembly, if that's what it takes to make this clear to all of you. It will be on this months agenda...


As for the oil-pump gear... You can be pissed at us all you want... It's exactly BS like this air-intake deal that makes the chances for any other type of allowance slim... You open the door for one thing, and suddenly ten other things are considered "allowed"... This would be a special allowance for this one car, which is not in the best interests of IT, or we'd have to open it up to everyone, which is simply rules creep and would likely cause another situation like this...

"well, what about cars where the gear is an integral part of the shaft???", etc... Suddenly, people are replacing entire distributors based on the rule...

No thanks...
 
I am more than a little concerned about how desirable the SCCA is, if after all that has transpired in this thread - that there is still a solidly held view by someone who is setting the rules I participate by, that my honest and sincere conclusions were and are viewed as BS. If there is no acceptance at all that solely having the written rule in front of a person with no other background information from the hours of discussion held by the ITAC cannot validly result in differing conclusions as to the meaning by those not privy to them, then there is a real problem.

I fully accept and expect that all best intentions for the organization are in place with every decision made - is it the ITAC's view though that competitors are going to act with something other than their best intentions? Is the ITAC's view of us going to be that we are somehow less than sincere in our interpretations? Is the conclusion that this has been BS meant to encourage or discourage open discussion about rules? Do you believe that I have had anything other than the best intentions?

On the gear not at all pissed, was just surprised that an OEM spec part of a different material with better longevity and no performance differential couldn't be used and so as a result I have complained. I said I can live with it and it is still in its packaging having never been used. Unfortunately, I bought it before I questioned whether or not it could be used. Fortunately, I asked before I installed it because you know what I am doing things with the best intentions as well. And hey I learned something.

It has just become another car prep item, that I would have liked to have been able to use a part with more longevity for.
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 01:25 AM
I would just put it back the way it was and stop all the complaining.
[snapback]64838[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Joe, I hope my question wasn't taken as a complaint. I honestly could read the rule more than one way. Actually I would much prefer to leave the entire assembly as it is, cause if the interpretation had been that the housing was a separate, and therefore dispensable, piece I would have been compelled to spend additional money on a tube that I could install the sensor in. I would also cut up the tube I had, made up adapters, and then spend at least $100 on a dyno just to see if there was any gain at all. I'm somewhat certain the net gain would have been negligible, but I would have felt compelled to test it all anyway just to be sure.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 01:56 AM
I fully accept and expect that all best intentions for the organization are in place with every decision made - is it the ITAC's view though that competitors are going to act with something other than their best intentions? Is the ITAC's view of us going to be that we are somehow less than sincere in our interpretations? Is the conclusion that this has been BS meant to encourage or discourage open discussion about rules? Do you believe that I have had anything other than the best intentions?
[snapback]64844[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


All right.. HOLD on... Let's not go jumping ship here...

<damage control mode= ON>

First off, the BS statement was not directed at you, or your specific ideas... If you've been around here even as long as I have, you'd realize that this is the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME... Wire = resistor and all that kind of stuff... THAT type of thing is BS... It's taking a "thing" and turning it into it's "function"...

People DO read the rules and twist them into all kinds of things they weren't meant to be... So, naturally, when we write a rule, with all the BEST intentions, and it gets all twisted out of context, it becomes a little irritating...

I don't know what YOUR specific intentions are, other than what you just stated, but to answer your questions, NO, people do NOT always have the best intentions when reading these rules... They DO do things without the highest levels of sincerity... we see it all the time...

Go back and read through the cam-timing threads, or any number of other threads, on topics which should be clear, but because of the way different people read the rules, they are not...

I DO believe that most people simply want to follow the rules... and we try to write them so that they can... It's in cases like this, where we FINALLY get a rule change in place that people have been suggesting, and that previous attempts have failed, and then THIS happens, that it gets a little frustating to be in this position... There are sincere people, and then there are those who sincerely try to find all the loopholes... these are the ones trying to outdo Smokey Unich!

It's when you (general "you") are trying to find a loophole, or an advantage, that this stuff tends to come up... I suppose that's racing...

So, please don't go jumping ship on us just yet... we will get this one clarrified, and will continue to try to do so with the rest of this stuff until the time comes for someone else to try...

<damage control mode= OFF>
 
well said, Joe! It is with great dismay and sadness that I watch a bunch of snot nosed bozzos chip away at what was once such a sensible and loveable class. And don't try to convince me that this AFM ducting rule change wasn't self serving and gratuitous. You fools can't leave well enough alone. There was NO NEED to make this change. There was no grass roots call for it. If your intake boot is somewhat convoluted, GET OVER IT! If a speed density system needs no boot, that's life, that's just how it works. This is typical of the "insiders" ego driven self serving crap that persists in the club that makes me wonder sometimes why I'm a member-really infuraiting!!
and PS: putting a MAF insert in a bigger venturi (housing) results in a load signal that is proportionally lower in relation to the cross sectional area of the bigger hosing. This is why similar inserts can be swapped-ie: you can remove the 2L VW insert and put it in a 3.2 MB and it works great-but put the whole assy in and it'll see a much larger airflow signal.
 
Darin,

I gotta tell ya I totally agree with Ed on this whole thing. When you say that the industry accepts the MAF as the entire unit including the housing isn't exactly true. That's just the way it's sold, you can't buy the sensor without the housing, but it's just that, a housing. There are plenty of sensors on different makes of cars that you can't just buy seperately but are only sold with it's housing attached. Does that mean the housing is part of the sensor? I would still say no. They just won't sell you the sensor without the housing is how I look at it.

Take for instance the TPS on a honda. You will not be able to find a TPS without buying the throttle body. Would I consider the TPS to include the throttle body? No, you just can't buy it without the throttle body. Doesn't mean the throttle body is part of the TPS.

I'm not looking to cheat the rules and always err on the side of caution, but in this case I would have read it as I am allowed to put the MAF sensor onto a different housing. And in thinking about it relative to other cars I wouldn't be too worried about interpreting it as such. You're limited to the size and flow of the throttle body anyways, so why not open it up? The hondas can put any size intake tube they want and don't have this "housing" out there they have to worry about so my line of thinking would have been they're opening up the rules for us to make it more equal and that way we'll all be just limited by the throttle body size. That is the thought process that I went thru when thinking how changing the MAF housing would be legal.

If that was not the intent, I would change the wording. Because in my estimation you left it too open for interpretation, regardless of what you may think.

steve
 
Originally posted by pfcs@Nov 8 2005, 02:52 AM
This is typical of the "insiders" ego driven self serving crap that persists in the club that makes me wonder sometimes why I'm a member-really infuraiting!!
[snapback]64851[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Self-Serving?? Now THAT is funny... if you only knew how silly that sounds, at least in my casr...

I'm sure the rest of the guys on the ITAC appreciate the "snot nosed bozzos" comment as well...

I'm always amazed at the amount of input we receive AFTER something has been agreed to... Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??

And, just for the record, the class is still fine!

I see you were driving a Volvo and now a VW Golf in ITB... Funny how those with the mechanical advantages are so against what we have done...

Sorry Phil, but we don't opperate in a vacuum... What we've done is what the membership has wanted us to do, within reason... The last part there is really the only part where we really get to use our best judgement...

Have we had an agenda, perhaps of sorts, but it's been member driven. Everything is put out for membership comment... the air-intake rule is no exception... We didn't just pull that out of our hat... we've had numerous requests for this to be rectified... Maybe you were never affected, or ??? but there are others that felt this was an issue...

I'd love to hear some constructive feedback for once... We hear nothing, and then we hear about everything that we've DONE wrong... It would be nice if you guys would speak up WHILE we are trying to do something, so we will have the whole picture... We can only respond to the information we know...

Personally, I think IT is going in a really good direction. I'm not suprised to hear that there are those that disagree...
 
I am not sure we are seeing the samething but thanks. I agree with being able to use an aftermarket intake pipe more for packaging than performance. I don't believe the adhoc did this for seof serving purposes in anyway. I believe this was a genuine proposal to kind of equalize a couple of different systems. It is unfortunate that alot of use read engrish so much different from each other. I think a little tweek to the wording will fix it and we can get on to something else that is really just silly self pleasure.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 11:05 PM
I'm always amazed at the amount of input we receive AFTER something has been agreed to...  Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??
[snapback]64853[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I missed when it was suggested before Fastrack, which may be my own short coming. I commented once I did see it and was actually pleased for the whole class at what I thought the rule meant. If I had caught the suggestion and any discussion and understood what the intent was, I still would have commented that the wording hadn't captured the intent. But also when the suggestion came up I would have voiced my vote that all FI IT cars have potential determined by throttle body bore and expressed my support for what I originally believed was the intent of the rule.

I am fine with what the intent is and will be when the wording captures it. I do believe equality of such a mixed group as IT would be have an easier time with potential based on throttle body bores. But nothing I am going to jump up and down about other than I thought that someone really got it when that was what I mistakenly thought the intent was. I really doubt that the effect would be that the SOHC would suddenly have ITS potential the VE isn't going to jump that much and am more of the opinion that the effect for any IT car would be 5 hp or less but if there is an assumption in classing that all cars are open in front of the throttle body - there are plenty of models that can determine potential based on CR, cam specs and throttle body bore adding initial classing accuracy. I mean is potential currently considered based on whether or not the car has a more restrictive MAF than its throttle body bore? Do the classing sheets have MAF bore size? Because if only bore size is compared in determining potential that would be misleading with current and proposed rules.

It would take a lot more for me to jump ship - the direction I felt it had gone did raise big concerns with me was all I was trying to say.
 
Originally posted by pfcs@Nov 8 2005, 03:28 AM
what WAS I thinking?!! A2 VW Golfs have a mechanical advantage-YEAH!
[snapback]64857[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Phil,

I'm not sure how much of what has transpired over the past year you are aware of, but the A2 VW Golf is one of the cars on the list of cars to be considered for a weight adjustment to correct their ITB classification specs and get them more in line with the target for the class... (not being a VW expert, I believe we are talking about the 85-91 Golf GTI/GT/GL classified at 2280lbs in ITB)...


Forgive me, I mistook your to be the new Golf classification...

Either way, both will be very good ITB cars should our "self-serving" proposal get accepted by the CRB and BoD... As will the Volvo, the Hondas, the BMWs, the...

I completely understand where you are coming from, but, based on what we've experienced over the past two years, you are in the minority. Most are pleased to see something being done to "fix" some of this stuff...

Once this season is over, I think you will have seen the most radical of the tweaks from our end... We entered this believing that IT was NOT broken, but needed a few tweaks, and it has been our mission to preserve the "goodness" of the class while, at the same time, removing some of the obstacals that made certain things unfair...

With every move, tweak, and adjustment, that is our intent... We don't have any desire, or plans, to tweak things much more. There are bound to be a few issues that still have to be dealt with, and we will, but we are determined to preserve the integrity of IT going into the future...

Before we can do that, however, we first must RESTORE the integrity of IT, which is what we've been trying to do...

If that's self-serving and the actions of a bunch of "snot-nosed bozzos", then I'll just have to be that...
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 8 2005, 03:58 AM
I really doubt that the effect would be that the SOHC would suddenly have ITS potential the VE isn't going to jump that much and am more of the opinion that the effect for any IT car would be 5 hp or less but if there is an assumption in classing that all cars are open in front of the throttle body -
[snapback]64863[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Ed,

I've been around 240SX's for quite some time, both the 3-valve and the 4-valve... The 3-valve has only SLIGHTLY less potential than the 4-valve... it's limited in it's stock form by the stock MAF, which is TINY compared to the 4-Valves... I would say more like 15hp on equally preparred engines... Maybe more... In fact, for years, the Nissan race trucks used the 3-Valve because it has more torque and overall power... They've only recently gone to the 4-Valves...

Don't take my word for it... ask some Nissan guys... Using a 280ZX MAF is a very popular Tuner mod for a reason...

I'm positive that Joe could explain it better than I... After all, he built my motor!

Glad to see I didn't scare you off... That would NEVER be my intent... but I should have worded it so you would understand that more clearly! :D B) ;)
 
I really need to get in and take some measurements then. The 10 months working with this car hasn't gotten me nearly familar enough with it. That type of improvement really would shock me.

I have not come across many street 240sx tuners changing the MAF and housing (whether 280Z, 300Z or mustang 5.0L) unless they were going to larger injectors for either a turbo kit or the few out there putting SOHC pistons in DOHC engines for the 11.7 CR. I really can't find anyone street tuning a SOHC for anything it doesn't have any street credit which fine with me I can pick them up all day long from people swapping DOHC, SR20 and RB25's into their early model S13's.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 09:23 PM
I really need to get in and take some measurements then.  The 10 months working with this car hasn't gotten me nearly familar enough with it. That type of improvement really would shock me.

I have not come across many street 240sx tuners changing the MAF and housing (whether 280Z, 300Z or mustang 5.0L) unless they were going to larger injectors for either a turbo kit or the few out there putting SOHC pistons in DOHC engines for the 11.7 CR.  I really can't find anyone street tuning a SOHC for anything it doesn't have any street credit which fine with me I can pick them up all day long from people swapping DOHC, SR20 and RB25's into their early model S13's.
[snapback]64868[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Ed, I have done alot with them. The s13 3 valve is clearly limited by the MAF sensor and anyone on the street that is doing anything with them is using a 300zx MAF and tuning the ECU for the alternate signal. The factory injectors are fine for the output we can expect in ITA trim. I have also done several EP versions of this engine so I have some history with them. The 4 valve S13 in ITS is limited the same as the 3 valve by the MAF unit. It have better cams than the S14 but the S14 has a better MAF. All of the KA motors have the same throttle body diameter. You know as well as anybody that it's all about the air you can get in and out.
 
Yeah I definitely need to upgrade my own vehicle awareness then - that news is surprising to me.

I don't know that it changes my opinion that I think in an ideal world that all cars in IT should be throttle body limited. If my particular car picks up that much then it should go to ITS.

Yeah I can get as much fuel from the OEM system as I could need with IT longblock - never knew that the MAF was so restrictive though figured maybe slightly more than the TB. If that much more air could be brought in I could make use of it with an otherwise IT setup.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 7 2005, 09:28 PM
It will be done...  wording will be recommended that includes the housing and the entire MAF assembly, if that's what it takes to make this clear to all of you.  It will be on this months agenda...
As for the oil-pump gear...  You can be pissed at us all you want...  It's exactly BS like this air-intake deal that makes the chances for any other type of allowance slim...  You open the door for one thing, and suddenly ten other things are considered "allowed"...  This would be a special allowance for this one car, which is not in the best interests of IT, or we'd have to open it up to everyone, which is simply rules creep and would likely cause another situation like this...

"well, what about cars where the gear is an integral part of the shaft???", etc...  Suddenly, people are replacing entire distributors based on the rule...

No thanks...
[snapback]64839[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Darin,

Let's not talk about special allowances for certain cars. There's already precedence for it in IT. Cars w/ phenolic timing gears are allowed to replace them w/ metal gears(the only car I know of that came w/ them were the V6 Mk I Capris, but I would guess that there are more). The Quad 4 GM cars in ITS (Olds and Pontiac) get to swap out their rear hubs and drums for a disc brake system off a different car (Saturn). I've asked about this one before, but have never gotten an answer as to when and why this was allowed.
 
-Self-Serving?? Now THAT is funny.."
-"many cars, the 240SX included, have tubes that have production restrictions in them"
-the point was to smooth airflow going to the throttle plates. This in itself should be enough of PERFORMANCE benefit for most"
I thought we had gotten clear about performance adjustments through weight.
what about cars with airflow meters instead of MAF sensors? Or cars with CIS? now there's a real airflow restriction!
-"and just for the record, the class is still fine!"
thank you for your humble opinion. I don't think Sam moore and Chris Albin would agree. Kurt Weis might argue it also. I hope you're clear how I feel.
"before we can do that, we first must RESTORE the integrity of IT"
spoken like a true SCCA nerd. Darin, I'm pretty sure you think what you're doing is sensible. I don't wish you ill. I just don't think some of you guys have a very long view or memory. The integrity and appeal of IT was the simplicity and stability of the rules. I think the (weight) adjustments were a good idea. But "tweaking" the rules is BS. It creates instability, not stability (look at this string). It's been one of the biggest complaints for competitors since the club began. What became of production racing is a good example. As soon as somone aquires some influence/power in the matter, they think it needs fixing. It doesn't.
"sorry Phil, but we don't operate in a vacuum..."
I know you don't, but you should also recognize that EVERYBODY wants something changed in their intersts-that means almost nothing to the majority. You're not running a poularity contest. Unless there is a strong concensus and expressed will of many competitors, why change rules?
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 05:38 AM
Darin,

Let's not talk about special allowances for certain cars.  There's already precedence for it in IT.  Cars w/ phenolic timing gears are allowed to replace them w/ metal gears(the only car I know of that came w/ them were the V6 Mk I Capris, but I would guess that there are more).  The Quad 4 GM cars in ITS (Olds and Pontiac) get to swap out their rear hubs and drums for a disc brake system off a different car (Saturn).  I've asked about this one before, but have never gotten an answer as to when and why this was allowed.
[snapback]64874[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

All WAY before my time Bill... and not things worth fighting over...

What I think is important is how we proceed from here... Just because something inconsistent with IT Philosophy has been done in the past, doesn't mean we should do it again... Precedence, in some cases, is NOT a positive thing...

In the case of this particular oil-gear, it's unnecessary. How many ARRC championships have been won in ITA by the 240SX to this point with the rules just the way they are??? ;)
 
To be clear the crank gear is identical to OEM except material, and it is mated to a gear on a shaft that drives the oil pump and distributor in the exact same circle as the factory part - it was being sought for longevity and to reduce the overall costs through reduced maintenance, not to alter the performance of the vehicle. ARRC championships have little to do with a competitor's request that was intended to reduce down time and maintenance.

If the consensus with those with more history with this motor is that I had some other problem that produced the failure I can accept that and will work to address it - but the part is not performance enhancing.

I don't have the history or the full awareness to appreciate the complete scoop - as someone new, it confuses me how the request was undesirable compared to existing rules in place regarding gear materials but will work with it for now. However, I may very well point out any other future changes that I see as being inconsistent with this particular ruling though since based on postings I should be able to reasonably expect consistency in the future on rules such that the same decision will be made for similar requests.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 11:01 PM
To be clear the crank gear is identical to OEM except material, and it is mated to a gear on a shaft that drives the oil pump and distributor in the exact same circle as the factory part - it was being sought for longevity and to reduce the overall costs through reduced maintenance, not to alter the performance of the vehicle. ARRC championships have little to do with a competitor's request that was intended to reduce down time and maintenance.

If the consensus with those with more history with this motor is that I had some other problem that produced the failure I can accept that and will work to address it - but the part is not performance enhancing.

I don't have the history or the full awareness to appreciate the complete scoop - as someone new, it confuses me how the request was undesirable compared to existing rules in place regarding gear materials but will work with it for now. However, I may very well point out any other future changes that I see as being inconsistent with this particular ruling though since based on postings I should be able to reasonably expect consistency in the future on rules such that the same decision will be made for similar requests.
[snapback]64878[/snapback]​

Ed, Seriously the bronze gear was made for the wet sump GT engines running high pressure pumps. I have several of them here for my EP stuff. The ITA engines I have built have done 8 hour enduros with the STOCK units and stock pumps with no issues. My problem with opening up the rule even though a small one is that not everyone can use the same rule.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top