Nov Fastrack - Intake Rule Change
- Thread starter Bildon
- Start date
Joe Harlan
New member
feel free to e-mail if i can help.Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 7 2005, 11:39 PM
Wanna buy another one?
Next year's engine will have been gone over by me rather than taken as received when I bought all this stuff, so I will have a much greater appreciation of the points that have been made a year from now.
[snapback]64880[/snapback]
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 8 2005, 01:41 AM
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???
[snapback]64876[/snapback]
I guess we will agree to disagree. I think that if you're trying to 'restore the integrity', you need to address past inconsistencies. I think leaving them hanging out there sends the wrong message. I'm not trying to throw rocks here, or pick a fight, but addressing some issues, and not others, gives the appearence that you want to cherry-pick what you will deal with.
Is there no documentation in Topeka about the Olds/Pontiac rear brakes?
Joe Harlan
New member
I don't want to get deep into this, When I was a full time tech I kina remember GM had a recall on the rear brake of a lot of these models. I know they where a large pile of ****. If an allowance was given strictly to fix an unfixable problem then its not an issue. Same as the drive gear for a KA, If it was really an issue I would be all for a fix.
Banzai240
New member
I would not characterize this as "cherry-picking"... Rather, more as a list of priorities, with the items mentioned WAY down on the list...
Honestly... are the brake issues with the Old/Pontiac REALLY a burning issue? You rarely even hear of these cars being raced... If we get to a point where there is nothing more important to deal with, then maybe we can look into this...
As for documentation, I'm not sure, we've never had inclination to ask. I do know that a lot of "documentation" was lost when they moved from Denver, so it's entirely possible that it doesn't exist... Or, maybe it does... Like I said, I've never asked...
There is a big difference with allowing people with plastic timing gears to replace them with metal ones (a true "reliability" item), and allowing someone to replace a metal gear with an alternative, race-only part... In my opinion, it's kind of like allowing alternate rods because someone has been having trouble breaking the stock ones...
I'd be curious as to just what "inconsistencies" people think there are in the rules or spec lines... perhaps someone could start a list in a new thread...
Bildon
New member
>> ... Where are all these comments when these things are suggested??
That was my point!
Where/when was this issue brought up before the membership prior to it showing up this month in FT ?
I want to know who recommended it, how many were in favor, or against please.
And I'm talking about the intial motion, not the final approval seen in FT.
I may have missed it but I never saw this item tabled for discussion etc.
That was my point!
Where/when was this issue brought up before the membership prior to it showing up this month in FT ?I want to know who recommended it, how many were in favor, or against please.
And I'm talking about the intial motion, not the final approval seen in FT.
I may have missed it but I never saw this item tabled for discussion etc.
Any make/model specific allowance should be considered an "inconsistency," I think. I kind of agree with Bill that the few cases of this that are in the ITCS should be removed. It's not that any of them really matter in the micro, but there presence suggests that there is room for individual allowances where I don't THINK it is going to be standard practice to allow them.
When I requested last week that we be allowed to remove central locking systems, I didn't ask just that it be allowed for my car. I wouldn't personally dream of doing such a thing but evidence (proposals submitted) suggests that people believe that it is POSSIBLE for them to get specific allowances.
K
When I requested last week that we be allowed to remove central locking systems, I didn't ask just that it be allowed for my car. I wouldn't personally dream of doing such a thing but evidence (proposals submitted) suggests that people believe that it is POSSIBLE for them to get specific allowances.
K
Bill Miller
New member
That's just it Kirk, not only do the proposals submitted support the theory that people believe it is possible, having things like the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 allowance, confirms that it is (was?) possible. I think the phenolic timing gear allowance is similar to what you've requested for the central locking system, a generic request to address cars w/ "X" characteristic.
Bill Miller
New member
A quick glance at the ITCS shows that there are only a couple of other cars that have these kinds of alternate allowances. One was the Chevy Cavalier Z24 (which I suspect is essentially the same car as the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 cars), and the S13 240SX, w/ the ABS disc/caliper allowance.
Darin,
Can you shed some light on the Nissan issue?
Darin,
Can you shed some light on the Nissan issue?
Banzai240
New member
In 1989 and 1990, the SE models of the 240SX were delivered with ABS brakes... So the 240SX was available with both the standard 252mm brakes for the non-SE models, and the larger ABS brakes for the SE models...... Not a special allowance... just an additional brake listing that apparently needed to be noted...
Joe Harlan
New member
Bill, The 240sx deal is just stating that the factory stock ABS calipers and rotors are legal. There is no rule that states you must remove the ABS equipment. The are other examples of factory alternates second gen RX7 for one. I agree I don't agree with giving a rear disc conversison to the GM cars. I do feel that if they have an issue that is not safe then alternate parts should be allowed of the same design. (ie DRUM BRAKES FOR DRUM BRAKES)
Joe Harlan
New member
Yeah I am sure it wasn't the SE option that triggered the ABS option the S13. The SE option did have the bigger sway bars. But no difference the ABS caliper and rotor was stock on the 89-94 cars and the caliper and pad were standard on the S14.
Banzai240
New member
Joe... If what you are saying is true, then that NOTE on the spec line is wrong... I think I'll have to look at home for the VTS sheets (which I'm sure I have for the later cars, but not sure about the earlier versions...)... I know that the 91-94 models used different rotors for ABS vs Non... but in the 98 VTS I have, it shows the same rotor/caliper for both...
I get it mixed up... but I thought it was the early cars that used a different Rotor/Caliper package for ABS, and then the later ones that consolidated and just used the same 257mm rotor/caliper package for both ABS and non...
I'll check again, but I'm pretty sure that the early cars use a 252x20mm rotor for NON-ABS, and a 257mmx22mm rotor for ABS...
BUT, I've been wrong about these things before...
Either way, I know we've been down this road before and it was determined that this was all legal and allowed by the rules... Didn't we have to do this in Production as well??? How many years did that take???
Joe Harlan
New member
Your both right. The S13 with ABS is a rotor,caliper and bracket package. The convert came with the ABS rotor a caliper even without ABS. DJ you are also correct on the S14 stuff.
Banzai240
New member
If you'll refer yourself to the Fastrack dated September 2005 (Here=> September Fastrack ) You will find on the second page, under the heading:
<span style='color:blue'>"Please address all comments, for and against, to the Club Racing Board."
The reason it says "Proposed", is because all proposed rule changes that the ITAC sends to the CRB, and that the CRB accepts and puts out to the membership , must first go before the BoD at one of two meetings... one in August and the other in December... (There are some exceptions, which I believe are the E&O stuff, and certain spec line changes, etc... THIS is NOT one of those... it's a major rule change...)
The BoD, so I've been told, does not usually like to make a decision about things until it's been put out for member comment, which this was...
Now, in the November Fastrack, which contains the BoD Meeting Minutes dated August 26-27, 2005, you'll find that the rule was approved by your BoD during this meeting. There was over 2-months of time for membership to comment...
So, you see... it's not a "Pink Elephant" at all... it's simply black and white print, and all by the book...
You see, when we put something out for membership comment, and all we hear is support (doesn't have to be written, can be e-mail, verbal, forums, etc...) then we propose the rule for implementation... Even on something so MASSIVE a change as PCAs, we only received about 60 inputs from competitors, and I posted those results here before that one was even brought before the CRB... (PLEASE don't make me go find that to prove it to you... you can go look yourself or just take my word for it...
) It's not unusual to NOT receive any written input at all, and we must rely on what people tell us personally, etc...Unlike the way things have worked in the past, we are doing are darndest to keep things above board and by the book... we are also trying to keep everyone as informed as we can, as early as we can, so everyone will understand where we are coming from...
So, as I said before, it's a little bit odd that we only hear the discontent AFTER something has been "done"... Would have been MUCH more useful when comments were requested...
I must go now... I need to go wipe my nose... <_<
Bill Miller
New member
Darin,
Was something added to the spec line to allow the SE model? Or was this simply a trim level that's not discernable by VIN#? I looked at the Sentra spec line right below the 240SX / S13 line, and it has modles E/XE/CXE/SL listed. I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to learn. I know a lot about VWs, but I don't really know squat about Datsun/Nissans. Anything else that makes an S13 240SX SE different from a non-SE?
BTW, looks like the intake stuff was put out for member input.
