Knestis

A thought - It might be useful, if people are of the opinion that this is a problem, for someone to propose to the CRB that the rule be amended to delete the bit that creates the problem, in bold below:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons
or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged
equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve
relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height
relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory
replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

It seems to me that the next sentence - "Cast or forged..." - provide pretty much all possible limits on the slugs, anyway and operationalizes "equivalent," at least to the extent possible. It might be necessary to poke a few words in, I suppose...

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size, and oversize pistons may be used.
Cast or forged pistons are allowed but shall provide the same
dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing,
pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory
replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.

I already have several proposals under consideration so I'm frankly a little leery of submitting more, or I'd do it myself. With the new online system, proposing a rule change is a snap.

K

jisu009

Do you have to be a member of SCCA to propose a rule change? I would imagine so....

rambler

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jisu009 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Do you have to be a member of SCCA to propose a rule change? I would imagine so....</TD></TR></TABLE>

The form asks for your SCCA # but it is not highlighted as a required field.

rambler

Form is here.....

http://www.scca.com/Club/crb/crbletter.html

Knestis

Regardless of the form, I'm pretty sure that they only consider requests from members.

K

turfer

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Interesting - he's arguably been largely responsible for most of the log un-jamming of the entire IT rule set over the last two years. It's possible to be pragmatic even while ACTUALLY CHANGING things.

K</TD></TR></TABLE>

Agreed. He has worked quite hard with th rest of the ITAC to get us much needed updating IT classifications and rules. I do find it interesting where he applies the intent rule for one subject but then throws it out completely for another. And he does have a small hard on for the Hondas/Acuras. You can read it some his postings hidden in little comments. I guess you can't expect every individual to always be completely free of biases no matter how hard they try.

In case this rule doesn't get changed, we have just started dusting off our .020 over motor and stopped the work on the next .040 over one.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I already have several proposals under consideration so I'm frankly a little leery of submitting more, or I'd do it myself. With the new online system, proposing a rule change is a snap.

K</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll take up the charge. I think your close but there is still some wiggle room left in your changes that may leave them open for future arguments. Shoot me an E-mail.

Rick

Knestis

I don't know if it's possible to close up all of the possible loopholes. If no additional gaps are created, then that might be all we can hope for.

K

turfer

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know if it's possible to close up all of the possible loopholes. If no additional gaps are created, then that might be all we can hope for.

K</TD></TR></TABLE>

E-Mail sent with changes and possible side effects.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rice_classic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well, I've had my year or so off from racing and it time I started getting back in the game. I am starting with rebuilding my block and I don't know whether I should use .020 over or .040 over pistons.

I will be running two classes ITA and H4 (group 2 and 5) and want a piston that's legal, for starters. I've heard about some discrepency in the rules regarding .040's in Honda in Improved Touring so I'm on the fence. The motor I'm rebuilding had .020 over's and I think I should stick with them.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Colin,
I would make the safe choice for now, .020. If a GCR revision (read Fastrack) is made for 2006, it most likely wouldn't be till late in the season.

Sticking with those holy pistons, huh?

Rick

DMF

I say .040 on single cams... I built an engine like this at the begining of last season and finished it off with one race to go!

Honestly, being a single cam, I couldn't care less that I need a new block and possibly head. I found a complete engine for $200. You can pick single cams up all day long for this price or sometimes even cheaper/free. Maybe if the engines were harder/more expensive to come by I would say go .020, but not for these.

turfer

This discussion has revolved around IT requirements. I'lll have to check to see how the HC H4 rules compare.

Rick

prkiller

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This discussion has revolved around IT requirements. I'lll have to check to see how the HC H4 rules compare.

Rick</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, they were smart with the way they worded it!

7.1 c) Factory replacement pistons or the exact equivalent shall be used. Exact equivalent shall be
defined as the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, weight, ring thickness and location, and pin
location as the OEM replacement piston. Wrist pins and method of retention must also conform to
OEM specifications. In the event that a .040 factory replacement piston/wrist pin is not available, the
oversize pistons/wrist pins shall not weigh any less than the largest size OEM piston for that engine.
d) Piston rings are unrestricted but must be of proper OEM ring thickness.

Knestis

Very interesting...

K

turfer

Well, NASA saw through that GCR shortcoming.

Rick

Knestis

Karl and Scott figured their way past a lot of ITCS issues with the first cut. That was actually the primary driver behind the idea of HC in the first place - "If IT is stupid, what can we do to fix it without jacking it completely up?"

It's kind of a highjack but I think it's valuable for institutions to remember where these things come from. If someone had said, "Hey, the reason we have this .040" over rule is blah, blah, blah," then we might not be in this pickle today.

K

rice_classic

I think it would be really unfortunate and "backwards" if all the honda guys with .040 over motors were required to rebuild their motors. I simply don't think it will happen or be enforced. There's too many people with .040 motors. These clubs are funded by their drivers... **** off too many drivers in one foul swoop and you may have a real problem.

I think I'm going to settle with .020 over pistons but FULLY support all the .040 over motors I will or might be competing with. My interpretation of the rules is that it's legal and anyone who goes and makes a change right now is foolish. I think the majority of the "players" in this game understand the intentions of it.

Besides, with H4 being in the NW I don't really care about the IT rule. If it's enforced after I've built a .040 over motor I simply won't be running in ITA.

This thread turned out better than I had intended... not only did I get some good information on piston choices but I got to see the IT and Nasa rules back to back. I think I know what I want to do with the engine now.

thank you.

rice_classic

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Colin,
I would make the safe choice for now, .020. If a GCR revision (read Fastrack) is made for 2006, it most likely wouldn't be till late in the season.

Sticking with those holy pistons, huh?

Rick
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Improved Touring can do whatever they damn well please... If I'm not happy I'll just run H4 or E-prod.

Regardless of what I do, I don't foresee anyone protesting me because I'm sure I won't be running anywhere NEAR the front!

btw: those pistons were shot! The whole side of it melted and the others weren't far behind!

turfer

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rice_classic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Regardless of what I do, I don't foresee anyone protesting me because I'm sure I won't be running anywhere NEAR the front!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah right. Get you and Jeremy a little more seat time and you both will be right up there. Us old timers will have to train you with the little bag of tricks. Remember the back straight at Spokane?

I am guessing your gonna want to borrow your Panasports next season.

Rick

rice_classic

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yeah right. Get you and Jeremy a little more seat time and you both will be right up there. Us old timers will have to train you with the little bag of tricks. Remember the back straight at Spokane?

I am guessing your gonna want to borrow your Panasports next season.

Rick</TD></TR></TABLE>

borrow... you could say that...
Find a good replacement exaust for me yet?