422 replies to this topic

[TylerQuance]

I can't understand your point at all. What is easier to understand for someone to understand than you can't modify parts?

If you open up modifications like this then you have opened up a huge rabbit hole.

In my opinion, if the part is modified from a OE or a Remanufactured part then the DQ must stand it doesn't matter if it is a performance advantage or not. The only way this is not illegal is that there are Remanufactured parts that come the same way off the shelf and unmolested by the competitor.

This doesn't differ from a remanufactured part, it IS a remanufactured part. They are available to the entire SM community through multiple channels and have been for years.

[Tom Hampton]

But a 10th of a sec over a 3.4 mile track is way less than a hp, right?
 
J~

Speedengineer can probably answer that with some precision, since I think he has a computer model.  But, no I think it would be MORE than a single HP...and at best I think we are talking something more along the lines of 1/10th of an HP. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Total loss, or reduction in loss? I’m thinking net benefit is below that for both shafts combined, but for sure mine is somewhat of a WAG.

[Tom Hampton]

Total loss, or reductiin in loss? I’m thinking net benefit is below that for both shafts combined, but for sure mine is somewhat of a WAG.

Its all a WAG. But, the 1HP above is an upper bound on what I find believable for total loss. Its really well beyond it, for the reasons already mentioned.  Something more believable for me would be 60watts per joint (total loss) as an upper bound.  That would be 1/3rd of a HP combined for all 4 joints...again, total loss.  If you generously assume that you could cut the friction with the cage in HALF, then that's 1/2 * 70% or 35%.  So, you've reduce the joint friction by 1/3rd.  Again, I think that's generous.  Then perhaps we are talking about a net gain of 1/10th (1/3 * 1/3) of an HP.   

 

I think that's the upper bound of what we are talking about.  As you say, probably less.  if it were more than that, you'd expect the CV joints to be hot to the touch after a dyno session, as they have zero heat dissipation methods applied.   In fact, the rubber boots are a heat insulator. 

[Jamz14]

Reman only means redone-- It will fit and work in the same way and is built from mainly old parts. new parts (maybe of different sizes) will and can be added. Who does a reman is not in the rules.  Most of the Reman parts that are allowed by the rules are considered untechable or not worth teching---as these should be too.

No problem. I can work with any definition you want to use. But........... I am opening up a reman shop where you can get reman oil pumps, uprights, control arms, ball joints, sub frames, heads, cams, ECU, etc. See my point?

[Michael Novak]

No problem. I can work with any definition you want to use. But........... I am opening up a reman shop where you can get reman oil pumps, uprights, control arms, ball joints, sub frames, heads, cams, ECU, etc. See my point?

Most of the parts you described can not be Reman'd or have published tolerances.---so not the same in my book. 

[Jamz14]

Most of the parts you described can not be Reman'd or have published tolerances.---so not the same in my book. 

What is the published tolerance for the front upright angle? What is the published tolerance for fuel curve flatness managed by the ECU? Almost nothing I mentioned has published tolerances.

[Steve Scheifler]

Then there’s the other angle. I figure anyone who can significantly increase the efficiency of a CV joint in five minutes with a die grinder and not seriously compromise service life, would be very much in demand. Of course, service life isn’t a top priority in our world but it still seems unlikely. It’s worth repeating that efficiency is linked to angle of articulation, which in our case is down in old U-joint ranges rather than the extremes of FWD cars where the CV is required. There’s a reason they last damn near forever in back.

[Johnny D]

What is the published tolerance for the front upright angle? What is the published tolerance for fuel curve flatness managed by the ECU? Almost nothing I mentioned has published tolerances.

 

Remember the catch all and just used in the summary posted "out of tolerance compared to OEM or remanufactured spec."

 

J~

[powerss]

This doesn't differ from a remanufactured part, it IS a remanufactured part. They are available to the entire SM community through multiple channels and have been for years.

You know for a fact that the parts used were unmodified re-manufactured parts?  I am not interpreting the NASA white paper that way right now based upon the third party report.

 

Where can I get them?

[Johnny D]

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) defines someone who is “psychotic” as out of touch with reality, likely experiencing false beliefs, known as delusions, or false sights or sounds, known as hallucinations. So when do depression and psychosis go hand in hand?

 

Just sayin.

 

J~

[OrangeCrush86]

Another big race that ends in me questioning why anyone would even want to win in this class.

 

If it turns out that these parts were machined on purpose, I have to ask who the hell would think disassembling non-serviceable CV joints that run nearly level to machine cages thinks this is in the spirit of Spec Miata. BS like this is why young people buy an old Nissan and go drifting at #gridlife while club racing dies.

[Bench Racer]

Steve, I'm so sorry my words a couple pages ago were not specific words of the rule.

 

NASA rule, "Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent."

Johnny, with a your words are close but not "exact equivalent."

[Andy Mitchell]

I can't help but think of the various times people have pooh-poohed comparison tests unless they were conducted on 'top prep' cars. And I always sorta wondered just how far you had to go to be 'top prep'. Now I know there's a lot more to it than just this, but isn't it fascinating to see just how far people will go chasing an advantage?

 

Thanks to NASA for bringing us all some entertainment, if nothing else. lol.

[zoomzoom22]

I don’t think you will find that old but still functional ones are typically worn to the point of the ball passing through the cage and everything else still intact and working. If it were common or just easily demonstrated then this wouldn’t have taken so long. Our cars use very little suspension travel so not much angle/bind most of the time and CV joints are pretty efficient. There can’t be much to gain under any circumstances, and you are already free to open them up to clean and use the high tech lube of your choice. That’s as far as I’ve ever taken it and I think anything more is pointless.

 

I believe over on SMMD site on book of faces, Adam clearly stated that his brand new axles (for the race) from Cardone, the ball would pass through 10 of the 12 openings.  This in and of itself shows me this isn't exact science that anybody is re-manufacturing or doing them to any spec.  Also case in point I am familiar with someone in another class that bought their axles from O'Reilly auto parts, their balls also fall thru most of the holes and clearly the cages were cleaned up.  Not sure how you can look at all the variables and land on anything that is spec or unmodified that is in the majority of cars???

[Johnny D]

Johnny, with a your words are close but not "exact equivalent."

 

not my words, NASA

 

J~

[Bench Racer]

Andy, same music as after some SCCA nationals.

 

zoomzoom22, at the risk of being boring, NASA rule, "Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent."  Remanufacture companies are nothing but a very large tangent from the NASA rule.

 

Johnny, the underlined words are the NASA exact equivalent words.

[zoomzoom22]

Andy, same music as after some SCCA nationals.

 

zoomzoom22, at the risk of being boring, NASA rule, "Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent."  Remanufacture companies are nothing but a very large tangent from the NASA rule.

 

Johnny, the underlined words are the NASA exact equivalent words.

 

 

 

Then I happen to think that the vast majority whether they bought them from a prep shop or not, has illegal axles?  If a set bought for the championship from one of the largest suppliers has openings the balls pass thru and there is no spec, that means they also have been modified during the re-manufacturing process?  If there is nothing to keep 2 people at Cardone or anyone else from re-manufacturing them to the exact same tolerance or spec not sure how this can be enforced this way?

 

I guess this means everyone better be checking their axles whether they have 300k miles or are brand new remans as Adam posted his were.  I tip my hat to him even posting that in the first place as his admission there is his would not have passed this tech even though he bought them for the event straight off the re-manufacturers shelf which happens to supply more axles than likely anyone if I followed that correctly (Cardone does the majority of the ones Mazda sells to SM I think)     For sure this is a tricky landing wherever it lands.

[Steve Scheifler]

If the above can be verified to be true on outer joints then it seems reasonable to forget the whole thing and move on. NASA has certainly been attempting to find common aftermarket parts which fit that description as I suspect it would be much better for them all around. If I were one of the DQs I might be drop-shipping axles from a variety of reman brands.

[Johnny D]

I know bench, agree. preaching to the choir.

Also NASA tech posted "out of tolerance compared to OEM or remanufactured spec"

So anything along those lines.

Not Milled, not polished, not coated, not modified, etc, etc.

 

J~