gear sets? What is stock?

[JasonIsley99]

2.
#15780 (Bill Lamkin) What changes to a stock gearbox require the 2.5% weight penalty
In section 9.1.5.E.2.n.5, change the language as follows: " There is no weight penalty for
the use of a stock transmission utilizing the stock case, stock gear ratio set (as defined in the factory workshop manual)
and stock synchromesh style of gear engagement."

 

[Protech Racing]

This conflicts with STL.

 

[blamkin86]

Mike, just wondering why that matters?

Also, I don't follow STL so I don't know why or how they changed their rule. However, the Prod rule didn't change. It was simply clarified for the people who were torturing the grammar. The intent of the stock prod gearbox rule hasn't changed.

 

[SPEEDSHAK]

2.
#15780 (Bill Lamkin) What changes to a stock gearbox require the 2.5% weight penalty
In section 9.1.5.E.2.n.5, change the language as follows: " There is no weight penalty for
the use of a stock transmission utilizing the stock case, stock gear ratio set (as defined in the factory workshop manual)
and stock synchromesh style of gear engagement."

Much better, but still not enough IMHO. Because of the allowance of backdating and updating, if I were to put a SI stock gear set into my DX CRX, would there be a 2.5% penalty?

 

[Jay Griffin]

2.
#15780 (Bill Lamkin) What changes to a stock gearbox require the 2.5% weight penalty
In section 9.1.5.E.2.n.5, change the language as follows: " There is no weight penalty for
the use of a stock transmission utilizing the stock case, stock gear ratio set (as defined in the factory workshop manual)
and stock synchromesh style of gear engagement."

Much better, but still not enough IMHO. Because of the allowance of backdating and updating, if I were to put a SI stock gear set into my DX CRX, would there be a 2.5% penalty?

Nope, not the way I see it, they're still built from the same base model.
Others may and probably will disagree but it's (the Si box) still a stock ratio, synchro box for that model of car.

 

[JasonIsley99]

2.
#15780 (Bill Lamkin) What changes to a stock gearbox require the 2.5% weight penalty
In section 9.1.5.E.2.n.5, change the language as follows: " There is no weight penalty for
the use of a stock transmission utilizing the stock case, stock gear ratio set (as defined in the factory workshop manual)
and stock synchromesh style of gear engagement."

Much better, but still not enough IMHO. Because of the allowance of backdating and updating, if I were to put a SI stock gear set into my DX CRX, would there be a 2.5% penalty?

Nope, not the way I see it, they're still built from the same base model.
Others may and probably will disagree but it's (the Si box) still a stock ratio, synchro box for that model of car.

What ratios will your shop manual say the DX came with? If you don't have the ratios listed for the DX in your car I would plan on having +2.5%.

 

[blamkin86]

What ratios will your shop manual say the DX came with? If you don't have the ratios listed for the DX in your car I would plan on having +2.5%.

That's how I see it. You'd have a hard time arguing your way into an Si box coming with the base model.

I think we're trying to torture the use of the word "stock" into something new. Stock means stock on the base model, to me anyway.

I think you'd have to argue otherwise. Just because it came from the same factory doesn't make it stock, IMHO.

As I said earlier in this thread, send a letter if you think that's how it should be. And don't assume no one else will. I hate these tortured rule readings.

 

[Mark Meller]

In the case of the 88-91 Honda Civic/CRX, the DX and Si ratios are the same. The difference is in the final drive ratio, which you can change to whatever suits you.

 

[blamkin86]

In the case of the 88-91 Honda Civic/CRX, the DX and Si ratios are the same. The difference is in the final drive ratio, which you can change to whatever suits you.

if I were to put a SI stock gear set into my DX CRX, would there be a 2.5% penalty?

OK now I'm starting to see the "issue."

Personally, if they really are exactly the same, in every way, then I don't see a problem. If the Si box is 'beefier' or whatever, then unfortunately I think it should incur the penalty, personally. The CRB may agree with you; write a letter. For the cheaters, this one would be hard to figure out by just checking the ratios by crank turns vs wheel turns, which would hide an Si box from discovery.

 

[disquek]

..... and by denying something beefier we're right back to the alternate rods deal ....

Slope.
.
-.
--.
---.
----.
-----.
------.
-------.

-Kyle

 

[blamkin86]

..... and by denying something beefier we're right back to the alternate rods deal ....

Slope.
.
-.
--.
---.
----.
-----.
------.
-------.

-Kyle

Nah, not really. The beefier part is allowed. It just costs weight.

Very different, IMHO.

 

[disquek]

Should the same sort of penalty apply to alternate rods?

From what I recall in that thread, that idea was roundly rejected.

-Kyle

 

[Matt Blehm]

Nah, not really. The beefier part is allowed. It just costs weight.

Very different, IMHO.

CRB counter-argument: beefier parts equate to higher reliability. higher reliability equates to a competitive advantage.

... just playing devil's advocate from someone that is in favor of alternate rods...

 

[JasonIsley99]

In the case of the 88-91 Honda Civic/CRX, the DX and Si ratios are the same. The difference is in the final drive ratio, which you can change to whatever suits you.

if I were to put a SI stock gear set into my DX CRX, would there be a 2.5% penalty?

OK now I'm starting to see the "issue."

Personally, if they really are exactly the same, in every way, then I don't see a problem. If the Si box is 'beefier' or whatever, then unfortunately I think it should incur the penalty, personally. The CRB may agree with you; write a letter. For the cheaters, this one would be hard to figure out by just checking the ratios by crank turns vs wheel turns, which would hide an Si box from discovery.

I doubt the Si and DX box have the same part number on them... Same gear or not, if its not the part listed for your car then its an alternative imho.

 

[blamkin86]

Should the same sort of penalty apply to alternate rods?
From what I recall in that thread, that idea was roundly rejected.
-Kyle

I remember being OK with the idea.

CRB counter-argument: beefier parts equate to higher reliability. higher reliability equates to a competitive advantage.

... just playing devil's advocate from someone that is in favor of alternate rods...

Meh, I cant' (and won't) justify their arguments. As I said all along, the miata guys came out and raced, and proved a need. I only went along with it because it was the only way to get the change.

They can deal with the fallout. I don't have any sympathy. Put me in charge.

 

[Protech Racing]

We already mix and match engines/heads to get the best combo.
Many of our cars came with many options for gear sets. I am all for any gear pair that came in a street model edition of the same car, can run at the lowest weight.

 

[blamkin86]

We already mix and match engines/heads to get the best combo.
Many of our cars came with many options for gear sets. I am all for any gear pair that came in a street model edition of the same car, can run at the lowest weight.

You can already run any stock gears you want for a 2.5% weight penalty, as you know.

Maybe you should ask for a rule change in this case. I think it's reasonable... but it is a change. Who knows, it's near Christmas - maybe they'll do it.

Personally?
1) Go through all the L2 cars and remove the lowest weight. Everyone gets a 2.5% penalty
2) All L2 cars can run any syncro gears from any car any time ever.

Rulebook smaller. Less cheating. Easier policing.

If you want to run the stock gearbox, go ahead.

 

[Jay Griffin]

You can already run any stock gears you want for a 2.5% weight penalty, as you know.

You can run any gear RATIO you want (even other than-stock ones) with a 2.5% penalty. As long as it uses stock type synchros.

 

[blamkin86]

You can run any gear RATIO you want (even other than-stock ones) with a 2.5% penalty. As long as it uses stock type synchros.

Sorry, yeah that's what I meant.

 

[Protech Racing]

Sorry to bring this back up. The rules seem to indicate the "stock gear set" is determined by the gear ratios , Not the part #s. Is that correct?
Next. In trying to find the stock gear set for my VW. I find pages of trans codes.
All(most) of the HP VWs are listed @ the same weight/ cam/ compression. etc.

Cars that came with 8.5/1, solid lifter heads, etc can all mix and match to find the best combo.
Should the trans interchange among all of these cars , be considered stock?

In reality, some versions of the currently same spec cars, came with slightly better gear sets, only for a few years. Is this an oversite and omissions situation?