Topic: Intercooler

[Bill Hahn Jr]

Bill -
For your intercooler, was there any issues with the fit on the front area (front bumper side)or is the issue of cutting, behind the IC's black plastic undercover?

My 430 front bumper is tight but has a little room to work with but I wasn't sure if your IC expands too much forward?

Thanks
Charles

I'd think you'd be just fine.  The clearance modification required is in the rear of the intercooler, where we remove a small strip (about 1/2" wide) of the black plastic duct (I think you are calling it the undercover) that nests up against the intercooler's back side.   The forward clearance is similar to stock; we just flip around the vertical tubular fascia support brackets to create a tad more forward clearance, but the amount of difference involved is relatively minor, about 1/8" to 1/4".

If you'd like to see more, I can email you the instructions as well.

[Bill Hahn Jr]

If you were to run that by the SCCA I am quite sure they would not see it that way. Again, if does not say you CAN, you CAN'T.

Don't get me wrong. I think there are a lot of rules that are nearly senseless. But I have been playing ball with SCCA for a long time, tilted windmills on issues like these, and they will not buy this argument. People are not empowered to use their own conclusions to "work around" the rules. In this case, bumper systems can not be modified. Serious. If an intercooler will not fit with modifications, its installation bumps it to SSM or Prepared class. Don't believe it? Write a letter to the SEB and ask for clarification.

An interesting debate, to be sure.  I see merits in both sides of the argument here.  Nonetheless, I suppose I would look to the intent of the rule for the ultimate interpretation, which I would imagine is to prevent humongous coolers that require modifications.  Using the envelope of the stock cooler's "footprint" as a limiting factor makes sense in this regard.   I am confident our product will comply, especially with the revised install procedure I have in mind.

[shabby]

What if you would just jam it in there and the shrouding would bend itself to shape, think that would work eh Bobby?

[elff]

Why run it by them?

The way it is written allows it.  Let it become an issue if it becomes any issue and then you have a great argument to make it written in a way to favor you

[snaponbob]

P.S.: By the way, Bob, I believe you meant to say "If an intercooler will not fit withOUT modifications..." above.  If you edit your post, I'll edit this one too.

Yup, sure did. Now fixed. Thanks for the heads up. I actually have two valid excuses!! 1) Jet lag. Basically the return from the UK was a 20 hour marathon followed by very little sleep before flying from Va. to Mo. 2) In the middle of an ocular migraine. For me it impairs center field vision. Starting to clear now.

[snaponbob]

Why run it by them?

The way it is written allows it.  Let it become an issue if it becomes any issue and then you have a great argument to make it written in a way to favor you

Why "run it by them"? Because there is no reason to flirt with legality, especially when the platform is very competitive when legally modified per class rules. One of the reasons my car is 100% legal is that I did consult with SCCA whenever I was in doubt. Some of my arguments were .... umm .... "creative", but they floated like rocks.

[Sol Asylum]

Why run it by them?

The way it is written allows it.  Let it become an issue if it becomes any issue and then you have a great argument to make it written in a way to favor you

Yep the old play in the gray area and make them clarify the rules because of it.  It seems I do that at work all the time and have caused new standards to be written about once a week.

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission especially when no one know you need to be forgiven.

[snaponbob]

S.A., if the SCCA rule set worked that way, fine. But it really is based on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't", and it is well known and understood in the SCCA solo community. When cheating is caught, even when it is inadvertent, it is penalized. The honor system is in play, and the vast majority abide by it, even when a particular rule is stupid. And there ARE some magnificently stupid rules.

[elff]

They floated like rocks because the SCCA had not thought about making it illegal until you put that thought in their head.


You need to stop being the tattle tale teachers pet and think outside the box.

You've had numerous independent people tell you the same thing but as always, you know better than everyone else.

[Bill Hahn Jr]

Why run it by them?

The way it is written allows it.  Let it become an issue if it becomes any issue and then you have a great argument to make it written in a way to favor you

I'd tend to agree, actually.  Our intercooler was designed from the outset to fit into the stock intercooler bay, thereby avoiding extensive modification to the car.  It was our intention to make it as large as possible within these constraints, to use up every single cubic inch of available volume afforded by that stock intercooler bay.  This is why its core and cast end tanks were specifically designed for Kappa, and not just some off-the-shelf items adapted to this application.

Bob, I hear you, but interpretation is the key here, as is understanding the intent of the rule.  Were I an SCCA inspector, I think I would find that this intercooler complies with the intended spirit of the rule, as well as does not run afoul of the published language.

This is our usual engineering design approach, to be as unobtrusive as possible to the existing vehicle original equipment, but to also eke out the maximum available improvement, all without having to resort to extensive mods.  It's a fine balance, but I believe we manage to achieve it.  This approach keeps installation as simple as possible, while also achieving the greatest possible performance improvement.  It's also why our product tends to have an OEM fit and finish appearance, as well as why it's often been admired and recommended by OEM's such as GM.

We've seen a lot of product and systems over the years that throw caution to the wind in this regard, and really wreak havoc on the vehicle in order to install.  We feel that's an amateurish approach which lacks attention to detail.  Fortunately, 25+ years in this game has taught me a few things

Nonetheless, I am still going to see if I can develop an ironclad, no-interpretation-needed, withstands-any-possible-SCCA-scrutiny way to install the unit.  There's no reason why SCCA racers should not be able to benefit from the performance and durability improvements this intercooler affords, as I firmly believe it to be the best bolt-in unit available.

[Sol Asylum]

SOB I am not going to outright call you naive but the SCCA people that I have known are always looking for those gray areas and playing the don't ask don't tell game.

[elff]

Very cool Bill
It make a non issue into a bullet proof non issue.

I like your thinking. Its good to have You back in the community.

Edit-SA replied before I finished typing

[snaponbob]

They floated like rocks because the SCCA had not thought about making it illegal until you put that thought in their head.


You need to stop being the tattle tale teachers pet and think outside the box.

You've had numerous independent people tell you the same thing but as always, you know better than everyone else.

That's bull shit. I said I have issues with the way they write rules - a lot of them. I am not carrying their water. Rather it is an apparently failed attempt to share what I have seen, experienced, and dealt with for 30 years of participating in SCCA Solo. Frankly, if there was a better group, I would be there. Whether or not SCCA they things through is not justification for breaking the rules. There are other prep levels that allow more modifications. If you were to contact Topeka they would tell you that I spend energy pushing ropes up hill and try changing rules through the process they have in place. There is a reason that SCCA stands for Simply Can't Change Anything. It's their game, their football, their program. I push the existing rule set as far as I can with the money I have. As far as being "better than everybody else", that is a specious remark. You are trying to justify going beyond the intent and letter of the rule set and saying that if one does not get caught, then that is okay. That speaks for itself. If you don't like the rule set that SCCA, don't use it. Legal is legal, and not legal is not legal.
 

[snaponbob]

SOB I am not going to outright call you naive but the SCCA people that I have known are always looking for those gray areas and playing the don't ask don't tell game.

If you are referring to participants, I would agree. The guys up at the pointy end of the stick drive instead of cheat, and those that do cheat have been known to got caught. Alex Jones would tell you that there some real aliens driving cars - LEGAL cars. Ask him about Matt Braun. If a car becomes transparently questionable, ugly stuff happens. The guys further down the food chain are the ones that indulge in going past "gray". The vast majority of competitors are running clean cars. Stretching TO the edge of the envelope is what most do, and those that go beyond are running illegal. There are things in life at 63 that I am still naive about, but not this stuff. 

[elff]

That's bull shit. I said I have issues with the way they write rules - a lot of them. I am not carrying their water. Rather it is an apparently failed attempt to share what I have seen, experienced, and dealt with for 30 years of participating in SCCA Solo. Frankly, if there was a better group, I would be there. Whether or not SCCA they things through is not justification for breaking the rules. There are other prep levels that allow more modifications. If you were to contact Topeka they would tell you that I spend energy pushing ropes up hill and try changing rules through the process they have in place. There is a reason that SCCA stands for Simply Can't Change Anything. It's their game, their football, their program. I push the existing rule set as far as I can with the money I have. As far as being "better than everybody else", that is a specious remark. You are trying to justify going beyond the intent and letter of the rule set and saying that if one does not get caught, then that is okay. That speaks for itself. If you don't like the rule set that SCCA, don't use it. Legal is legal, and not legal is not legal.
 

 

There are 5 other people OTHER THAN ME that have stated that the area that would need massaging to get installed is not a body panel, structural part etc. and would fall into the legal area.   Its also not an area that can be examined shy of dismantling the car.     Some of those people are seasoned competitors.   You aren't' the only one who has been in the SCCA.

The only bullshit going on here is the fact that you want to discount their opinion because you think you are correct as you always do. That's an ongoing theme in these threads you create and I have called you out on it before.
I seriously don't understand why you ask if all you are going to do is shoot people down.

[Sol Asylum]

The people that I was talking about go all over the country to run at national events so if that makes them participants so be it, I assume you are the expert on pointy ends of sticks and will defer to you on that.

[Bill Hahn Jr]

If I may moderate a bit...

I see all sides of this debate, and I think everyone's said their piece now.  Frankly, all points of view here are potentially valid, as there's always some grey area where rules interpretation is concerned.   There is the most rigid possible interpretation, which is 100% safe, and there is the most liberal possible interpretation, which may feel safe, but which is inarguably vulnerable should a most rigid inspector be making the decisions.  I feel the truth in this particular matter likely falls somewhere in between. 

I'll work up that 100% SCCA-safe install iteration, and for those currently racing SCCA with one of our intercoolers already installed, I'd think you have very little to be concerned about

[Gentleman Jack]

Bill,

Welcome back.  Glad you have weathered the storm, found your happy place, and come out the other side of the worm hole.  There are a whole lot more idioms I could use, but the basics are, you were in a river of shit, and now you are not.  I look forward to watching your progress and hope for all the best for you, your family, and HRC.

Moderator (SOB?  Are you still a moderator?) Please split this topic.  The SCCA discussion has some validity to it, but it does not belong in this VENDOR thread. 

GJ

[snaponbob]

The people that I was talking about go all over the country to run at national events so if that makes them participants so be it, I assume you are the expert on pointy ends of sticks and will defer to you on that.

Never said I was. Because I do not have a pilot's license does not mean I don't know how an airplane works. The reason I have not installed an I/C is because any that I would buy were not compliant (per the people at SCCA, not participants). Yes, there are a couple that will fit, but on all things retail I vote with my wallet. One was wildly expensive and the other I won't buy due to who sells it. I am re-interpreting the SCCA rule book. What I am trying to share is based on what people (paid employees and volunteers on the advisory committees) have told me as replies to 1) questions posed, or 2) requests for rule changes (a couple of which have been adopted and many rejected). Sanctioning bodies such as NASCAR enforce via active and in depth inspection and searching for violations. SCCA Solo operates via the honor system based on choosing to comply. The way to change the rules is to ask to change the rules, not knowingly be in non-compliance and then argue the point if caught. Again, trimming pieces is actually covered when applicable, but since it is not addressed in this particular case it should be assumed not be acceptable. I didn't write the damn book, I just read it. BTW, I have pushed the envelope (a few cars ago) in the past and suffered through a couple different protests, only to prevail. The REASON I prevailed (pre-interent) was letters from SCCA saying that my modifications met the letter and intent of the rules. THAT is why I speak with them when I want to make changes that are "out of the box", NOT to be a teachers pet. Just ask Brian Harmer, Doug Gill, or Howard Duncan (all staff at SCCA Topeka) how much of a teachers' pet I am. YOU will be legally liable for there injuries when they fall down laughing. 

[snaponbob]

Bill,

Moderator (SOB?  Are you still a moderator?) Please split this topic.  The SCCA discussion has some validity to it, but it does not belong in this VENDOR thread. 

GJ

Yes, but I have never split a topic. If someone who can correctly do it wants to, that would be great.

[elff]

I still 100% disagree with your line of reasoning and your perception of how competitors are.  You may be a boy scout, but the majority of people in the SCCA [Or other competitions] aren't and will push the gray area vs asking about it.   Furthermore If something is not explicitly stated as being illegal, it's not cheating to treat it as legal.   

Cheating is when something is 100% defined as illegal, and you do it and attempt to hide it.

[snaponbob]

Elff, I get what you are saying. But the over riding premise of the SCCA Solo rulebook is, as stated before, if it does not say you CAN, you CAN'T. I didn't write the damn thing. Oh, never was and am not a "boy scout".

The way you are defining cheating is a general solid way of creating rules. Odd thing is that SCCA road racing pretty much operates that way. And if one thinks the Solo rule book is a maze only needs to look at the GCR. THAT will make a lawyer's brain burn. The SCCA Solo rule book should be burned and rewritten. But none of us will live that long.

Example of one stupid rule that requests for change were rejected. The trunk of a Kappa is defined as an exterior body panel. The context is drilling a hole to access the upper shock adjust on various units. (This pertains up through SP, and maybe even SSM.) Yet, one can drill that hole for installing remote shock reservoirs. There are SO many more.

[Sol Asylum]

Never said I was. Because I do not have a pilot's license does not mean I don't know how an airplane works. The reason I have not installed an I/C is because any that I would buy were not compliant (per the people at SCCA, not participants). Yes, there are a couple that will fit, but on all things retail I vote with my wallet. One was wildly expensive and the other I won't buy due to who sells it. I am re-interpreting the SCCA rule book. What I am trying to share is based on what people (paid employees and volunteers on the advisory committees) have told me as replies to 1) questions posed, or 2) requests for rule changes (a couple of which have been adopted and many rejected). Sanctioning bodies such as NASCAR enforce via active and in depth inspection and searching for violations. SCCA Solo operates via the honor system based on choosing to comply. The way to change the rules is to ask to change the rules, not knowingly be in non-compliance and then argue the point if caught. Again, trimming pieces is actually covered when applicable, but since it is not addressed in this particular case it should be assumed not be acceptable. I didn't write the damn book, I just read it. BTW, I have pushed the envelope (a few cars ago) in the past and suffered through a couple different protests, only to prevail. The REASON I prevailed (pre-interent) was letters from SCCA saying that my modifications met the letter and intent of the rules. THAT is why I speak with them when I want to make changes that are "out of the box", NOT to be a teachers pet. Just ask Brian Harmer, Doug Gill, or Howard Duncan (all staff at SCCA Topeka) how much of a teachers' pet I am. YOU will be legally liable for there injuries when they fall down laughing. 

I guess I don't get it, are you saying you are not an expert on pointy sticks or is that now a gray area too?

[snaponbob]

I guess the question has some value. So, I will give the attention it deserves.

[elff]

There are so many things not defined in the SOLO rules that would make 90% of contestants illegal.

It is Impossible to define the rules by stating everything that is legal.   The only way to do it is to state what is explicitly not allowed and that is how I personally will always view it.