|
|
Post by sadfish on Jul 24, 2024 15:43:36 GMT 12
The roller rocker rule has been there since the class was invented, if your engine is under 4212cc and runs rollers on a factory road car then you can run them, and all other engines can not run them, that's the rule and all saloon racers know that so what's not to understand, roller tip or full rollers are in breach of the rules unless your factory road engine is 4212cc or under
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Jul 24, 2024 15:53:36 GMT 12
its been well established since the beginning of the saloon class that v8 are to use stamped rockers to limit engine performance in a very easy to check method, and it works well, Except that's not what the current Saloon rules say. "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." No mention of that rule not applying to V8 engines. "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" Which is a complete contradiction of the previous rule. The problem is that the SNZ Saloon rules (specifications) are incredibly badly written with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. I think this has come about because over the years changes to one section of the rules have been made without considering how they affect other sections even if they conflict or make little sense when the full rules are read. This I think contributes to the varying interpretations as to what is permissible in this grade. Has there ever been a saloon with a v8 under 257ci ? |
|
|
|
Post by sadfish on Jul 24, 2024 16:12:10 GMT 12
Yes back in the day the rover v8 was used and some of them were under the 4212cc rule with roller rockers
|
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 24, 2024 16:32:06 GMT 12
There is obviously issues with these engines not being compliant or SNZ wouldn't have done what they have to this point, will be a sad day for all other competitors, fans etc if these people involved get away with it purely due to an incorrect process or mistake in the inspection and/or notification process.
The engines are obviously illegal as per the current rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 24, 2024 19:43:53 GMT 12
Except that's not what the current Saloon rules say. "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." No mention of that rule not applying to V8 engines. "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" Which is a complete contradiction of the previous rule. The problem is that the SNZ Saloon rules (specifications) are incredibly badly written with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. I think this has come about because over the years changes to one section of the rules have been made without considering how they affect other sections even if they conflict or make little sense when the full rules are read. This I think contributes to the varying interpretations as to what is permissible in this grade. So going by that rule if these engines are using roller tip rockers and claiming it's because they are factory, then both these engines should be under 257 cubic inch as per the rule. Both those engines under 257 cubic inch they way they perform on the track.... yeah right, no way are they under 257 cubic inch So which is it, can't have roller tip rockers and be over 257 cubic inches, if so it's illegal and that's cheating. Pointing out the contradiction between rule "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" and "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." The are a lot of other contradictions and inconsistencies in the Saloon rules, this is just one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 24, 2024 19:45:48 GMT 12
Except that's not what the current Saloon rules say. "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." No mention of that rule not applying to V8 engines. "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" Which is a complete contradiction of the previous rule. The problem is that the SNZ Saloon rules (specifications) are incredibly badly written with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. I think this has come about because over the years changes to one section of the rules have been made without considering how they affect other sections even if they conflict or make little sense when the full rules are read. This I think contributes to the varying interpretations as to what is permissible in this grade. Has there ever been a saloon with a v8 under 257ci ? Yes Rover 3.5 and 3.9 litre V8's in Rover SD1, Triumph TR7 and MGBGT bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 24, 2024 19:53:29 GMT 12
T11-2-3
Only modifications specifically mentioned in Section T11-2 are permitted. No other modifications are allowed.
UNLESS IT SAYS YOU CAN THEN YOU MUST NOT!
T11-2-4
OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer. OEM parts must retain their original identification marks.
T11-2-5
OE means Original Equipment as supplied when the road car was sold new.
|
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 24, 2024 20:02:58 GMT 12
T11-2-3 Only modifications specifically mentioned in Section T11-2 are permitted. No other modifications are allowed. UNLESS IT SAYS YOU CAN THEN YOU MUST NOT! T11-2-4 OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer. OEM parts must retain their original identification marks. T11-2-5 OE means Original Equipment as supplied when the road car was sold new. "T11-2-3 Only modifications specifically mentioned in Section T11-2 are permitted. No other modifications are allowed. UNLESS IT SAYS YOU CAN THEN YOU MUST NOT!" More gibberish in the Saloon rules. For just one example, boring or stroking an engine is not mentioned ie it does not say you can do it, so all those 0.030" over bored 350 Chevs (355 cu in) are illegal. That's what happens when rules are made by SNZ which are effectively meaningless in a legal sense, they would loose out at the Sports Tribunal or in a civil court as they have previously. |
|
|
|
Post by Driftwood on Jul 24, 2024 21:06:17 GMT 12
tractionavant its 030" not .0030" just saying
|
|
|
|
Post by sonic33 on Jul 24, 2024 21:07:57 GMT 12
will be a sad day for all other competitors, fans etc if these people involved get away with it don't forget the combined 12,000 followers. I wish I could give my dog a bone and it keep her as busy as this is keeping you. I am not invested in this and have no technical knowledge so the technical rules are well over my head. Thrashing stuff here has got to the point there is nothing more to add really. I suppose the process will play out either way. Well done on your 29 posts. Let it go, and see what transpires. If bikeboy is liking your posts, that is concerning hahahaha |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 24, 2024 21:50:46 GMT 12
will be a sad day for all other competitors, fans etc if these people involved get away with it don't forget the combined 12,000 followers. I wish I could give my dog a bone and it keep her as busy as this is keeping you. I am not invested in this and have no technical knowledge so the technical rules are well over my head. Thrashing stuff here has got to the point there is nothing more to add really. I suppose the process will play out either way. Well done on your 29 posts. Let it go, and see what transpires. If bikeboy is liking your posts, that is concerning hahahaha Worry more about the topic than the person writing the post.... it may educate you and who knows.... you may gain some technical knowledge 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Helios on Jul 25, 2024 8:57:46 GMT 12
Well done on your 29 posts. 29 posts? Or one post, 29 times over? |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 25, 2024 9:53:20 GMT 12
Well done on your 29 posts. 29 posts? Or one post, 29 times over? Funny, however I'm sure there are other post on this site with longer threads and multiple comments more than mine , the positive is at least they are getting read and people are getting an understanding of the apparent cheating. So let's not loose focus of the actual thread topic of ILLEGAL SALOON ENGINES instead of how many times one person has commented, that's the whole idea of getting some transparency..... you ask questions..... who would have though that a... 😉 Anyway I do agree with one thing now there's been a few answers... it's obviously going through lawyers etc and time to just sit & wait , here's hoping for the correct outcome and not a poor decision based purely on a process gone wrong. Happy to wait. 😜 you have a great day.. oh PS , that's probably 31 now. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by nakifans on Jul 25, 2024 10:34:25 GMT 12
I'd advise a read on Percy's link P5 of the sports tribunal case in 08 of Tony Heuvel's appeal re carb in his saloon.
Very through and lengthy but enlightening in detail. At the moment we have HE said SHE said camps with their interpretation of said clauses given by SNZ as the infringements.
If it goes to Sports Tribunal or courts; SNZ will then have to give precise details why they took this action as in Heuvel case.
When candidates for new board were interviewed on pits media many a time it was brought up re Technical Committee decisions being over ruled by the board.
Hopefully this saga gets answers at the upcoming AGM and put to bed and speedway season is a successful one.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadfish on Jul 25, 2024 11:09:38 GMT 12
All well and good having rules but if the people reading them are not clever enough to understand them, then that's where the problems starts
|
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Aug 27, 2024 12:19:41 GMT 12
As per todays SNZ News letter
Board Referral Outcomes
Saloon Competitor A Osborne was relieved of his 2023/24 SNZ Title placings and suspended from racing until 2 January 2025. An additional $1000.00 fine was imposed.
Saloon Competitor C McManaway was relieved of his 2023/24 SNZ Title placings and suspended from racing until 2 January 2025. An additional $1000.00 fine was imposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 27, 2024 16:27:48 GMT 12
I've removed a couple of posts that added nothing to the discussion and were only going to inflame the thread
The only development is the (seemingly inevitable) application of penalties to McManaway. As per the previous SNZ update these penalties were pending the competitors response
Please don't post anything that has already been said/covered in the 6 pages of this thread
|
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Aug 27, 2024 16:37:52 GMT 12
I've removed a couple of posts that added nothing to the discussion and were only going to inflame the thread The only development is the (seemingly inevitable) application of penalties to McManaway. As per the previous SNZ update these penalties were pending the competitors response Please don't post anything that has already been said/covered in the 6 pages of this thread 🙄 |
|
