SCCAForums.com

So where is everyone getting these?  I ordered up a new set from Honda and it turns out there are none to be had in any US warehouse, and they are on national backorder with no ETA at all.  Smells like they may all be gone for good.

I saw a fair number of fresh motors/heads in STS/STS2 this year.  What did you all do for springs?  I can't imagine that everyone's springs were within spec, given how badly they fatigue.  Aftermarket OE-equivalent?

--Andy

Were you able to see if complete heads were available?

I looked these up at autopartsgiant.com and they have Sealed Power oe exhaust springs listed for $10.41 each. Rockauto.com also lists these slightly cheaper. Of course, "listed" and "available" are entirely different terms.

---

James Plotkin
'05 FSP Echo

When I had my head rebuilt two years ago, I asked for new springs.  My building could not find enough to replace them all.  I think they've been scarce for some time now.  My advice is to not worry about new springs and just run the old ones like everyone else.

 

glagola1:

When I had my head rebuilt two years ago, I asked for new springs.  My building could not find enough to replace them all.  I think they've been scarce for some time now.  My advice is to not worry about new springs and just run the old ones like everyone else.

 

The catch to this that I'm sure Andy is trying to avoid, and that by the letter of the law would probably make all ST Hondas illegal, is that a collapsed spring is no more in spec than a shimmed one.  Honda provides a range of measurements, and anything outside of that is technically illegal.  If the part is truely no longer available, then I beleive that stock class has an allowance for aftermarket replacements, but if the goal is to remove all suspecion of inpropriety, then that is also a tricky path to travel.

DILYSI Dave:

The catch to this that I'm sure Andy is trying to avoid, and that by the letter of the law would probably make all ST Hondas illegal, is that a collapsed spring is no more in spec than a shimmed one.  Honda provides a range of measurements, and anything outside of that is technically illegal. 

Bingo.  And a legitimate case be made that underlength fatigued springs actually make more power due to reduced friction, right up to the point where the valves float.  Only shimming puts them back to OE pressure at a given lift.

 

 If the part is truely no longer available, then I beleive that stock class has an allowance for aftermarket replacements, but if the goal is to remove all suspecion of inpropriety, then that is also a tricky path to travel.

Nope, that's SP.  No allowance in Stock.

Can open, worms everywhere.

I wonder if this is what the SEB was hoping to find when it opened valve covers on STS?  I mean, they didn't even check cam lobe heights, which would have been the logical cheater piece.

--Andy

PS: Matt, I have not yet checked whole head availability, but I know the price is around $1200.  Maybe the price of being fully legal in STS just went up a bunch?  Sheesh...

 

Stock Allowance: 

"Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters, belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates, suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size, hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide no performance benefit. The allowance for use of such replacements does not include camshafts, differential covers, or ring-and-pinion sets, nor does it authorize the use of piston rings having different configurations (e.g. “Total Seal”) from those of the original."

 So Valve Springs are not specifically allowed or disallowed under this stock class rule.  They are normally expendable, though on a longer range scale than brake pads and filters.  OTOH, Camshafts are specifically disallowed, and the valve springs are a first cousin to the camshaft.  Is there any precedent on using this stock class allowance with regard to internal engine parts?

Street Prepared Allowance:

"Where a car is out of production and the manufacturer is either out of business, stocks no parts or no longer has a required part, a part of any origin but as similar as possible to the original may be substituted. The entrant must be prepared to show documentary evidence that one of the three circumstances above applies and that the substituted part is as similar as possible under the circumstances. Substitute parts which provide improvements in performance (e.g. superior gearing, lighter weight, better camshaft profile, etc.) are not permitted under this allowance."

This definitely addresses the scenario much better than the stock allowance.  Unfortuantely, it is not applicable to ST. 

I might have the only legal Civic in STS!  :)

 

San Diego Tour was the first event on fresh virgin Honda valve springs.   :)

Last complete set known in the free world (or even the very expensive world).

---

Dr. Conemangler
#15 STS '91 Civic Si
CalClub

I was told last time I searched that whole head assemblies where now gone.

---

Dr. Conemangler
#15 STS '91 Civic Si
CalClub

DILYSI Dave:

Stock Allowance: 

"Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters, belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates, suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size, hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide no performance benefit. The allowance for use of such replacements does not include camshafts, differential covers, or ring-and-pinion sets, nor does it authorize the use of piston rings having different configurations (e.g. “Total Seal”) from those of the original."

 So Valve Springs are not specifically allowed or disallowed under this stock class rule.  They are normally expendable, though on a longer range scale than brake pads and filters.  OTOH, Camshafts are specifically disallowed, and the valve springs are a first cousin to the camshaft.  Is there any precedent on using this stock class allowance with regard to internal engine parts?

Ah yes, the expendable parts list.  I did the majority of the work the last time this was updated (it used to just say "seals, gaskets, bearings").  The list we came up with was as exhaustive as we could make it at the time.  But to evergreen the rule, we reluctantly included the ".etc".  At the time, internal engine parts like valve springs were not considered normally expendable.  Since that time, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard something extreme try to be rationalized under "expendable parts".  Pretty much everything in the car. 

So that's what was intended when the rule was written.  It is essentially "alternate sourcing of identical parts".  But the words are just words, and open to interpretation.

Street Prepared Allowance:

"Where a car is out of production and the manufacturer is either out of business, stocks no parts or no longer has a required part, a part of any origin but as similar as possible to the original may be substituted. The entrant must be prepared to show documentary evidence that one of the three circumstances above applies and that the substituted part is as similar as possible under the circumstances. Substitute parts which provide improvements in performance (e.g. superior gearing, lighter weight, better camshaft profile, etc.) are not permitted under this allowance."

This definitely addresses the scenario much better than the stock allowance.  Unfortuantely, it is not applicable to ST. 

This might be a good idea for ST.  Perhaps a couple of letters on the subject might kick-start some discussion.

--Andy

 

Why isn't an aftermarket (Sealed Power) supplier's OE spring legal?

---

James Plotkin
'05 FSP Echo

atcovan:

Why isn't an aftermarket (Sealed Power) supplier's OE spring legal?

If it is the same dimensionally, and is the same spring rate, what TECHNICALLY is the difference? Forgetting Andy's situation, the implication of your question on Stock class, as well as other classes that the OE rules apply to, is that if the exact OE part is not available the car must be put away until the part is available. What are people to do if the OE part is no longer available but exact replicas are? Federal law (I believe) dictates that manufacturers must supply parts for 11 years after the date of manufacturer. How old is Andy's car? Taurus SHO owners had problems after as little as 5 years getting engine parts. Australian built Capri owners suffered as well. There are other examples. The law is a problem, and so is the language of the SCCA's rule on this subject. Should the owner of a car that exact OE parts are not available be required to ditch the car? This a classic case of "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law". Taken to an absurd extension of logic, if a bolt falls out of a car, should the owner then accept ONLY an OE part number bolt? Yet brake pads, wheels, and all sorts of other important parts CAN be substituted. In stock class a person can substitute wheels (with lighter, and wider offset) but they are HARDLY "consumption" items. This is picking nit on the highest order. And not the least of the reasons I plan on moving from Stock to Street Prepared class.  

---

Bob Buxbaum
Lee's Summit, Mo.

atcovan:

Why isn't an aftermarket (Sealed Power) supplier's OE spring legal?

Because, in general, there is no allowance for aftermarket-sourced engine parts in Stock.  And ST builds on the Stock allowances/restrictions.

The only possible rationale for use of such a part would be via the "expendable parts" allowance for alternate sourcing of essentially-identical parts, as described by Dave above.  But that may be a hard sell since it is not listed in that allowance.

--Andy

snaponbob:

atcovan:

Why isn't an aftermarket (Sealed Power) supplier's OE spring legal?

If it is the same dimensionally, and is the same spring rate, what TECHNICALLY is the difference? Forgetting Andy's situation, the implication of your question on Stock class, as well as other classes that the OE rules apply to, is that if the exact OE part is not available the car must be put away until the part is available. What are people to do if the OE part is no longer available but exact replicas are? Federal law (I believe) dictates that manufacturers must supply parts for 11 years after the date of manufacturer. How old is Andy's car? Taurus SHO owners had problems after as little as 5 years getting engine parts. Australian built Capri owners suffered as well. There are other examples. The law is a problem, and so is the language of the SCCA's rule on this subject. Should the owner of a car that exact OE parts are not available be required to ditch the car? This a classic case of "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law". Taken to an absurd extension of logic, if a bolt falls out of a car, should the owner then accept ONLY an OE part number bolt? Yet brake pads, wheels, and all sorts of other important parts CAN be substituted. In stock class a person can substitute wheels (with lighter, and wider offset) but they are HARDLY "consumption" items. This is picking nit on the highest order. And not the least of the reasons I plan on moving from Stock to Street Prepared class.  

That's one of the reasonings for the sunset rule in stock classes.

---

Mike Shields
1993 BMW 325is | 92/192 DSP

Mike Shields:

snaponbob:

atcovan:

Why isn't an aftermarket (Sealed Power) supplier's OE spring legal?

If it is the same dimensionally, and is the same spring rate, what TECHNICALLY is the difference? Forgetting Andy's situation, the implication of your question on Stock class, as well as other classes that the OE rules apply to, is that if the exact OE part is not available the car must be put away until the part is available. What are people to do if the OE part is no longer available but exact replicas are? Federal law (I believe) dictates that manufacturers must supply parts for 11 years after the date of manufacturer. How old is Andy's car? Taurus SHO owners had problems after as little as 5 years getting engine parts. Australian built Capri owners suffered as well. There are other examples. The law is a problem, and so is the language of the SCCA's rule on this subject. Should the owner of a car that exact OE parts are not available be required to ditch the car? This a classic case of "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law". Taken to an absurd extension of logic, if a bolt falls out of a car, should the owner then accept ONLY an OE part number bolt? Yet brake pads, wheels, and all sorts of other important parts CAN be substituted. In stock class a person can substitute wheels (with lighter, and wider offset) but they are HARDLY "consumption" items. This is picking nit on the highest order. And not the least of the reasons I plan on moving from Stock to Street Prepared class.  

That's one of the reasonings for the sunset rule in stock classes.

That is understandable. But, in Andy's case we are talking about a 17 year old (I think) car. If engine bearings are listed, one can reasonably extend past the "etc." to include other "wear" items in an engine (rings, pistons, and so on). If a person wants/needs to rebuild an engine than OE equivalent should be somehow worded into the rule. Check http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/equivalent . Someone suggested that Andy purchase a rebuilt head. Great, but would that require him to receive some sort of certification of OE compliance.

---

Bob Buxbaum
Lee's Summit, Mo.

I'll repeat Andy's comment: please write to seb@scca.com with your suggestions.  The content of this thread and some personal discussions I've had suggest a revision to the ST rules should be considered, and that process starts with member submissions.

Mike

Mike Shields:

That's one of the reasonings for the sunset rule in stock classes.

So if we're recognizing the difficulty in sourcing some or even most OE parts in Stock category by eliminating cars over a certain age from National status, doesn't ST need a companion rule allowing OE-equivalent substitution?   Not doing so says that on the one hand "we know that you can't get all OE parts for that car" while on the other "never mind what we told that other guy, you have to get them anyway".

[black helicopter]Or are preliminary thoughts of introducing a sunset rule into ST waiting to see if that notion has any traction in Stock Category first?[/black helicopter]

 Norm

---

seat time is where you find it (semi-retired) weenie CP '79 Malibu, (no longer ST/SP legal) '95 626

Read the post above yours...I believe you'll find your answer there. 

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo - SOLD!
<----- 2009 - Regain the coveted Tri Pod Trophy for the Hiedi's

I definitely plan to carve out a few minutes to write an SEB letter this weekend.

Even though I have fresh valve springs.   

 

I think Norm makes a key point.  We recognize that maybe we don't want to deal with older cars and their problems in Stock class.  But we've made an allowance for older cars in SP.  ST is the forgotten orphan here.  I think ST needs to the 15.11 language that SP has for obsolete/unobtainable parts.

Get those letters in this weekend.  Its seems like a simple relatively non-controversial change to make.  I don't think its unreasonable that in area like this ST falls closer to SP than Stock.   

---

Dr. Conemangler
#15 STS '91 Civic Si
CalClub

Yeah, please give us a slow and low ball we can hit out of the park...maybe people will think the drunken monkeys are doing something right once and awhile. 

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo - SOLD!
<----- 2009 - Regain the coveted Tri Pod Trophy for the Hiedi's