PDA

View Full Version : Cold-Air Intakes (CAI) for 88-91 CRX Illegal



Gregg
12-16-2008, 04:12 PM
As some of you know, two of the front-running CRX's in the country were protested at this year's ARRC for running what are commonly known as cold-air intakes or CAI. As one of those two cars won the ITA race on the track but then lost the protest, the findings were appealed.

The CoA has just rendered their decisions....
519
520

I know that there has been a fair share of past debate about this in this very forum, but, it should now be clear that if/until there is a rules change, cold-air intakes for the 88-91 Civic/CRX (and by extension the 2nd-gen Integra) are not legal in Improved Touring.

Chip42
12-16-2008, 06:31 PM
Amen.

Gary L
12-16-2008, 07:46 PM
+1

iambhooper
12-16-2008, 10:17 PM
The findings appear to be the same.

So whats the actual feeling on this... is it ok to use an aftermarket cold air type intake as long as it remains in the engine compartment, or within the original intakes confines? I could envision senario's that given the age of many of our IT cars such parts might be not be easy to come by, either tossed away or damaged, where one would have to use an aftermarket intake.

hoop

Xian
12-16-2008, 10:20 PM
Aftermarket underhood intakes are still completely legal. These cars were running a loooong filter on a tube design that placed the filter in the vehicle wheelwell... the CRX did not pull air from the fender in stock configuration.

iambhooper
12-16-2008, 10:38 PM
Gotcha! You know, the pickup for the stock Fiero intake was in the quarter panel behind the drivers side, leading into a canister air filter b4 going into the TB. Which might actually be a illegal in a stock location per the ruling.

GKR_17
12-16-2008, 10:53 PM
Gotcha! You know, the pickup for the stock Fiero intake was in the quarter panel behind the drivers side, leading into a canister air filter b4 going into the TB. Which might actually be a illegal in a stock location per the ruling.

No, the stock location is perfectly legal.

rhygin
12-17-2008, 12:39 AM
Hah... shouda seen the intake on the ITB Golf that I saw at the Lime Rock NARRC this year. I saw it through the grill... and thought... hmmmmmm....

When Black Betty was a street/track car I had fabricated a NACA duct into the headlight cover and the intake temps dropped by about a LOT of degrees on a hot day and yes... I measured it with a multimeter. The drop in the intake charge temp was staggering.

Somewhere I heard the rumor that 10 degrees is roughly 1 hp (for the technical people, I will say uncle right now and I have nothing to back it up except for some bench racing talk). The gain wouda been on the order of 6 - 7 hp. Yikes....

not to start a holy war here... but I would love that intake back and the 6 hp... everyone else could do the same.

gran racing
12-17-2008, 09:03 AM
Remember guys, this is a ruling on this the 88 - 91 CRX and CAIs and just like Xian said " ... the CRX did not pull air from the fender in stock configuration." There are some cars out there where the original air source was from the fender (not talking about a resinator). There's a reason I have the OEM shope manual for my car ear marked on that page. :)

I'm not sure where the Golf III pulls air from OEM, although now you've got me more curious.

Xian
12-17-2008, 09:46 AM
x2 for what Dave said... some cars DO pull from the fender/bumper/grill/etc. For THOSE cars it is 100% legal to have an intake running to that location. Your options for air "pickup" are Stock Location or Underhood.

RexRacer19
12-17-2008, 10:45 AM
While this particular case does specifically name the 88-91 Civic/CRX, the ruling should make it easier to get the grey out of this rule when applying it to other makes/models. It should serve as notice to folks that want to try and push the limits on it.

Did the OEM intake source air from inside or outside of the engine compartment? Yes or No?

Knestis
12-17-2008, 02:54 PM
Hah... shouda seen the intake on the ITB Golf that I saw at the Lime Rock NARRC this year. I saw it through the grill... and thought... hmmmmmm....

The MkIII Golf takes its air from inside of the engine compartment. Remember that "in the engine compartment" means "anywhere in the engine compartment."

Now, the fact that you could see it through the grill raises another potential issue. I can't foresee a combination of legal allowances under which I could, say, use a narrower radiator and put the air intake inside the engine compartment, but right in a blast of air coming through the grill...

K

shwah
12-17-2008, 03:07 PM
And the MkII Golf came two ways - one pulled air from the passenger fender, the other from a duct behind the passenger headlight. Both are nice choices.

gran racing
12-17-2008, 03:15 PM
That's weird. Any idea why they made the change? Doesn't matter - just curious.

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 03:21 PM
Ok, then next question. TR8 picks up air from two fairly small holes in each inner fender well, which takes a tortured path down to the airstream in front of the wheel well.

So what does that mean? Are any modifications allowed to get a filter down there? Or am I "stuck" with the stock holes?

I suspect that latter, which is fine and which I frankly hope is the correct rule because if not, using the "stock location" rule to open up intake paths is a can of worms I don't think we want to open up.

dickita15
12-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Now, the fact that you could see it through the grill raises another potential issue. I can't foresee a combination of legal allowances under which I could, say, use a narrower radiator and put the air intake inside the engine compartment, but right in a blast of air coming through the grill...

K

Any radiator may be used, provided it is mounted in the original location, maintains the same plane as the original core and requires no body or structure modifications to install. No new openings created by fitting an alternate radiator may be used for the purpose of ducting air to the engine.

They already thought of that.

Xian
12-17-2008, 04:44 PM
So what does that mean? Are any modifications allowed to get a filter down there? Or am I "stuck" with the stock holes?

I think this paragraph speaks for itself.



9.3.B.iii.Z

Any modification is allowed that will enable the intake air to be sourced from the stock location. This includes but is not limited to radiusing, drilling, clearancing, creation of new or expansion of existing holes in the body work. Nitrous Oxide (NOS) injection is also permissible via update/backdate and on ITS cars with V8 engine.

If it doesn't say you can... then you can't ;) Where is there an allowance that let's you modify anything to route your intake?

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 04:50 PM
It's a complicated but compelling (although wrong) argument to me. I also think I phrased the problematic "free" part of the rules wrong. I'm not talking about modifying the stock hole, I'm talking about how I use it.

a. You can pickup air from either (a) the stock location or (b) anywhere in the engine compartment.

b. Air hoses, pipes, tubing, etc. ahead of the carb or throttle body are free.

I think the rules allow you, in my case, to snake a tube down the hole in the inner fender wall and run it to a cone or panel filter out in the airstream by the radiator. While I say allow this, I don't think this is the intent of the rule nor do I think it should be allowed.

"Stock" location means to me using the EXACT setup outside of the engine bay as was used stock. Tacking on the free tubing/pipes/etc. rule outside of the engine bay is where you start opening this up to snorkels and such that we don't want.

Xian
12-17-2008, 05:07 PM
Ahhhh... I see where you're going and disagree. I think what you described is exactly what the rules are meant to allow. The "stock location" is a fixed point in space and If you have holes thru which the air was pulled originally, then you should be able to route intake tubing to/thru those holes (stock location) and then run them to a cone or panel filter. The rules states location requirements for sourcing air but doesn't state that stock compenents be used to obtain the air.

I don't see where it states that the "open intake tubing" is tied to the "anywhere in the engine compartment" verbiage and exclusionary of the "stock location" allowance.

Gary L
12-17-2008, 05:15 PM
Jeff - IMO, you're going as far right as the Mosers went left! :)

If your car sourced air outside the engine compartment, you can, too. If the primary source of air was inside the engine compartment, you can't. No, you can't cut holes, or enlarge holes, or other monkey business, because there are other rules that disallow that sort of thing. But otherwise, the rule essentially says intake plumbing is free, so long as the air source is correct.

But hey, while we're picking nits, try this one on... the Volvo 142 sourced air outside the engine compartment through a sizable hole (at least as big as the throttle) in the RH radiator support panel. But the stock plastic intake snorkel that went through that hole was protected by a thick rubber doughtnut. Can I remove the doughnut when I (legally) get rid of the intake snorkel?

On edit: The "doughnut" is a grommet that is designed to be held in place by the sheet metal.

Xian
12-17-2008, 05:30 PM
But hey, while we're picking nits, try this one on... the Volvo 142 sourced air outside the engine compartment through a sizable hole (at least as big as the throttle) in the RH radiator support panel. But the stock plastic intake snorkel that went through that hole was protected by a thick rubber doughtnut. Can I remove the doughnut when I (legally) get rid of the intake snorkel?

On edit: The "doughnut" is a grommet that is designed to be held in place by the sheet metal.

Depends... in the parts cataloques is it considered part of the stock intake system?

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 05:45 PM
Removeable as engine trim perhaps?

As I think through Christian and Gary's responses (both excellent) my concern with this crystallized.

What truly is the stock pickup location for a true ram air, outside the car pickup? Like I said, I could argue that the air that ends up in front of my fender well actually starts its journey there from the big air box I built in the snouth of the car (tubes and such being free) because, in reality it does?

If that is what we are saying, then I guess I need to consider that. Building a big air box/scoop in front of the radiator with hoses that lead into the engine bay through the stock fender holes.

Legal?

Chip42
12-17-2008, 06:08 PM
Removeable as engine trim perhaps?

As I think through Christian and Gary's responses (both excellent) my concern with this crystallized.

What truly is the stock pickup location for a true ram air, outside the car pickup? Like I said, I could argue that the air that ends up in front of my fender well actually starts its journey there from the big air box I built in the snouth of the car (tubes and such being free) because, in reality it does?

If that is what we are saying, then I guess I need to consider that. Building a big air box/scoop in front of the radiator with hoses that lead into the engine bay through the stock fender holes.

Legal?

the picup point is the terminal upstream portion of the primary intact ducting as equipped from stock. if there was a snorkel through the fender that ended at some roughly fixed point within that space, you may place a filter or snorkel in roughly that same space. the openings through the fenders may be enlarged for the piping as the piping is open. no other modifcations to the body or other sheetmetal may be made, and no other pickup points are allowed.

what I am reading from you is that you devise an elaborate system to duct the air through the stock inlet location. this would be illegal, a "tourtured" rule as the COA put it.

Xian
12-17-2008, 06:15 PM
As I see it, if your car had a stock ram air snout that was in front of the radiator, then YES you could build a better snout and stick it in the same place as stock. You can't add a snout where there wasn't one before, you can't move the intake snout from the inner fender to in front of the radiator, and you can't run your new and improved snout outside of the stock location in front of the radiator to the leading edge of the bumper.

I'm not aware of any manufacturer that has a ram air "outside the car pickup". At that point, we'd be talking about a ram air snout protruding out of the bumper into the on-coming air stream... is this what you're talking about? Something that protrudes from the vehicle's silhouette? All the ram air that I've seen either had a hood scoop for the "pickup point" or some sort of snout behind the grill or headlight bucket and in front of or beside the radiator.

Again, the way I find it easiest to think about it is by visualizing the point in space where the air initially goes into the stock intake system. THIS (a point in space) is where the "stock location" is, IMO.

JoshS
12-17-2008, 06:16 PM
the openings through the fenders may be enlarged for the piping as the piping is open.

What? You are saying that you can make illegal modifications in order to facilitate legal ones? I don't think so ...

Xian
12-17-2008, 06:20 PM
the picup point is the terminal upstream portion of the primary intact ducting as equipped from stock. if there was a snorkel through the fender that ended at some roughly fixed point within that space, you may place a filter or snorkel in roughly that same space. the openings through the fenders may be enlarged for the piping as the piping is open. no other modifcations to the body or other sheetmetal may be made, and no other pickup points are allowed.

what I am reading from you is that you devise an elaborate system to duct the air through the stock inlet location. this would be illegal, a "tourtured" rule as the COA put it.

Where does it say you can open up stock holes in the sheetmetal? Just b/c piping is open doesn't mean that modification to the chassis is...



No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 06:35 PM
Guys, good thinking, but I don't buy it. I'm not going to do it, but I think since the rules says air in "stock location" and I can argue that air enters the intake track in the void --within the bodywork -- in front of the radiator, and since hoses, tubes and pipes in front of the carb/throttle body are free, that I can string together hoses and pipes pretty much anywhere along the flow of air from "outside" the car to the intake location.

Chip, I'm with you, I don't think that is the intent of the rule -- I think the intent is as you describe, but when you join the "stock location" rule (undefined or limited in any way) with the free hoses and tubes then you get my "Air Snake."

Air Snake. I like that.

Xian
12-17-2008, 06:56 PM
Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. ;) I'm going to continue to politely disagree with you Jeff. The stock intake has an opening where the air enters the intake tract. THAT is the stock location. You can argue that the air that enters your Air Snake actually starts further up stream but if your stock intake doesn't go as far as the Air Snake then you are illlleeeeegul. Arguing a stance doesn't make it tenable. See Ginsberg vs. Moser 2008.

My approach to the intake is going to be to head "down and forward" relative to the engine. Plenty of good "cold air" on the underside of the car and it's all within the confines of the loosely described "engine bay" area.

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 07:15 PM
My Air Snake will kick your head down ass!

Seriously though, I'm not going to do it. I'm building a "Nascar" air box under the cowl, inside the engine bay, and entirely legal.

But I think coupling the free pipes rule with basically an undefined stock location is asking for trouble.

We don't define stock location anywhere. My car just has a hole with a pipe attached to it. Does that mean I can't still a filter on the other side of the hole? I think most of you guys say I could, but once you do that, you arguing that the stock pickup location is defined by a point in the "air stream" itself, and not by a tube or bodywork, and then the arguments start about where the limits of the intake air stream are.

JoshS
12-17-2008, 07:18 PM
We don't define stock location anywhere. My car just has a hole with a pipe attached to it. Does that mean I can't still a filter on the other side of the hole? I think most of you guys say I could ...

Not me. I think you can do anything you want between the upstream physical edge of the stock system (the hole in your example) and the throttle body/MAF, but you can't move the physical entry point to another location that's not "inside the engine compartment".

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 07:28 PM
I agree. But I think you have hit on the rub. Define "upstream physical edge of teh stock system."

The hole is a part of it. But certainly the air enters and makes turns through the radiator opening and then the void inside the front fender well -- all physical edges -- before entering the engine bay through the hole in the fender well.

Where I am going with this is while I don't like adding or "clarifying" rules, and not sure we should do so here because the intent is clear (to me anyway) I think we are asking for trouble. Someone is going to build an Air Snake and honestly it looks arguably legal.


Not me. I think you can do anything you want between the upstream physical edge of the stock system (the hole in your example) and the throttle body/MAF, but you can't move the physical entry point to another location that's not "inside the engine compartment".

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2008, 07:29 PM
Jeff, any pics of the stock stuff?

JoshS
12-17-2008, 07:38 PM
I agree. But I think you have hit on the rub. Define "upstream physical edge of teh stock system."

The hole is a part of it. But certainly the air enters and makes turns through the radiator opening and then the void inside the front fender well -- all physical edges -- before entering the engine bay through the hole in the fender well.

Gotcha.

Two points:

1) There's a big difference between the "radiator opening entry point" and the downstream "air intake duct hole entry point." Air entering the former goes all over the place. Air entering the latter goes ONLY into the engine, and it ALL goes into the engine.

2) IMO, We don't need a rule to clarify these entry points. Too many words only make it possible to find more gray. Under the current wording, I think it's highly likely that the same people that ruled on the ARRC protest would find your proposed intake illegal, and that's the way it should be. I think we agree on that.

Xian
12-17-2008, 08:06 PM
My Air Snake will kick your head down ass!

Maybe... ;)



Seriously though, I'm not going to do it. I'm building a "Nascar" air box under the cowl, inside the engine bay, and entirely legal.

Ummm... you mean a cowl induction system?



Velocity stacks, ram air or cowl induction are not permitted unless fitted as original equipment.

dspillrat
12-17-2008, 09:03 PM
Jeff,
If I could pull air legally from outside the hood....er engine compartment.........should I say..... In a heart beat.... the snake would rule!!!! Your original equipment "Snake" may be of small penetration into the well, but why give up 30-40 degree air advantage? Hell, with your "negative" rear camber you be crazy anyways........Its legal... OTOH....cowl induction could be facilitated with spring loaded hood latches I guess.....I have seen a few Z hoods rise on occasion at sppeed

Take advantage of whaT YA got.

david

Gary L
12-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Here's the parts catalog drawing of a stock Volvo 142E setup. I'm currently simply running a K&N cone filter that's clamped to the forward end of the intake manifold. But I'd like to take the filter "outdoors", putting it in the location defined by the forward end of stock part #5 (which normally protudes 3 or 4 inches through the RH radiator support). Part #6 grommet would be thrown away, and in place of part #5 would be a constant diameter tube. The K&N cone would be clamped to the forward end of that tube, then a hose similar to #3 would connect it to the forward end of the intake manifold.

Seems to me this would constitute a legal setup, but I would welcome any comments.

http://www.bluebrickracing.mysite.com/images/142e_inlet_air_1.jpg

dspillrat
12-17-2008, 09:36 PM
air source obviously outside, do what you want..... stick a cone filter outside??

david

Gary L
12-17-2008, 10:23 PM
The problem in my mind, as stated in an earlier post... is part #6. If I can't legally throw that part away, the scheme goes down the toilet IMO. Part #6 is thicker than the drawing represents; if left in place, it would force a much smaller tube to be used for the pass-through. Cooler air is great, but if I have to sacrifice half the cross sectional area of the tube, no thanks... I'll just duct some air towards the current filter location at the forward end of the intake manifold and let it go at that.

JeffYoung
12-17-2008, 10:34 PM
Now Christian, us V8 RWD guys read the rules too......

You've seen my car. There is a space behind the plenum (where the carbs are now) that sits under a slotted grate on the hood. The grate is where the car used to taked in air to the vents into the cabin. Entirely legal to put a box under that and draw air there.

David, I truly don't think the Air Snake is legal given the INTENT of the rule, but I agree with you I see the "do what you want" if stock is outside the engine bay as well.

Gary, you are legal. I consider that o-ring to be part of the "pipes/tubes/resonators" ahead of the carb/AFM that you can modify/replace, etc. It's free. Take it out, replace with bigger tube.

Andy, I'll take some pictures of my car this weekend and send them to you for your thoughts.


Maybe... ;)



Ummm... you mean a cowl induction system?

Chip42
12-17-2008, 11:03 PM
What? You are saying that you can make illegal modifications in order to facilitate legal ones? I don't think so ...

retract that. don't know what I was thinking...

Gary - you can throw out the grommet, just don't plumb the intake forward of the hole the grommet filled. that way no one can argue that you are violating any rule at all. if you want to stick a hose roughly the size of that hole out as far as the stock piece, then be prepared to prove it is correct with measurements, but it would be legal.

jeff - if you place a filter under the cabin inlets in the cowl, fine. but if you seal an enclosed box to it and the intake, that is cowl induction, and it is illegal.

just keep it simple and away from the need for subjective interpretation and everyone is fine. trust me - the tech inspectors are all great people but not all in agreement with each other or the competitors about what is and is not legal.

Xian
12-17-2008, 11:11 PM
Now Christian, us V8 RWD guys read the rules too......

You've seen my car. There is a space behind the plenum (where the carbs are now) that sits under a slotted grate on the hood. The grate is where the car used to taked in air to the vents into the cabin. Entirely legal to put a box under that and draw air there.

David, I truly don't think the Air Snake is legal given the INTENT of the rule, but I agree with you I see the "do what you want" if stock is outside the engine bay as well.

Gary, you are legal. I consider that o-ring to be part of the "pipes/tubes/resonators" ahead of the carb/AFM that you can modify/replace, etc. It's free. Take it out, replace with bigger tube.

Andy, I'll take some pictures of my car this weekend and send them to you for your thoughts.

I think you read 'em with too tight of an interpretation ;) Carbs? Huh? You mean those things you can use as paperweights now that you've gone EFI?

Looking at the pic above, I'd consider the donut to be part of the intake... seems like you could ditch it and go from there.

GKR_17
12-18-2008, 01:31 AM
Jeff,

Take your fender source logic to the extreme and apply it to the standard engine compartment... all the air in the engine compartment must come from somewhere so the actual source is outside the engine compartment. Clearly not legal though.

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 01:39 AM
That's a good point.

So how do you define a "stock" air pickup location that is outside the confines of the engine bay? Would limit to to simply drawing air from teh same spot (which I think is the intent of the rule and an intent which I will follow)? Or do you believe that it means you basically can run pipes and tubing anywhere along the "air intake stream" within the confines of the bodywork?

I think most of us believe the correct interpretation is a hybrid -- you can put a filter or air box in the general location, outside the engine bay, of the stock air pick up.

I'm just not sure that is logically consistent with the "strict" interpretation of the rule which would require stock pickup hardware or the "liberal" one that allows the Air Snake.


Jeff,

Take your fender source logic to the extreme and apply it to the standard engine compartment... all the air in the engine compartment must come from somewhere so the actual source is outside the engine compartment. Clearly not legal though.

StephenB
12-18-2008, 01:54 AM
The MkIII Golf takes its air from inside of the engine compartment. Remember that "in the engine compartment" means "anywhere in the engine compartment."

Now, the fact that you could see it through the grill raises another potential issue. I can't foresee a combination of legal allowances under which I could, say, use a narrower radiator and put the air intake inside the engine compartment, but right in a blast of air coming through the grill...

K
So my question in regards to the above scenario...
If there is space to allow a tube to run up to the grill without modifying anything I would think it would be legal as long as it wasn't mounted flush up to the grill. If it was mounted say 1" behind the grill it is essentially getting air that is from inside the engine compartment. Now if it was mounted directly to the grill then the air is from outside the engine compartment as it never really entered the engine compartment. What are your thoughts on this?

In Gary's scenario with the Volvo I would think that you would not be allowed to add a filter outside the engine compartment because in reality is is getting it's air from the edge of the body where the gromet is. by extending this you are modifying the location of the air intake. In my car I have a stock plastic peice that takes air from behind the bumper. The piece of plastice goes through a hole in the fender about 1/4 of an inch. to stay legal I continued the use of this exact same piece of plastic however I used a larger diameter tube going in between the intake box and this plastic that protrudes the fender.

On a completly different conversation but still on this topic... by using a large opening then reducing to a smaller tube you would theoretically increase the velocity of the air entering you airbox. Does anyone know if this helps performance?

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 01:59 AM
Andy and I had a long debate about this a while back. I think with the way the GCR defines velocity stacks, you are allowed to do this -- a narrowing, tuned tube that speeds up air flow -- on FI cars but not carbed cars because air intakes, tubes, pipes etc. are free but velocity stacks (defined as a device speedign the flow of air into a carburetor) are specificaly prohibited.

I think it is a flaw in the rules, but I also think it is the correct interpretation of them.




On a completly different conversation but still on this topic... by using a large opening then reducing to a smaller tube you would theoretically increase the velocity of the air entering you airbox. Does anyone know if this helps performance?

dspillrat
12-18-2008, 04:44 AM
-- on FI cars but not carbed cars because air intakes, tubes, pipes etc. are free but velocity stacks (defined as a device speedign the flow of air into a carburetor) are specificaly prohibited.


My understanding is, air horns, velocity stacks..etc... are allowed if they came as original equipment......

david

dspillrat
12-18-2008, 05:01 AM
That's a good point.

So how do you define a "stock" air pickup location that is outside the confines of the engine bay? Would limit to to simply drawing air from teh same spot (which I think is the intent of the rule and an intent which I will follow)? Or do you believe that it means you basically can run pipes and tubing anywhere along the "air intake stream" within the confines of the bodywork?

I think most of us believe the correct interpretation is a hybrid -- you can put a filter or air box in the general location, outside the engine bay, of the stock air pick up.

I'm just not sure that is logically consistent with the "strict" interpretation of the rule which would require stock pickup hardware or the "liberal" one that allows the Air Snake.
Agreed Jeff,
The volvo intake air source clearly is completely outside the engine compartment if I decipher the diagrams correctly? If so, no combustion air from inside the engine compartment is allowed within the stock air intake.....air filters are free....placement should be allowed outside either of "Volvo" or "MG" engine compartments ...... Why shouldn't the air filter be allowed within in the allowed air supply source?

David

dspillrat
12-18-2008, 05:12 AM
Hell Fire.......:eek:

Fuel Injection, 50 degree cooler air....... Looks like we may need to add a few pounds to this rocket ship!!!!!:biggrinsanta:

David

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 10:01 AM
Correct...and I know why you are stating that...lol....

Reward weight??!! Don't I have to actually win something first? I suspect the FI and 50 degrees cooler air isn't going to overcome the existing brakes and handling.....I can't run with you as is!

I do have a few improvements on handling though. Figured out that 275/35/15s fit the rears...........if you can get camber, then just add tire......


My understanding is, air horns, velocity stacks..etc... are allowed if they came as original equipment......

david

Ron Earp
12-18-2008, 10:07 AM
Here are a couple of pictures that might help with the discussion. The first picture is a stock TR8 which shows the fender well air intakes.

The second picture is an stock FI TR8 that shows some type of piece that seals against the hood. Not sure what that is for, is it for air or a water drain?

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 10:15 AM
Internet Master Earp comes through for me.

In that first picture, yes, what he is circled is exactly what I am talking about. Stock, a hose leads to a plastic piece which is screwed to a oblong hole about 3" by 5". Inside the hole is a void in front of the inner fender liner/well, that "picks up" air from (a) under the car and (b) from the radiator scoop.

Air Snake!

The second picture, so you understand why that plenum is different from the one in the negine build thread, appears to be a UK TR7V8 (they only sold a handful of actual TR8s in the UK) with a Land Rover 3.9 transplant. Different (and better plenum) on those motors.

and to think, I cold have run that better plenum and no one would have been teh wiser....lol......

Seriously, let me know what you guys think on the fender well holes. My interpretation of the intent of the rule is I can take air from them, but have to "stop" the air snake at the plastic piece in the hole, but I think a strict legal interpretation would allow me to run tubes and pipes anywhere in the upstream air intake path within the confines of the bodywork (although, again Grafton makes a good logical point as to why that strict legal interpretation is wrong).


Here are a couple of pictures that might help with the discussion. The first picture is a stock TR8 which shows the fender well air intakes.

The second picture is an stock FI TR8 that shows some type of piece that seals against the hood. Not sure what that is for, is it for air or a water drain?

Ron Earp
12-18-2008, 10:20 AM
How do the FI engines and the carb engines differ? I know the carb engine brought air in through the fender well holes. How about the FI engine?

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 10:23 AM
Same, essentially. A flexible tube ran from the AFM to a large square air box with the filter that was attached to the fender hole on the passenger side of the car. The driver's side, unlike the carb car, was not used.

The air box was very restrictive and apparently putting a cone filter simply in the area of the hole (engine side) was worth 5-10 hp.

I still think best place to take in air is under the grate at the base of the hood.


How do the FI engines and the carb engines differ? I know the carb engine brought air in through the fender well holes. How about the FI engine?

R2 Racing
12-18-2008, 10:35 AM
My Honda's are displeased that there's VW, Triumph, & Volvo talk in their forum. They're kind of elitist.

Ron Earp
12-18-2008, 10:35 AM
I still think best place to take in air is under the grate at the base of the hood.

Without real pressure readings I don't think I could make that call. Too much lore in TR8 land, just like the Jensen. I have a pressure sensor and datalogging meter if you wish to explore that.

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 10:37 AM
Aw, Ruck, go roll your car and then win the ARRC or something!

Seriously, generically speaking, which side of the Air Snake debate are you on?


My Honda's are displeased that there's VW, Triumph, & Volvo talk in their forum. They're kind of elitist.

Knestis
12-18-2008, 10:59 AM
>> If there is space to allow a tube to run up to the grill without modifying anything I would think it would be legal as long as it wasn't mounted flush up to the grill. If it was mounted say 1" behind the grill it is essentially getting air that is from inside the engine compartment. Now if it was mounted directly to the grill then the air is from outside the engine compartment as it never really entered the engine compartment. What are your thoughts on this?

I personally don't think that's intorturtation. We do a conceptually similar thing on my Golf, having cut up the bottom (pre-filtered) side of the air box to allow it to pull air from the vicinity of the space behind/below the front bumper, on the outside toward the fender well.

One data point: We punched out (well, Greg A punched out) a right side headlight at the Summit 12 hours. I seem to recall that Cameron came away from that convinced, based on data on the DL1, that the ECU got smarter as it figured out that cool air was being packed into that space, and adapted to make more power.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/summit5.jpg

K

KK

shwah
12-18-2008, 11:00 AM
That's weird. Any idea why they made the change? Doesn't matter - just curious.
I have no idea. I think both are good source points, but use the headlight because it collects less rubber in the airbox that way.

Xian
12-18-2008, 11:05 AM
Seriously, let me know what you guys think on the fender well holes. My interpretation of the intent of the rule is I can take air from them, but have to "stop" the air snake at the plastic piece in the hole, but I think a strict legal interpretation would allow me to run tubes and pipes anywhere in the upstream air intake path within the confines of the bodywork (although, again Grafton makes a good logical point as to why that strict legal interpretation is wrong).

Maybe I was misunderstanding your prior explanation (I thought you were saying the stock tubing went thru the fender all the way to a location in front of the radiator)... my stance is that your Air Snake can go to exactly the same spot as the stock intake tubing. If the stock tubing ends at the fender holes then the Air Snake must end there too. Just b/c the stock setup gets you to the fender air doesn't mean you can follow that air up stream to wherever you want within the stock bodywork. All My $0.02.

Christian

shwah
12-18-2008, 11:07 AM
My understanding is, air horns, velocity stacks..etc... are allowed if they came as original equipment......

david
I have seen a Volvo running with velocity stack on the throttle body as well. I questioned it, we disagreed on legality. Have not had a 2nd opportunity to race with the car, so have not re-read the rule to clarify my own interpretation.

Dave Zaslow
12-18-2008, 11:13 AM
The MkIII Golf takes its air from inside of the engine compartment. Remember that "in the engine compartment" means "anywhere in the engine compartment."

K

Kirk,

The stock air intake on the MkIII Golf is from the fender. See the diagram below. That little plastic tube at the bottom of the air cleaner goes through a hole in the side of the engine compartment to the fenderwell.

DZ

nsuracer
12-18-2008, 12:21 PM
What are your thoughts on this? A2 Golf. The place on the inner fender (drivers right) where the air filter box, CIS unit sits has a 4 to 5 inch hole in it. Below that is a braket of similar size. My idea is to run a 4" dryer hose from the brake duct on the spoiler to the hole in the inner fender. This can be accomplished without any modifications. I do not intend to connect the hose to the air box. This is basically just ducting air to the vicinity of the air pick up. It is possible to do this without touching the ledge that the air box sits on. Over to you guys.

Knestis
12-18-2008, 01:13 PM
Kirk,

The stock air intake on the MkIII Golf is from the fender. See the diagram below. That little plastic tube at the bottom of the air cleaner goes through a hole in the side of the engine compartment to the fenderwell.

DZ

Well, hell - looky there!

It's been so long since I saw the stock one, I'd forgotten about that little snorkely piece.

:026:

K

EDIT - I plead old age and forgetfulness, which is why I defer to Cameron to inform me on issues of any real substance, engine-wise.

Knestis
12-18-2008, 01:14 PM
What are your thoughts on this? A2 Golf. The place on the inner fender (drivers right) where the air filter box, CIS unit sits has a 4 to 5 inch hole in it. Below that is a braket of similar size. My idea is to run a 4" dryer hose from the brake duct on the spoiler to the hole in the inner fender. This can be accomplished without any modifications. I do not intend to connect the hose to the air box. This is basically just ducting air to the vicinity of the air pick up. It is possible to do this without touching the ledge that the air box sits on. Over to you guys.

You're going to have a challenging defense on your hands, calling that a "brake duct" if it doesn't duct to the brake. Too clever by half, I think...

K

tom91ita
12-18-2008, 01:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this? A2 Golf. The place on the inner fender (drivers right) where the air filter box, CIS unit sits has a 4 to 5 inch hole in it. Below that is a braket of similar size. My idea is to run a 4" dryer hose from the brake duct on the spoiler to the hole in the inner fender. This can be accomplished without any modifications. I do not intend to connect the hose to the air box. This is basically just ducting air to the vicinity of the air pick up. It is possible to do this without touching the ledge that the air box sits on. Over to you guys.

don't call it a brake duct.


Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc., located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted.

so maybe "substitute" a hose or pipe per your suggestion and direct the air in the "vicinity" of the air box. i think a 1 mm gap might work.

connect it with a grounding strap so that it is part of the air hose but the intake is still where it was. it would not be connected at the intake and would not be a "ram" air effect.

ylmv (your legality may vary)

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 02:02 PM
I smell an Air Snake!

924Guy
12-18-2008, 02:02 PM
The second pic Earp posted on the wedges - that sealed plenum I remember from my TR7 days - it's a fresh air intake for the heater, nothing to do with the engine, as I recall.

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 03:12 PM
Hmmm...I've seen those before on TR7s but never on a TR8 (mine does not have one). I thought they didn't have them because of engine/plenum/carb clearance issues?

nsuracer
12-18-2008, 03:45 PM
Sooooo according to all the lawyers with the half moon on their door, it may be legal and it may not?

Chip42
12-18-2008, 04:50 PM
don't call it a brake duct.

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

so maybe "substitute" a hose or pipe per your suggestion and direct the air in the "vicinity" of the air box. i think a 1 mm gap might work.

connect it with a grounding strap so that it is part of the air hose but the intake is still where it was. it would not be connected at the intake and would not be a "ram" air effect.

ylmv (your legality may vary)


My read is that the substitution of hose is between the inlet and the Throttle body. you may replace this whith whatever you want and you amy lengthen or shorten it however you want so long as the pickup point (which I think we all agree on) is legal. ducting ahead of the pickup point is an addition, not a substitution, and not allowed, so therefore illegal.

sorry, the air snake is a non-starter.

JeffYoung
12-18-2008, 04:51 PM
I agree that is the intent.

However, define "pickup point."

JoshS
12-18-2008, 05:07 PM
I agree that is the intent.

However, define "pickup point."
I'll give it a go.

The pickup point is the furthest upstream point in the airflow in which ALL of the air inside that flow goes into the engine.

Chip42
12-18-2008, 05:33 PM
I agree that is the intent.

However, define "pickup point."

Look at a diagram of your intake tract. the upstream end of all those parts is the pickup point. and as JoshS said - ALL of the air passing through that point is engine-bound. bypass air from diverter systems (air snakes) is not, so that is not intake - simply a cold-air diverter TO the intake.

iambhooper
12-18-2008, 07:17 PM
The Carbed 1st Gen CRX's stock air intake collected in a small hole in the front frame of the car near the headlight, very similar to the TR8. The guy that built my car swears that the carb setup produce's more air without a filter or the stock air cleaner on it... however, my fastest laps around VIR might prove other wise.

hoop

Streetwise guy
12-18-2008, 10:11 PM
I think the problem with the "Air Snake" may be that air really doesn't like turning corners. The more tortured the routing, the less potential gain.

As to the Volvo, it draws air from in front of the rad support when its warm, and from the hot air stove on the exhaust manifold when its cold. Therefore, it can draw its air from pretty much anywhere except the trunk.

Now for my question-I have managed, through significant effort, to locate the air filter for my Neon in front of the trans, below the battery. Ignoring any hammer marks you may think you see, as long as its not below the level of the rad support, does that put it still inside the engine compartment?

jjjanos
12-18-2008, 10:58 PM
I'll give it a go.

The pickup point is the furthest upstream point in the airflow in which ALL of the air inside that flow goes into the engine.

Which would mean that if a drain hole is further from the engine than the actual intake, the drain hole becomes the pickup point.

tom91ita
12-18-2008, 11:31 PM
..., as long as its not below the level of the rad support, does that put it still inside the engine compartment?

is that the bottom of the engine compartment per the GCR?



Engine Compartment - The loosely defined volume, nominally enclosed by panels on top and sides, which is the normal location of the engine in a car.


i don't see where it has a "bottom" per the GCR. nowwhat??

JoshS
12-19-2008, 12:08 AM
Which would mean that if a drain hole is further from the engine than the actual intake, the drain hole becomes the pickup point.

Fine, I'll revise:

"The pickup point is the largest of the most upstream points in the airflow in which ALL of the air inside that flow goes into the engine. "

Of course, I did say earlier that we don't need a formal definition of this. You just proved my point -- any wording just gives the ability to find gray.

Z3_GoCar
12-19-2008, 12:30 AM
is that the bottom of the engine compartment per the GCR?



i don't see where it has a "bottom" per the GCR. nowwhat??

How about, 9.1.3.8.c

No part of the car, except for the exhaust system and suspension components, shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims.

Sounds to me that you could mount a forward facing scoope under the motor, that is if your tires have a low enough profile.

Gary L
12-19-2008, 12:50 AM
As to the Volvo, it draws air from in front of the rad support when its warm, and from the hot air stove on the exhaust manifold when its cold. Therefore, it can draw its air from pretty much anywhere except the trunk.
Actually, I believe the hot air stove on the exhaust manifold was limited to the 2x1b carb setups. On the D-Jet engines, 100% of the intake air comes from in front of the rad support, regardless of whether the engine is hot or cold.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2008, 08:21 AM
Did I miss someplace where if we add 'PRIMARY' to the current rule we create a problem or leave a loophole?

Gary L
12-19-2008, 09:33 AM
Did I miss someplace where if we add 'PRIMARY' to the current rule we create a problem or leave a loophole?:happy204: That precise word kept coming to mind as I read through the CoA document. I believe the addition of the word to the current rule would be a good thing.

jjjanos
12-19-2008, 11:35 AM
Everyone does realize that the CAI for these cars is illegal for exactly 12 more days? CoA interpretations expire at the end of a calendar year.

The Club needs to change the rules so that CoA decisions establish precedent until there is a change in the GCR.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2008, 11:36 AM
The language will change.

Greg Amy
12-19-2008, 11:38 AM
I've only read part of this thread and had to laugh. This intorturation, coupled to Andy's never-ending quest to add words to the rules in a totally wasted attempt to stop the intorturation - had to make me lough out loud. Literally.

Frankly, I'm amazed at all you intorturators: you'd think, after having watched the system work in stopping the intorturation, you'd have learned a lesson. Instead, you try to find a way to out-torturate the banned intorturation!!!

:blink:

Here's the lesson: the system worked this time. And it will again in the future, assuming someone is willing to step up to the plate to hit the ball, like AJ and Gregg Ginsberg did.

Here's my advice to you guys: just do it. Just intorturate the rules all you want. And if you think you're "right" then let me know and I'll step up to the plate with $25 (refundable) and a standard form to give you the opportunity to prove you're right.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

GA

Edit:Added Gregg's name in there, after recognizing my thoughtlessness.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2008, 11:56 AM
I don't think adding one word mucks up the works. I think it defines the intention and eliminates the 'legitmacy' of considering the CAI on this car and others legal. I think the rule can be better.

Greg Amy
12-19-2008, 12:23 PM
:shrug:
"I'm just sayin'" that the rule - and the subsequent protest process - worked. I see nothing here that needs to be "fixed".

At best you improve nothing, at worst you increase the opportunity of another intorturation...
:shrug:

RexRacer19
12-19-2008, 12:43 PM
I think this is the best part of the Court's finding...

4. The SOM decision is not a rules change, but is an administration of the rules
as written.

dickita15
12-19-2008, 02:31 PM
Andy, I got to agree with Greg here. The court ruled exactly what most all of thought the rule meant. It is not broken, I would not try to fix it. The language work and I do not think there is language in the world that will stop intortured interpretations, but hopefully a few more COA decisions might.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2008, 02:41 PM
Andy, I got to agree with Greg here. The court ruled exactly what most all of thought the rule meant. It is not broken, I would not try to fix it. The language work and I do not think there is language in the world that will stop intortured interpretations, but hopefully a few more COA decisions might.

I am going to disagree. Why? Because it depends on WHAT side of the debate you are on. I don't think the Moser's think the process worked correctly. Why? Because they have been protested twice (urban legend?) and two seperate rulings have come out. There is NOTHING that stops another set of stewards from ruling at the track that the set-up is legal. I would like to think that everyone is up to date on past protest history but that just isn't possible.

If we can agree that the rule can be read and TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF based on its wording - then why not try and LIMIT the potential for intorturtation? We can never eliminate it, but having a set of rules that limits the grey is the best thing I think.

We can never prevent...but I would rather have rules that when 10 people read them, they all looked at the same car and said - 'you're crazy!' Not - 'well, I see how you might think that but here is how I read it...'

I fail to see how adding 'primary' opens ANYTHING up that shouldn't be or closes anything intended to be open.

JeffYoung
12-19-2008, 03:01 PM
Torturing the rules is going to happen whether we leave words out, or add them. There's no way around this, it is what racers do.

Adding "primary" isn't going to end all of the debate, but I agree it would have made it very clear to the Mosers that the drainhole argument was not going to fly and doing so now seems to come with little detriment.

Knestis
12-19-2008, 03:08 PM
It's a matter of degree.

To add ONE word in this instance might not be a problem. But it's a symptom of an organizational problem that's been dogging us for decades: The idea that we can write self-policing rules. Adding that word does absolutely nothing to prevent a subsequent protest or appeal finding differently in a different case.

As frustrating as it can be, that's part of - perhaps the only sensible part of - the rationale for protest-appeal findings not setting precedent. Each case has got to be considered on its merit. For that to happen, we've got to be collectively inclined to use the process and every time we try to write our way around cheats, it serves as an incentive to pursue that approach rather than using the ONLY process we have in place to interpret and enforce our rules.

However, it's absolutely true that a word that's NOT in the rule can't be appropriated or intorturtated to support someone's personal interests or agenda.

Kirk (who added 'intorturtated' to his Firefox spell check dictionary today)

Knestis
12-19-2008, 03:10 PM
...Adding "primary" isn't going to end all of the debate, but I agree it would have made it very clear to the Mosers that the drainhole argument was not going to fly and doing so now seems to come with little detriment.

So the word "primary" has to go in the glossary, too? I interpret it to mean "the one that I'm most interested in using; the location from which air is drawn allowed modifications are performed." That's clearly "primary" to me.

Bah.

K

Greg Amy
12-19-2008, 03:14 PM
There is NOTHING that stops another set of stewards from ruling at the track that the set-up is legal.
And then the protester appeals to Topeka, where, apparently, cooler heads prevail*...


...why not try and LIMIT the potential for intorturtation?What makes you think you can? Do you really believe you write a rule that I can't intorturate?

If you think the rule leaves open a gray area for intorturation that someone will take advantage of but that Topeka won't support on appeal, then we've got the process to address that (i.e., protest, then appeal, then Fastrack publication). But, if you think Topeka is going to let it go as 'legal' then what you're proposing to do is not clarification but a de facto rule change (i.e., if Topeka says the intorturation is legal, then your clarification is actually a rule change that must go through the process.)

On the other hand, if the intorturation is accepted by the community as contrary to the spirit of the rules, and it gets protested, then appealed to Topeka, and Topeka says it's legal, then - and only then - should we proceed to request a rule change to make it illegal.

This is especially silly when one recognizes that it's NEVER been done (as far as we know) and that the only reason it's come up for discussion is because someone, in some forum, tossed it out as a theoretical possibility. Are we going to be tilting every Internet-based (or email-based, or paddock BS-session-based) theoretical windmill we see/hear, or are we going to use the protest/appeal process that's been in place for decades as it was intended?

The process works, dude. Don't f**k it up.

GA

* A perfect example: the spherical suspension bearings bastardization. I was *this* close to having Topeka make a ruling on those, using the existing, GCR-defined process, when someone on the CRB decided to unilaterally and preemptively over-ride the GCR process. Had I been allowed to proceed, we could have used the process to change the rule, which most reasonable persons agree it was.

JeffYoung
12-19-2008, 03:26 PM
Sure, I understand the risk of adding any word, but don't you agree THAT word would have taken care of the Moser situation?

Let me ask you this. Define for me "stock location" of air pickup outside the engine compartment? Is it where the air actually enters the engine compartment? Is it just on the other side? Or is it somewhere along the path the air takes to get to the entry point?

And before you answer, that question, think about this -- don't most folk in IT land agree that it is ok, where the stock location is outside the engine compartment -- to put the air filter and box outside the engine compartment as well?


So the word "primary" has to go in the glossary, too? I interpret it to mean "the one that I'm most interested in using; the location from which air is drawn allowed modifications are performed." That's clearly "primary" to me.

Bah.

K

jjjanos
12-19-2008, 03:56 PM
Let me ask you this. Define for me "stock location" of air pickup outside the engine compartment? Is it where the air actually enters the engine compartment? Is it just on the other side? Or is it somewhere along the path the air takes to get to the entry point?

Let's keep it simple - a single-opening intake where the center point of the opening marking the terminal point of the intake is located at coordinates (X-Y-Z) measured in reference to a standard point for all cars in a particular GCR-listing.



And before you answer, that question, think about this -- don't most folk in IT land agree that it is ok, where the stock location is outside the engine compartment -- to put the air filter and box outside the engine compartment as well?

If you mean that the center point of the opening marking the terminal point of the intake is outside of the "engine compartment" and where that center point is not at the coordinates X-Y-Z described above?

I believe the generally accepted interpretation of the rules would say no - if I've got a terminal end outside the engine compartment, I can put the terminal end of my intake in that general location. (I.e. if stock is the right wheel well, I'm ok as long as mine is somewhere in that wheel well.)

That being said, the car would be illegal according to the wording rules. If the stock location is constant across all cars of a particular make, model and year, then any intake not in that EXACT location would be somewhere other than the stock location, by definition.



After investigating, the COA finds the following:

1. The original air intake on this model car is located outside the engine compartment at X-Y-Z. Therefore, the configuration that locates the air intake source outside the engine compartment at A-B-C is not compliant.
2. The purpose of having a protest process is to resolve matters of opinion regarding configuration relative to the rules, and to compare the example to the rules. The SOM concluded that the configuration in question is a tortured application of the rules. The Club Racing Board also noted that "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function." (GCR 9.1.3.D.)
3. The SOM decision is not a rules change, but is an administration of the rules as written.
4. The length of time a configuration has been in use is not a measure of its compliance.
5. The defense that everyone does it is not a measure of compliance. You wouldn't jump off a bridge just because everyone else does it?

If the stock location is honestly a stock location, then putting your intake anywhere other than that EXACT location is a modification of the intake location beyond what the rules allow.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2008, 04:13 PM
What makes you think you can? Do you really believe you write a rule that I can't intorturate?



All I said was TRY. I believe there are PLENTY of rules we can make more clear as to the intent.

bonespec
12-21-2008, 02:27 AM
Outsider looking in.......tKR knows me well......

For those cars that the MAIN air inlet is in the engine compartment, like the CRX, the IT setup must stay within those confines.

So what defines an engine compartment????? Mind you I'm working on a design for 92-95 Civic/94-01 Integra. The engine compartment to me is between the metal of the shock towers and the bottom of the block, aka oil pan rail, to the hood. Thus to prevent a bottom feeder inlet.

wbp
12-21-2008, 01:33 PM
The confines of an engine compartment seems to be well understood to be from firewall to core support/radiator, between fender inner liners and under the hood. What isn't well defined is the bottom of this compartment. I suggest a bottom be defined.
Bottom of side frame rails or
At level of bottom of the wheel
Probably not bottom of block as bonespec is considering because some blocks have a bottom face that is sloped.
We were glad the bottom of the engine compartment was not a consideration in the Moser/Ginsberg decision as it is not clearly defined.

mossaidis
12-21-2008, 05:49 PM
What happened to keeping it simple...


"Any air intake system in front of the throttle body (including mass air sensor) may be used (stock
throttle body must be retained)." And hold the mustard on cutting holes...


Yes, it's from HC rule set but it would put an end to the complex and very limiting option of not buying 90% of the off the shelf solutions out there that produce reasonable performance gains. (I have a hard time imagining I am the only exception.) Perhaps it's because I am nob and my car is 3 hours away from where I live/work, but it will take more money and more time to construct a good IT-legal air-intake assembly. The cheap short intake from e-bay will not make a top running car, but might be a good setup for April SCCA at NHMS.


I am building a 92 Civic Si.


What up bones! Let us know how your new intake works out.

Xian
12-21-2008, 10:57 PM
Annnnnnnnd, the HC ruleset was largely cribbed from the IT Rules by Scott & Karl. Since HC was limited a single marque series, it was easy for them to open up the intake rule without a high risk of unintended consequences.

IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake ;)

Christian

mossaidis
12-22-2008, 01:10 AM
IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake ;)

Christian

Your answer is boilerplate to some degree. I can't blame you since you have bought into the 'whole' SCCA IT rule set and mentality. I have not totally, though I have yet to race IT. I may regret this... Ok, forget the source of my quote for a moment.

1) Give me an example where it imposes an inbalance. The rule would applies to all the same way. Could there be exceptions? Perhaps... someone please help me put my shoe in my mouth. If so, I will become the wiser for it.
2) I will argue that the cost for me to fabricate and test a current IT legal intake system that maximes HP is no less than the cost is for me to fabricate and test an intake that is designed with a less restrictive rule set. (wait... I am thinking... yes, I still stand by that comment).
3) To me and many others, IT is a bolt-on class. Yes IT allows for 'minor' fabrication for gear heads like G. Amy and like to maximize HP, adjust suspensions and make top class runners. Yes, there is fun in fabricating. Yet for many starter entrants like myself, IT is bolt-on, tune and go. The rule has prohibited me and others from just purchasing $150 air intake and be done with it.

PS. You should know Xian (yes I know you know), the difference between a shorty and AEM CAI v2 on z6 is about 4-5 whp. That's a big number when you're only putting down 125whp.

PPS. This is probably a calling for me to go with SS or Touring, but I don't have $25K and I love my civic. :)

PPPS. There is cost in time, materials, effort and energy in fabricating. It costs me less to buy an AEM CAIv2 or a simple passwordJDM intake - niether of which are IT legal, both are velocity stacks and the AEM is much like Moser's.

PPPPS. I have been home all day with a cold, sorry for being crabby. Yet these thread has given me the oppurtunity to voice my concerns for something that has bugged me for a long time.

PPPPPS. Now I just remember that IT never allowed aftermarket intakes... simple, cheap, the way IT should be.... No, let's overcomplicate it to 'keep costs down and be fair' ...hmmmm. ;)

Gregg
12-22-2008, 01:40 AM
OK, I'll take a swipe at this one, and I think that keying on your question #1 should make all others moot.

To use the example of the EF CRX and the 2nd-gen Integra, there's this nice, big hole right near the battery where the OEM intake tract exits the engine compartment. Just so happens, it's possible to run a tube from the throttle body down through that hole into a nice cavity that allows you to pick up a nice cold air charge (as you've noted).

As you probably know, IT rules are built on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't," (IIDSYCYC) and whereas the Honda folks don't have to make any modifications to the tub in order to run that CAI, drivers of other types/manufacturers of cars may (and probably don't) have that liberty. In order to snake their intake outside of the engine compartment there's a pretty good chance they would need to cut a nice, big hole--something's that forbidden.

As I've learned over the past few years with the changes to our ECU rules, the IT ruleset appears to be built on the premise that the rules should, whenever possible, not unduly benefit one model over another within reason. I'm pretty confident that's why the "CAI" rule was put in place for '03 (it wan't there prior to that).

Greg Amy
12-22-2008, 08:10 AM
1) Give me an example where it imposes an inbalance....the difference between a shorty and AEM CAI v2 on z6 is about 4-5 whp. That's a big number when you're only putting down 125whp.
Thanks for answering your own question...

Xian
12-22-2008, 11:02 AM
Gregg and Greg have already hit the high points but please go back and re-read my post. Specifically the part that you quoted about multiple marques and models.

Now that we've got that clear we can discuss how some certain cars (Hondas in particular) have cheap off the shelf options that will give significant power gains. Tell me where I can get one for an ITB 914? How about an ITS Alfa Romeo Milano? Maybe an ITA Mazda RX3? Or an ITA AMC Spirit? See where I'm going here? That's why I said how easy it was for Scott and Karl to allow a rule like this for a single marque series like Honda Challenge. In HC, basically all the cars have off the shelf options and you get relative performance increase parity. It WORKS in that context. IT is a completely different platform. Is it smart to take classed cars and change where they can pull air and subsequently their performance potential? NO. You'll end up with some cars that can easily take advantage of the changed rules, some that can take advantage but only at considerable expense and engineering, and still others that can't exploit the new rules at all b/c of their chassis design.

Now, I'll go back to standing next to my statement that an intake is not going to define a competitive car/driver combo. If you allow CAI, thinking that you'll have an additional 4-5hp up on the fast guys, remember that they're going to take full advantage of the new rule and likely make even more power than you on their fully built and tuned engine. Net result? An even larger power delta between you and the "fast guys". Had you peaked under the hood at the ARRC this year, you'd have seen multiple front runner with short ram style intakes... they aren't the perfect solution but they are more than competitive.

Christian

mossaidis
12-22-2008, 11:22 AM
Thanks for answering your own question...

oh greg... :) I was using my model as an example. I would assume other cars would see relative benefits from CAIs.

I know you get a kick out of the 'rules' discussions, yet I think you forget that sometimes a forum is just that, a forum. I place for me/us to process and even nag once in a while. Can you tell I am a nager? I hope to make this a lesson in arguing rules, think about IT and it's core values, (if I'm lucky) make some good points, make others and myself scratch their heads and at least... at least, motivate me to make fabricate a better intake with current IT rules set.

mossaidis
12-22-2008, 11:31 AM
OK, I'll take a swipe at this one, and I think that keying on your question #1 should make all others moot.

To use the example of the EF CRX and the 2nd-gen Integra, there's this nice, big hole right near the battery where the OEM intake tract exits the engine compartment. Just so happens, it's possible to run a tube from the throttle body down through that hole into a nice cavity that allows you to pick up a nice cold air charge (as you've noted).

As you probably know, IT rules are built on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't," (IIDSYCYC) and whereas the Honda folks don't have to make any modifications to the tub in order to run that CAI, drivers of other types/manufacturers of cars may (and probably don't) have that liberty. In order to snake their intake outside of the engine compartment there's a pretty good chance they would need to cut a nice, big hole--something's that forbidden.

As I've learned over the past few years with the changes to our ECU rules, the IT ruleset appears to be built on the premise that the rules should, whenever possible, not unduly benefit one model over another within reason. I'm pretty confident that's why the "CAI" rule was put in place for '03 (it wan't there prior to that).

I am at work and can't draft something more comprehensive...

I see your point about the honda battery hole - no disagreement there, yet... could not others fabricate a ram intake or velocity stacks from the bottom of the engine comparment or the front of the car?

At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.

I will try post more later.

Chip42
12-22-2008, 11:59 AM
I am at work and can't draft something more comprehensive...

I see your point about the honda battery hole - no disagreement there, yet... could not others fabricate a ram intake or velocity stacks from the bottom of the engine comparment or the front of the car?

At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.

I will try post more later.

If I may: velocity stacks are illegal per ITCS D.1.c. intake points forward of the engine compartment are not legal, and the bulk of that topic has been covered in this thread. same for ducting from outside in (see jeff's "air snake")

if you have a legal (stock or within engine compartment) location on your car that is somehow beneficial for sourcing air - use it and enjoy the benefits. if you have to add unauthorized modifications like scoops, velocity stacks, or "air snakes" or pass outside of the legal locations, even when using a factory opening, you are breaking rules.

Returning to one of your older statements - the short-ram (IT legal) style intakes from AEM and the like are readily available and fully compliant (and even cheaper!). if you want a CAI for a HC/IT dual use car, then get it, cut it, use a union (water bypass is good, too) for the HC outings and put the filter in a legal place for the IT car.

generally, the rules are really very simple. anything you think you see allowances for that seems questionable, or see as overly restrictive given the readily available aftermarket support for your car, is as Greg(g) have said - the fairest way to rule in a mixed-marque class.

BTW - the '92 Si is a great ITA even car when built within the restrictive IT rules. good choice!

Greg Amy
12-22-2008, 12:11 PM
I hope to make this a lesson in arguing rules, think about IT and it's core values, (if I'm lucky) make some good points, make others and myself scratch their heads and at least...
That's, in a lot of ways, why we spent time here...

If nothing else, I like to point out to the rulesmakers (e.g., ITAC and CRB) that no matter how clever you think you might be, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other brains out there and you can NEVER have it all figured out when you write a rule.


At some point, IT will need to decide it's target model years... is it 0-40 year old models? or 0-30 or 0-20? You can't cater to everyone and the same goes for me and my little civic.
This is a discussion that comes up regularly in IT, usually right after we argue whether IT should go National (the OTHER debate that's been going on for a quarter-century). As a general consensus, IT is trying to be "all-encompassing" and "all-welcome", and we try to fit in just about anyone that asks.

However, the availability of chassis and replacement parts usually causes that question to be self-resolving; as older cars wreck and/or rot away, or parts are no longer available (see RX-7 12A housings discussion), coupled to the attraction of most to newer cars, the older stuff slides into the background...i.e., not too many 60s/70s cars are competitive on a national level.

But, regardless of age of cars entered, the stability of the ruleset is what has set I.T. apart from most other categories, and there's nothing in there that is age-specific...

GA

Knestis
12-22-2008, 06:46 PM
FWIW, when the rules were first drafted in 1985, cars older than 1970 weren't allowed...

K