Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interested minds want to know...

So in doing some more intake development this winter, we sat down to discuss options. Targets to test included positioning, tubing diameter and tubing length all tied into current engine bay temp data and additional hypothesis.

I still have my charcoal canister in the car. I have it because when I first built this car I decided that it was not legal to remove it. As part of the fuel evap system, I submit that it is clearly not part of the D.1.d (emission removal) allowance. All you can really remove is items part and parcel to the EGR system - read: exhaust gas emissions only.

Now this comes as a revelation to some because most remember the rule as 'all emissions equipment can be removed'. Including guys in my shop.

So in my car, the removal of the system allows for a MUCH better shot at a very advantageous intake position.

But in talking it through with a fellow rules nerd, while the LETTER of the rule is clear to me, the intent may be old - or at least as he pointed out:
...(the rule) pre-dates the use of hydrocarbon emissions standards, and it should probably be updated to reflect something closer to what the STCS rule is (and there's no reason to spec that catalytic converters can be removed, given the exhaust is free...)

Now when you take into account the fact we can basically create our own fuel storage and delivery systems with cells and pumps and lines, etc...we are allowed to bypass the entire EVAP (charcoal canister in this case) completely and legally - yet still not remove it.

SO.......

Do I write in and point out the out-dated rule as it pertains to other allowances and ask for a revision - or is it simply a 'everyone is already removing them anyway because they really didn't give that rule a good reading' and ask for it to be amended? Is that creep in the most basic sense?

Or, as someone else suggested, don't poke a stick at the rule. Nobody is complaining now so who cares? Well in my case, the removal results in some gains that may not be available if the letter of the law was followed. Can't speak to other platforms.

Thoughts?

[JeffYoung]

I tossed mine during my initial build back in 03-04, thinking it was emissions. It's up on the firewall, or was, so no gain other than weight I guess.

But isn't the fuel evap system designed to prevent the escape of vapor into the air? Isn't that an emission? I don't have the rule in front of me but when this debate came up before I still thought there was a way to shoehorn this into the existing rule.

If not, I'd be in favor of a clarification allowing it not because I don't have one or "everyone is doing it" but because having an evap system on the car is clearly, to me, emissions related and within the original intent of the IT ruleset to allow removal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I tossed mine during my initial build back in 03-04, thinking it was emissions. It's up on the firewall, or was, so no gain other than weight I guess.

But isn't the fuel evap system designed to prevent the escape of vapor into the air? Isn't that an emission? I don't have the rule in front of me but when this debate came up before I still thought there was a way to shoehorn this into the existing rule.

If not, I'd be in favor of a clarification allowing it not because I don't have one or "everyone is doing it" but because having an evap system on the car is clearly, to me, emissions related and within the original intent of the IT ruleset to allow removal.

So to clarify again: emphasis mine

D.1.d: Exhaust emission control air pumps, associated lines, nozzles, and electrical/mechanical EGR devices may be removed

100% about exhaust gas emission equipment. NOTHING else.

(On edit: this is why I bring up creep. Are we making it up when we say it 'was clearly the intent' to allow the removal of all the emissions equipment' when it NEVER said that?)

[Rabbit07]

I would argue that the rule doesn'r predate the evap emissions standards, but there is no real need for the parts to bee on the car.

Go for it, write the letter.

[JeffYoung]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?" Isn't this part of that, if it is not exhaust emissions?

[Greg Amy]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?" Isn't this part of that, if it is not exhaust emissions?
"Fuel lines" deliver fuel to and from the tank to the engine; evap is part of the fuel "system". And, even if they were considered "fuel lines", are you arguing the charcoal canister is a fuel line, too?

This caught me off-guard; I've always pulled that stuff out of my IT cars without thinking...

Chris, when did evap hydrocarbon controls start? I thought that was a late 80's thing; I don't recall any of my mid-80's cars having that.

[tnord]

i want to make sure i understand their function first.

is it just two vacuum lines, one from the fuel tank all the way up to the engine compartment that feeds this little black cylinder with some sort of filtering mechanism to scrub the vapor of the nastyness, then a return line back to the tank?

mine is still in the car as well, though i'd be happy to remove it for the same reasons as andy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

AGain, away from the rules, but how about fuel lines? Aren't they "free?"

Nope. They may be replaced, relocated, or given additional protection.

[Rabbit07]

There were charcoal canisters on cars from the late 70's in some cases. I have owned a few GM cars from 78- that had canisters with Carbs on them. I know that the CJ Jeeps used to have an issue with the Charcoal ending up in the carb and clogging it. The sealed systems with leak detection pumps started with OBD-II. That was when you started getting codes for not putting your fuel cap on nice a tight.

Eitherway I am sure California emission cars would have had any of this stuff first. Growing up in Orange County, my 67 Mustang had an Air Pump on it.

[JeffYoung]

There is your technical legal out then. "Replace" the whole system (including the cannister) with a looped line 12" long or whatever.


Nope. They may be replaced, relocated, or given additional protection.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is your technical legal out then. "Replace" the whole system (including the cannister) with a looped line 12" long or whatever.

How does that allow any change to the canister? The rule I gave you was just for 'fuel lines'.

[Greg Amy]

I think we're reaching at this point. We can try and twist this any way we want, but I think Andy is right: there's no allowance for removing the canister (except maybe if you do a cell).

Let's stop twisting the words to fit a conclusion that we want, and simply change the rule.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I'd be in favor of that (changing the rule), but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.

Send a letter in though. I support this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.



Really? Imagine no ECU wording in the ITCS: Lets say you can 'replace' wiring to your ECU - in and out, you would then think that you could replace or remove the ECU because of that?

Yikes!

I agree you can get rid of the canister lines. I see NO WAY you can remove the canister under the current rules.

I will write something up.

[spawpoet]

I'd be in favor of that (changing the rule), but at the same time if it has a fuel line going in and one going out, I think you can "replace" it under the fuel line replacement language.

Send a letter in though. I support this.


Can an injected car replace it's fuel rail with a higher performance rail under the same pretenses?

[Greg Amy]

Can an injected car replace it's fuel rail with a higher performance rail?
Different issue, but..."yes". The GCR defines "fuel line" as:

Fuel Line – A hose or tube which conveys fuel from one point to another.
A fuel injection rail is typically a tube that does that, so it can be replaced (and it's commonly done, especially to accommodate aftermarket fuel pressure regulators).

GA

[JeffYoung]

Didn't their used to be a prohibition on modifying the ECU? So that would have stopped your example I think.

Write the letter though, that is cleaner, I agree.


Really? Imagine no ECU wording in the ITCS: Lets say you can 'replace' wiring to your ECU - in and out, you would then think that you could replace or remove the ECU because of that?

Yikes!

I agree you can get rid of the canister lines. I see NO WAY you can remove the canister under the current rules.

I will write something up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Didn't their used to be a prohibition on modifying the ECU? So that would have stopped your example I think.

Write the letter though, that is cleaner, I agree.

Erase your preconceive notions on rules or history. If you are saying that because you can replace the hoses (or wires or whatever) in and out of something, that gives you the green light to replace or remove the actual unit those items connect through?

No way bro! That's my point.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you the best result is to change the rule.

[spawpoet]

Different issue, but..."yes". The GCR defines "fuel line" as:
Fuel Line – A hose or tube which conveys fuel from one point to another.
A fuel injection rail is typically a tube that does that, so it can be replaced (and it's commonly done, especially to accommodate aftermarket fuel pressure regulators).

GA


Thanks. I wasn't positive, and given the def. of a fuel line I see how it's a different issue.

As for the canister, count me as another that says write in for the change. The rule is not adequate as written to cover the way almost everybody has interpreted it.

[Chip42]

Different issue, but..."yes". The GCR defines "fuel line" as:

Fuel Line – A hose or tube which conveys fuel from one point to another.
A fuel injection rail is typically a tube that does that, so it can be replaced (and it's commonly done, especially to accommodate aftermarket fuel pressure regulators).

GA

yikes - is that the accepted interpretation? I always operated under the more conservative belief that the rail was to remain stock, as it was a destination for the fuel (call it the "fuel injection system manifold") rather than a mechanism for conveyance as I read the definition. yes, it does convey to the injectors but is a restriction in the system that I figured was "accounted for" in the "process", just like the stock intake manifold.

as for evaporative emissions - I support the allowance for removal rule change idea. "all emissions systems" could become an entourtured definitionns so lilely best to add "evaporative" to "exhaust" in the ITCS and add the example of the charcoal canister and associated solenoids.

while we're at it - can bypassing of the heater core be allowed in place of plugging the plubming to it? or better - just dropping the plumbing between the core and the engine once the outlets are plugged or bypassed? seems a similar concept to the one we are discussing - a disapproved means to an approved end that acomplishes the same thing and removes a little clutter. as I have an MR2, it removes more clutter for me than most.

[Ron Earp]

I'm not seeing how that rule allows for removal of the equipment 99.99% of us don't have.

Write that letter and get that rule changed. Oh, and put the washer bottle on there for shits and giggles.

[Russ Myers]

I'm up for a small amount of creep. Just try to find side marker lights to replace broken and missing lights on a 1980 Pinto. Can we just cover the holes like prod cars?

Russ

[joeg]

I put my horn in the cannister--both "disappeared" at some time

[Ron Earp]

I'm up for a small amount of creep. Just try to find side marker lights to replace broken and missing lights on a 1980 Pinto. Can we just cover the holes like prod cars?

Russ

Dood, no way.

IT cars are dual purpose. This isn't prod you know. We do that and next thing you know we'll have 0.600" lift cams, 13:1 compression and someone will write "be careful what you wish for".

[tom91ita]

I'm not seeing how that rule allows for removal of the equipment 99.99% of us don't have.

Write that letter and get that rule changed. Oh, and put the washer bottle on there for shits and giggles.

NO NO NO!

the rule request will be denied!:blink:

[tom91ita]

last fall, even though i am not Catholic, i started sort of a confession thread about my charcoal cannister missing.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28114&highlight=emission

i sincerely apologize to all of those that thought they were beating a legal car. and also to those that were unable to pass my illegal car.

i have done zero to correct this and sort of have the attitude of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone....."

Andy, if you send something in, i will also send a note supporting it.

i tossed my old GCR's but i could have sworn something was there but it was likely just seeing "emissions" and then going right past it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To be clear, I am not chastizing anyone without a CC. I just feel that many people have removed them because they mistakingly thought 'all emissions equipment could be removed' when that is clearly not the case. In MY case, I KNOW I can get a gain in performance if it is removed so I didn't want it to be about ME and MY car but about the rule, and the potential creep it would cause if it were changed....not because it was a rule that was non-congruent with other allowances but because we were writing it to fit what people THOUGHT it meant and are prepping too. (See spherical bearings as bushing clarification by the CRB)

[Ron Earp]

To be clear, I am not chastizing anyone without a CC. I just feel that many people have removed them because they mistakingly thought 'all emissions equipment could be removed' when that is clearly not the case.

I've heard of a few items being removed from cars because they are "emissions equipment".

*Port liners in heads that are not EGR specific
*Secondary throttle butterflies (like you find on late 240sx motors, 2000-up Mustang V6s) that are used to build low-RPM torque
*Something on rotaries but I can't remember what it is
*Various vacuum lines/fittings that are not EGR related (guilty, raises hand)
*Gas fume retainment / dissipation equipment (raises hand)

Sounds like we can actually remove very little.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sounds like we can actually remove very little.

Pretty much anything attached to the exhaust system that is emissions related.

[JeffYoung]

I'm with Tom. I swear the damn GCR used to say more on that, but I'm probably wrong.

The emissions rule is too restrctive, but we do have to be careful. Those butterflies on the 240sx are a prime example -- more flow if they come out.

How about:

"All exhaust gas recirculation and evaporative emissions devices and lines may be removed or disabled."

Something that simple?

[Greg Amy]

The SOOOOPER Touring rule states:

"All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Intorturate.

[Ron Earp]

Those butterflies on the 240sx are a prime example -- more flow if they come out.


Does it really make any difference? The vast majority of cars classed don't have these secondary throttle butterflies. The standard classing procedure assumes no butterflies. So if they hurt performance, and are not accounted for in the process, then the 240sx races at a disadvantage.


The SOOOOPER Touring rule states:

"All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Intorturate.

Since ST is for Hondas, and Hondas have itsy bitsy teeny weenie engines that don't have emissions controls because they are too small to need them, just like lawnmowers, then the rule is irrelevant. :-)

[JeffYoung]

The process presently assumes (via expected hp gain supposedly calculated from an IT build with them in) a whp number with the butterflies installed. If you change the rule now to allow their removal, conceivably, the 240sx would get an "unprocessed" hp bump.

Probably small, but this is the type of consequence we have to look out for.


Does it really make any difference? The vast majority of cars classed don't have these secondary throttle butterflies. The standard classing procedure assumes no butterflies. So if they hurt performance, and are not accounted for in the process, then the 240sx races at a disadvantage.



Since ST is for Hondas, and Hondas have itsy bitsy teeny weenie engines that don't have emissions controls because they are too small to need them, just like lawnmowers, then the rule is irrelevant. :-)

[Greg Amy]

Since ST is for Hondas, and Hondas have itsy bitsy teeny weenie engines that don't have emissions controls because they are too small to need them, just like lawnmowers, then the rule is irrelevant. :-)
Aaaw, that's just not right....

;)

[tom91ita]

To be clear, I am not chastizing anyone without a CC. I just feel that many people have removed them because they mistakingly thought 'all emissions equipment could be removed' when that is clearly not the case. In MY case, I KNOW I can get a gain in performance if it is removed so I didn't want it to be about ME and MY car but about the rule, and the potential creep it would cause if it were changed....not because it was a rule that was non-congruent with other allowances but because we were writing it to fit what people THOUGHT it meant and are prepping too. (See spherical bearings as bushing clarification by the CRB)


The SOOOOPER Touring rule states:

"All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Intorturate.

Andy, i never took it that you were concerned with what we any of us did while "ignorant" of the rules. i took that now that you realized it could be an issue, you wanted to avoid it. i commend you for this.

Greg, i like the ST version of this.

I'll try to submit to the CRB/SCCA site tonight to add uncaptured evaporated fuel to the fire.

[DavidM]

The process presently assumes (via expected hp gain supposedly calculated from an IT build with them in) a whp number with the butterflies installed. If you change the rule now to allow their removal, conceivably, the 240sx would get an "unprocessed" hp bump.

Probably small, but this is the type of consequence we have to look out for.

But the 240SX is currently classed with a 30% gain based on "known" information. I would bet you that that information was without the intake manifold butterflies. ;)

[Ron Earp]

The process presently assumes (via expected hp gain supposedly calculated from an IT build with them in) a whp number with the butterflies installed.

That's the crux of the matter, in or out? Seems that there has been a tendency to take these things out for IT builds. And if data was used with them out, then it'd be incorrect, right?

[JLawton]

. In MY case, I KNOW I can get a gain in performance if it is removed so I didn't want it to be about ME and MY car


I think I'll send in a letter to the CRB stating this is rules crep and we are on the way to being just another Prod class!!!



So now you're looking to build an 11/10ths car???? turn the volume up to 11........


Bastard............

:p

[JeffYoung]

No idea really. I think hp numbers were submitted and the weight calculated and that was that -- no one knows if they were in or out.

I suspect Mr. Montgomery is correct though.


That's the crux of the matter, in or out? Seems that there has been a tendency to take these things out for IT builds. And if data was used with them out, then it'd be incorrect, right?

[fivedimeracer]

I say yes, change the rule and take it off...its a race car and its completely unecessary. Even though this will help some. Possibly this could be added to the list of other items that should be removed.....

Joe Zingaro

[Chip42]

That's the crux of the matter, in or out? Seems that there has been a tendency to take these things out for IT builds. And if data was used with them out, then it'd be incorrect, right?

I know certain cars that I will not name, where these butterflies AND their pivot within the allowed port and polish distance from the head.

what then? may I "remove" said material ?

really though, I think it's outside of the IT philosphy to remove such items, but not to fix them in one oriantation (open, closed, 88.356°, whatever).

[lateapex911]

I have a cell in my car and the charcoal canister. I thought it would be a good idea to keep it.

The Nissan power numbers were assumed to be legal numbers. Why would they be anything but?

[lateapex911]

yikes - is that the accepted interpretation? I always operated under the more conservative belief that the rail was to remain stock, as it was a destination for the fuel (call it the "fuel injection system manifold") rather than a mechanism for conveyance as I read the definition. yes, it does convey to the injectors but is a restriction in the system that I figured was "accounted for" in the "process", just like the stock intake manifold.
Roffes Corollary: If it says you can, you bloody well can.


as for evaporative emissions - I support the allowance for removal rule change idea. "all emissions systems" could become an entourtured definitionns so lilely best to add "evaporative" to "exhaust" in the ITCS and add the example of the charcoal canister and associated solenoids.

while we're at it - can bypassing of the heater core be allowed in place of plugging the plubming to it? or better - just dropping the plumbing between the core and the engine once the outlets are plugged or bypassed? seems a similar concept to the one we are discussing - a disapproved means to an approved end that acomplishes the same thing and removes a little clutter. as I have an MR2, it removes more clutter for me than most.
Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

[Chip42]

Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

I think you're over-reading my statement. I understand why we are supposed to keep the heater core and associated HVAC ducting / fans based on the "evolutionary" aspect of the dual use first principle. (even though all of us take it all out, clean and prep the interior, then replace it sans AC specific components). what is allowed, currently, is to block the passage of water through the plumbing to the heater core, but not the removal of the core or ANY of the plumbing. the allowance and limitation don't make sense together.

It is aknowledged that the heater core is not needed to function to be legal. It is often much easier to cap off or "plug" the outlets at the motor or bypass the core with a length of hose from outlet to inlet. what competitive advantage does this create, or necessary limitation that is intrinsic to IT does leaving the plumbing provide? hell- leaving it all is a good way to help you see in the rain!

In the case of an MR2 or simillar, one could theoretically then remove ALL plumbing between the core and the engine water in/outlets to it, which would already be plugged (or bypassed if allowed). This is just a little weight in a good spot (low, center), so there's no reason to remove it.

[lateapex911]

But, taking your thought process further, you're saying 'they let me block the lines, so I'm not required to use them, why have them at all? Let me remove them!". Right?
I think it's very similar that somebody would say, "They let us remove the lines, so therefore i'm not required to use the heater core, why not let me ditch it"?.
And another would say, "They let me remove the heater core, obviously I don't need the ducts and housings associated with it, why not let me remove all of that?".

That's creep.
And, in all reality, the statement COULD be, " they let me block the lines, why do I have to have them at all? ANd obviously with blocked lines, I'm not using the heater core, it's housing, or any of the ducts, flapper valves, controller levers switches, cables, brackets wires or trim bits, so everything should go."

I'm GUESSING the original logic was to allow the guys who live in the south/west and don't need a heater core, to leave the old junky one in and the allowance for blocking is a cheap and easy way to fix a leaking core, while not penalizing the rest of the guys in other parts of the country who need and use a heater core.

[Ron Earp]

The Nissan power numbers were assumed to be legal numbers. Why would they be anything but?


Cause assuming things got us the BMW 325 in ITS. Cars like the 325, or the new MX5 folks want in S, need a lot of careful consideration as they are much more than the sum of their parts.

Why assume they were legal? I don't have inside info nor do I think there is a problem with this car. But biasing toward legal is just as bad as biasing toward illegal.

[JeffYoung]

No, it's not as bad. In fact, the worst thing we can do when writing rules or assigning weights is assuming illegality.

We have to do our homework and make a best guess that information we are being given comes from a legal car.

If we assume illegality, then we've introduced an unquantifiable variable into the equation and assigning weights to cars becomes a far too subjective process. How much illegality? How much gain does it give? How do we "balance" that (shivers) against a legal build?

Assuming legality didn't cause the E36 problem. That was a car that had too much power to begin with, and when it had its weight set via the old 'curb weight' formula, it came out FAR too light.

[lateapex911]

Cause assuming things got us the BMW 325 in ITS. Cars like the 325, or the new MX5 folks want in S, need a lot of careful consideration as they are much more than the sum of their parts.

Why assume they were legal? I don't have inside info nor do I think there is a problem with this car. But biasing toward legal is just as bad as biasing toward illegal.
The 325, Ron, was assumed to have accurate factory power numbers when it was 'classed'. (I say 'classed' because the system in place at the time of classification is unknown to me, but generally thought to be less rigorous and consistent than todays methods). But, later it was observed to be capable of far exceeding it's presumed gains. See also: Mazda RX-7, Honda CRX, etc. The BMW is 'more than the 'sum of it's parts' because the part we thought we had was much larger!

[Ron Earp]

But, later it was observed to be capable of far exceeding it's presumed gains. See also: Mazda RX-7, Honda CRX, etc. The BMW is 'more than the 'sum of it's parts' because the part we thought we had was much larger!

And we can't see into the future as to what will happen with a car once classed. But hopefully if something like this should repeat itself the ITAC will be proactive and decisive on rectifying the situation.

[Gary L]

To answer the question posed by the subject line... it's creep, plain and simple. I say that because I agree 100% with Andy... it is currently illegal to remove the evaporative canister, so the only legal way for it to disappear is via rules change. But if changing a rule in order to make cars faster isn't creep, what is? To top it off, this change could (nay, would) make some cars faster, but not others. What's up with that?

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions. But sorry, you still can't take them out, because the paragraph as written allows only two types of exhaust emission devices to be removed - air pumps and EGR devices: the butterflies are neither. Oh - and you can block water flow to an intake manifold, which is another exhaust emission control device. Then of course, you can remove the catalytic converter, yet another exhaust emission device. Yes, there are incongruities here.

I guess I might be in favor of a rewrite of this (emission control) paragraph, but I'm just not sure removal of the evaporative canister should be part of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To answer the question posed by the subject line... it's creep, plain and simple. I say that because I agree 100% with Andy... it is currently illegal to remove the evaporative canister, so the only legal way for it to disappear is via rules change. But if changing a rule in order to make cars faster isn't creep, what is? To top it off, this change could (nay, would) make some cars faster, but not others. What's up with that?

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions. But sorry, you still can't take them out, because the paragraph as written allows only two types of exhaust emission devices to be removed - air pumps and EGR devices: the butterflies are neither. Oh - and you can block water flow to an intake manifold, which is another exhaust emission control device. Then of course, you can remove the catalytic converter, yet another exhaust emission device. Yes, there are incongruities here.

I guess I might be in favor of a rewrite of this (emission control) paragraph, but I'm just not sure removal of the evaporative canister should be part of it.

Here is the problem I have with this arguement: You seem to infer that it's not fair that this change would make some cars faster and not others when in fact you could argue that this allowance just equals the playing field with more intake positioning options. I say it would make me more power because right now I don't feel I can get my intake to the coolest pocket of air in the engine bay. Some already can do that. Some can't. Heck, some can have cold air intakes because they have one stock - the inequities you speak of exists all over - it's not like this does something unique to the class.

On the butterflies, SOME may be emissions related (I'd like to see the factory wording) but MOST are like the secondary bbls on a carb. Primaries set up for a cerain RPM range, the addition of the secondaries for another RPM range. About A/F flow and not emissions.

I don't see any incongruencies. EGR emissions equipment and exhaust emissions equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Plugging water passeges is an allowance as it pertains only to an already specified EGR rule if you so choose to take advantage of them.

I appreciate you addressing the original question but I disagree with your path to the answer - or worded differently, why this may be creep. To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.

[Ron Earp]

T

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions.

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/113/3461/281730455_large.jpg

These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

[tom91ita]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:



CRB Letter Tracking Number #4220

Title of Request: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.

In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.

I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.com

I believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.

A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented.

"All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Thank you for your consideration.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:

I have seen a few people say that the EVAP system can be removed if you replace the stock tank with a cell. Where do you read that allowance?

The only instance where I can think of a charcoal canister can be removed is if it came INSIDE the stock tank and you swapped to a fuel cell.

[tom91ita]

Andy,

it might be just the fact that it is silent when it discusses vents in the fuel cell section of the GCR that the IT section references.

the very first line in the IT section says that i must comply with section 9 of the GCR:




These specifications are part of the SCCA GCR and all automobiles shall
conform with GCR Section 9.


it specifically says the evap emissions devices must be removed from production & gt cars. where are the roll cage specs for IT? it is my understanding that it starts on page 98 for the GT and production based cars?

it does not say the vents must be removed from IT nor does it say they must remain. iidsyctyc?

if you are saying that the vent can be routed out of the car in the back but you then need the charcoal canister to stay, i would not argue that that may be the "letter of the law" but i do not think that was the intent.

anyways, i am basically screwed unless i happen upon a parts car but i do not plan to actively hunt one down.

from page GCR-93 (or 97 of 700 in the adobe version);




3. Filler Cap and Vents

A positive locking fuel filler cap (no Monza/flip type) shall be used. Fuel
pickup openings and lines, breather vents, and fuel filler lines shall be
designed and installed so that if the car is partially or totally inverted,
fuel shall not escape. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude
beyond the bodywork of the car.

If the fuel filler cap is located directly on the fuel cell, a check valve is
not required, provided the filler cap is a positive locking type and does
not use an unchecked breather opening. If the filler cap is not located on
the fuel cell, a check valve must be installed on the fuel cell to prevent
fuel from escaping if the cap and filler neck are torn from the tank.

Fuel cell breathers shall vent outside the car. The cell need not incorporate
a drain fitting. It is recommended that all lines, filler openings, and
vents be incorporated in a single fitting located at the top of the fuel
cell.
In Formula and Sports Racing cars registered prior to January 1, 1994,
the filler cap and neck are exempt from the bulkhead requirements of

9.3.27.1.a.
Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be
removed from all Production and GT Category cars. Fuel cell vents must
not discharge into the driver/passenger compartments, even if installed
that way by the manufacturer. The fuel system cannot vent through the
roll bar/roll cage structure

[CRallo]

Looking at this from a different point of view...

We should remember the intent and purpose of these devices when originally installed on our racecars during manufacture as a street car.

Removing exhaust emission controls on these vehicles has a limited effect on the environment. This is because these vehicles are used on a limited basis. However, our racecars sit with fuel tanks venting gas fumes into the atmosphere all year round just like any other car.

In a time when environmental laws are being tightened and even auto racing is going green(er), this is important to consider.

[Z3_GoCar]

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/113/3461/281730455_large.jpg

These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

Here's another example, note the valve is part #6. The official name for this system is DISA. The idea is a long skinny intake runner for low rpm torque, and a short fat runner for high rpm hp. If it really works, it seems it's almost in the noise, only thing is it causes a bog when it chages over. I never thought you could remove this valve...

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/diagrams/b/y/25.png

[Gary L]

Here is the problem I have with this arguement: You seem to infer that it's not fair that this change would make some cars faster and not others when in fact you could argue that this allowance just equals the playing field with more intake positioning options. I say it would make me more power because right now I don't feel I can get my intake to the coolest pocket of air in the engine bay. Some already can do that. Some can't. Heck, some can have cold air intakes because they have one stock - the inequities you speak of exists all over - it's not like this does something unique to the class.

On the butterflies, SOME may be emissions related (I'd like to see the factory wording) but MOST are like the secondary bbls on a carb. Primaries set up for a cerain RPM range, the addition of the secondaries for another RPM range. About A/F flow and not emissions.

I don't see any incongruencies. EGR emissions equipment and exhaust emissions equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Plugging water passeges is an allowance as it pertains only to an already specified EGR rule if you so choose to take advantage of them.

I appreciate you addressing the original question but I disagree with your path to the answer - or worded differently, why this may be creep. To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.

Andy - an example of creep might be - changing a rule and "leveling the playing field", resulting in someone else (who didn't get to go faster by removing some widget) proposing another rule change to "level the playing field"..... again.

About those secondary butterflies. I must admit I had forgotten all about torque enhancement devices that used secondaries. I was only remembering the ones used on carb'd Volvo's in the late 60's and early 70's... they were definitely early anti-smog devices, used to heat the intake mixture at low throttle openings. Okay, so my age is showing again!

Charcoal canisters BTW, go back quite a ways as well... after a bit of research, it appears my ITB car (a '71) would certainly have had one of these devices when new. FWIW, I don't have a clue where it is today. But if I found one and put it back on, I would NOT be going slower as a result. :)

[lateapex911]

... after a bit of research, it appears my ITB car (a '71) would certainly have had one of these devices when new. FWIW, I don't have a clue where it is today. But if I found one and put it back on, I would NOT be going slower as a result. :)

But you might, actually, if your car had it mounted on say, the radiator header right next to a stock hole that you currently use to route copious amounts of cold fresh air to your engine. And now the big container blocks that hole, removing your source of air.

Now, the rules don't say you can remove it, nor do they allow it to be moved.

[Greg Amy]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA

*Rallo has a valid point about needless hydrocarbon emissions; it goes along with our prior discussions of needless exhaust noise. However, I suggest with all the IT-allowed mods, the canisters are generally not likely to be working correctly. Even if the hydrocarbons were being captured in the canisters, you still need to have the rest of the system connected so those captured hydrocarbons are being pulled into the intake and burned; without that, you're just delaying how long until they eventually get released into the atmosphere...

[Gary L]

But you might, actually, if your car had it mounted on say, the radiator header right next to a stock hole that you currently use to route copious amounts of cold fresh air to your engine. And now the big container blocks that hole, removing your source of air.

But on my car, it doesn't. Ergo, the :) in my last post.

[Gary L]

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

But there is a reverse argument... that removal can result (according to the OP) in a performance difference, but only on some vehicles.

So just allow the thing to be left in place.

I realize I'm arguing against what appears to be prevailing opinion, but I had to say my piece. I'm done with that process. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

it might be just the fact that it is silent when it discusses vents in the fuel cell section of the GCR that the IT section references.

the very first line in the IT section says that i must comply with section 9 of the GCR:



it specifically says the evap emissions devices must be removed from production & gt cars. where are the roll cage specs for IT? it is my understanding that it starts on page 98 for the GT and production based cars?

it does not say the vents must be removed from IT nor does it say they must remain. iidsyctyc?

if you are saying that the vent can be routed out of the car in the back but you then need the charcoal canister to stay, i would not argue that that may be the "letter of the law" but i do not think that was the intent.

anyways, i am basically screwed unless i happen upon a parts car but i do not plan to actively hunt one down.

from page GCR-93 (or 97 of 700 in the adobe version);

Tom,

What I am saying is pretty clear in the ITCS. You can replace your tank with a cell. There is NO provision to remove the EVAP canister however (unless that system is inside the stock tank). The IT rules for cells have been grey for years. There is seemingly a min standard for cells in other classes but not in IT - unless this has been fixed recently.

Don't ever make the mistake of looking at other categories rules for a basis on IT unless it says it's true (like SS).

As far as Gary's concern about performance, the only reason I brought it up was because I wanted the discussion to be from a different angle than me asking for a change that could help me. Frankly, I'd rather reign other similar cars to mine in HP wise than open up the rule but I don't really care THAT much either way.

In the end, I think most of us agree that a revision to the 'emissions' allowance is not creep and makes sense. I will write something up and send it in.

[lateapex911]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA


yea, but, theoretically speaking, the bean counters resist changes which cost money. The engineers like fresh air...so it's possible that the bean counters won and the canister doesn't get moved, and the engine gets to breath from a hotter less desirable area, and stock power is reflected.
On other cars, the engineers won, the canister was moved to another location, but the engine got it's cold air, and it's reflected in the stock power....

So, you can argue that that scenario isn't likely, but, there are 300+ cars in the ITCS... and it's certainly possible. So I see reasons to not change the rule.

I also like having mine attached, for the reasons Chris mentioned.

[Knestis]

I have seen a few people say that the EVAP system can be removed if you replace the stock tank with a cell. Where do you read that allowance?

The only instance where I can think of a charcoal canister can be removed is if it came INSIDE the stock tank and you swapped to a fuel cell.

This was my thinking - Pablo's is gone - applying Roffe's corollary. When the cell went in, a lot of other stuff got put in - and removed - as part of the process. We added a dry break, and took out the stock crap where the cap used to mount. We put in new structure to support it, and cut out metal to make it fit. We took out the stock pump and lines (both feed and return), to effect the connection to the engine, and the canister came out because it was part of that fuel system octopus.

Remember that because a fuel cell is NOT required in an IT car, the language in the ITCS - that allows one - is really brief. And the language in the general requirements for fuel cells doesn't reference IT cars because of the same first assumption.

FWIW, which is probably next to zero.

K