adding heat protection?

[CRallo]

such as gold foil to the fire wall, trans tunnel etc.

or heat pad, double floor, etc. in the foot box.


What is the allowance for this and where is it? thanks!




As of this post, my count is 777!

[CRallo]

Interesting timing on here... I just saw this in the prelim Fastrack:

"Spec Miata
1. #6400 (Todd Green) Seeking rules clarification/suggestion for Spec Miata
In 9.3.24, add the following to the end of the paragraph: "Insulation or heat-resistant material may be added to the
interior (cockpit) surfaces of the firewall, floor, and transmission tunnel."
(Please see letter #7625, Minutes for Recommended Rule Change portion of this letter)."

Not sure what that last part means regarding another letter though...

[pitbull113]

I know this is an old thread but I'm curious as well and surprised there was no response. The off season is here and this is one of the planned changes to my new ITA car. Any thoughts on this? :shrug:

[Chip42]

there's no specific allowance in the ITCS for these. That said, I don't think anyone will call you on an insulation pad or reflective film etc.. unless you use some sort of rediculously heavy lead sheet or simillarly blatante attempt to use this permissive attitude for an expressly unauthorized purpose.

If it's a big deal, someone write a letter, this one should be easy to hammer out a reply to.

[pitbull113]

Thanks Chip, agreed it would be a weenie protest but I'm of the belief if it's one of those things alot of guys are doing and nobody cares either way then we should have a rule allowing it soooo letter on the way.:D Lead is a good insulator, just sayin' :rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used" (GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012 GCR).

Heat shields are part of the exhaust "system".

Roffe Corollary --> no letter needed.

GA

[Chip42]

by the strict reading, heat shields are only part of the unrestricted exhaust when attached to same.

it's a pretty silly thing to throw paper at, but there IS NO allowance, specifically, nor really one that's easily twisted other than "duh," which is hard to enforce.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Chip has it right. If you are going to build a heat shield for your intake, your exhaust, your radiator etc....to be legal these things need to be attached to said 'unrestricted' item.

The reason it's now specifically called out in the SM rules the way it is is because it wasn't legal (in either IT or SM).

Weenie? You bet...until someone crosses the line and it serves another purpose.

[Greg Amy]

Where in the regs is this so-called "attached" requirement? - GA

[lawtonglenn]

maybe here?


APPENDIX F: TECHNICAL GLOSSARY

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function

{emphasis added}

.

[Greg Amy]

Where is the definition of "assembly" that requires these parts to be attached [to each other]? Remember, "attached" is (collective) your definition, not mine.

How about even a simple real-world example? Is an "assembly" of people at a town hall meeting not true assembly unless they're attached to each other...?

And this isn't "intorturation". In fact, I'd suggest it's intorturation for anyone to assume that a "system" is not actually a "system" unless the parts touch (or "attach") to each other.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where in the regs is this so-called "attached" requirement? - GA

I would argue that it's simple logic. If you are changing out your intake and adding a custom version under the rule, what makes you think that anything that wasn't attached to your new assembly could fall under this rule?

Show me where it says you CAN add this type of thing...because that is how the rulebook is written.

Exhaust heat shields attached to the car are not part of the exhaust system. They are part of the body. Exhaust heat shields attached to the piping sure are...

...unless you could prove that when you ordered new pipe from the OEM that all the shields came together on the same part number.

[Greg Amy]

I would argue that it's simple logic.
"Logic" is not enforceable regulation. Your assumptions and expectations are not enforceable regulation. The words used in the regulations are the basis for the letter and enforcement of the regulations.


Show me where it says you CAN add this type of thing...

GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012: "Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used"

See Rule #3:

How to Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779)


Exhaust heat shields attached to the car are not part of the exhaust system.
Incorrect. While it may not be part of the exhaust pipe, it is most decisively part of the exhaust system, for without that exhaust pipe there would be no need for the exhaust shield.

The rule states the system - not the exhaust piping as you are incorrectly assuming - is free. Thus it is.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Incorrect. While it may not be part of the exhaust pipe, it is most decisively part of the exhaust system, for without that exhaust pipe there would be no need for the exhaust shield.

The rule states the system - not the exhaust piping as you are incorrectly assuming - is free. Thus it is.

GA

I disagree completely. By your logic the exhaust valves are also part of the exhaust system. Those must be free also.

Intorturtation.

(on edit) So I guess we need to define the 'system'. Just because it has the word 'exhaust' attached to it, doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the given allowance. Hence my belief here that the rule applies to everything attached to the piping.

[Dano77]

Ahem....Arent Exhaust Heat Shields already supplied on the car from the factory. Solved that one. And they pretty much match the floors already.

Carpets and Insulating "may be removed" Sounds like some Insulating material can be left in place to aid in driver comfort of the foot well area.


Stretching that one a bit. But it dosent say all of the insulation has to be removed.

Your all overthinking this. Just race the car.

[Ed Funk]

It's December Dan, can't race the car....must not get involved....intake system, hmmmm, exhaust system....so many systems....so little time.

[Greg Amy]

I disagree completely. By your logic the exhaust valves are also part of the exhaust system. Those must be free also.

Intorturtation.
See? You figured out your own response in one post, two paragraphs. +1 Internets for The Bettencourt.

;)

On edit: Andy et al, you can believe whatever you want, whatever lets you sleep at night. But that fact is, exhaust heat shields are part of the exhaust system; after all, what other system would they be a part of? It is my opinion as a competitor, National scrutineer, and member of a CRB sub-committee that such an "interpretation" (as much as it is not) would survive any and all appeal/protest/tech shed scrutiny.

If you really think that exhaust heat shields are not part of the exhaust system, then I strongly encourage you to write a letter to the CRB and ask them to "clarify" the regs accordingly. After all, the very fate of the future of Improved Touring may depend on it...

[Chip42]

the question was addition of heat shield material. I presumed based on common practice that this would be foil, aluminized insulation pads, etc... in the area of the driver.

generally, this is NOT a protested item. it's a stupid and nit picky protest used for 1 of 2 reasons - because you hate someone and are petty, or because someone is performing a prohibited function.

I disagree with Greg's reading, but I don't think it matters because, as above, it's just petty to call someone on insulation used appropriately and for driver comfort or engine survivability (reflective shield on the oil pan, etc...).

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's what we do on the forums, debate the stuff people bring up. Nobody really protests this stuff, we all know that.

Not everything is part of a 'system'. I think you'd be surprised to learn what you'd find under the 'chassis' section in OEM parts ordering microfiche.

Agree to disagree.

[Bill Miller]

the question was addition of heat shield material. I presumed based on common practice that this would be foil, aluminized insulation pads, etc... in the area of the driver.

generally, this is NOT a protested item. it's a stupid and nit picky protest used for 1 of 2 reasons - because you hate someone and are petty, or because someone is performing a prohibited function.

I disagree with Greg's reading, but I don't think it matters because, as above, it's just petty to call someone on insulation used appropriately and for driver comfort or engine survivability (reflective shield on the oil pan, etc...).

So tell me Chip, who gets to make the call as to what rules are ok to ignore because it would be 'nit picky' and 'petty' to protest?


"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used" (GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012 GCR).

Heat shields are part of the exhaust "system".

Roffe Corollary --> no letter needed.

GA

Greg,

Where your logic fails is in the assumption that all heat shielding is related to heat emanating from the exhaust system. Both the engine and the transmission give off heat that is unrelated to the exhaust system. So, you're allowed to use a a heat shield to shield your exhaust system, but if that same heat shield is insulating something from the heat being given off by the transmission, you could make the case that your heat shield is performing a prohibited function, as there is no allowance to provide insulation against the heat emanating from the transmission.

[Chip42]

Bill - read andy's post. the point is that what's being asked for is not something anyone reasonable would decline, despite there not being a rule allowing it. illegal, but c'mon. who makes that call? tech and the competitors who choose to ignore such things 99.9% of the time. should a protest come up, it is 100% acceptable to find the material non compliant. doesn't make that protest a good one though.

oh, and good post.

[Bill Miller]

Bill - read andy's post. the point is that what's being asked for is not something anyone reasonable would decline, despite there not being a rule allowing it. illegal, but c'mon. who makes that call? tech and the competitors who choose to ignore such things 99.9% of the time. should a protest come up, it is 100% acceptable to find the material non compliant. doesn't make that protest a good one though.

oh, and good post.

Chip,

I do get it. And I understand 'weenie' protests. But you know how that slippery slope goes. If it's something silly (like washer bottles), add a rule that allows it (whatever it is), and be done with it. Don't leave the door open for people. I keep thinking back to a Runoffs' protest ~10 years ago. It was a Prod car, so not really an IT issue, but I think it's a good example. The requirement was that the transmission had to have a 'functional reverse gear'. Most people would think that meant that you had to be able to put the car in reverse, from inside the car, by using the gear selector. The person in question had the reverse gear in the trans, but the only way you could engage reverse, was to get out of the car, climb under it, and move the linkage arm on the trans. The protest was not upheld, and the rule was re-written to indicate that you had to be able to select reverse from inside the car, via the gear selector. The point I'm making, is that reasonable people will disagree, and some will push things as far as they can.

[Chip42]

Bill, I completely agree. and we now have a letter to consider on this very topic, so I'll be brief.

my General feeling is that the way it works now, everyone letting those who use some insulation slide, is fine if not "right". If we allow the addition of insulation via a rule, we have to write a VERY well worded rule or we basically invite insulation of whatever sort wherever on the car based on readings like the gearshift example. right now you see a guy saving his legs from heat, and you say "who cares." ditto the false floors and grip tape and all that to help driver comfort and controls accessibility. if you see someone with 25 lbs of dynomat all around the RR corner of the interior trunk area - you know it's BS and you can call him on it. I'm leaning toward "no rule works better than a rule" in this scenario.

[ShelbyRacer]

Ahem....Arent Exhaust Heat Shields already supplied on the car from the factory. Solved that one. And they pretty much match the floors already.

Carpets and Insulating "may be removed" Sounds like some Insulating material can be left in place to aid in driver comfort of the foot well area.


Stretching that one a bit. But it dosent say all of the insulation has to be removed.

Your all overthinking this. Just race the car.

No stretch. All, some, or none of the insulation *may* be removed. This is my current thought process. Chances are, any place where insulation is needed would probably have had factory insulation. Leave it.

It may not be what you *want* to do, but it's what you *can* do.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I completely agree. and we now have a letter to consider on this very topic, so I'll be brief.

my General feeling is that the way it works now, everyone letting those who use some insulation slide, is fine if not "right". If we allow the addition of insulation via a rule, we have to write a VERY well worded rule or we basically invite insulation of whatever sort wherever on the car based on readings like the gearshift example. right now you see a guy saving his legs from heat, and you say "who cares." ditto the false floors and grip tape and all that to help driver comfort and controls accessibility. if you see someone with 25 lbs of dynomat all around the RR corner of the interior trunk area - you know it's BS and you can call him on it. I'm leaning toward "no rule works better than a rule" in this scenario.

The issue there Chip, is, let's say you're the guy that has the dynomat on your trans tunnel, to keep your right leg from ending up Med. Rare after a session. And you're also the guy that throws paper at at the guy w/ the 25# of dynomat in the RR corner of his trunk. If he's going to lose, so are you, when he throws paper back.

And I thought of an even better example. Remember when the ECU rule said all mods had to be w/in the stock, unmodified housing, and all connections had to be through the stock connector? Somebody figured out how to run a non-electrical connection from a MAP sensor into the stock housing, where there was a daughter board that was able to use that signal.

[Chip42]

and that "line" ended up being codified as an allowance to add a map sensor to ANY CAR in IT. NOT the example I'm wishing to copy. the rest of the committee might have a different opinion on the matter, I don't know, but for me - the current lack of rule is actually pretty good compared to the unintended consequences of another allowance. particularly one that's not necessarily needed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kind of different as some ECU's have MAP sensors onboard that only require vacuum. So the sensor that was not specifically illegal was part of a 'free' unit...so it's a tough call from there.

Specific wording that allows heat shielding in the drivers footwell may serve the purpose.

[Greg Amy]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.

I recall an incident many years ago (Modified solo?) where there was a rule about how the 'horn has to be heard over the engine' or something like that. Some guy removed his horn entirely, got protested over it. When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.

This kinda stuff is why I'm so adamant about rulesmakers saying what they mean using the fewest number of words.

[Dano77]

When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.




Thats some serious short track interprtation right there. Almost as good as doing something so blatent that they spend so much time on the Headlight covers on an AS Camaro that they missed the "extra" 695 ccs of engine. Lose qualify time and remove covers, start at the back, walk the field on the start and win.

[dickita15]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.

I recall an incident many years ago (Modified solo?) where there was a rule about how the 'horn has to be heard over the engine' or something like that. Some guy removed his horn entirely, got protested over it. When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.

This kinda stuff is why I'm so adamant about rulesmakers saying what they mean using the fewest number of words.

Marcus Merideth used to say we should have all rules interpretations done by 10 year old girls. Sometimes we allow people to think too much.

[Bill Miller]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.


.
Greg,

I don't think it met the spirit or the letter. I considered it a strained and tortured interpretation. But, we'll never know, as the rule was changed to make ECU's wide open, before it was ever put to the test of protest process.

I'm inclined to agree w/ Andy on this one, limit the addition of insulation to the driver's foot well area and possibly the transmission tunnel (but only as far back as the rear of the driver's seat).

[JeffYoung]

If you go the "non-attached" route, isn't effectively teh whole car an exhaust system?

[Greg Amy]

If you go the "non-attached" route, isn't effectively teh whole car an exhaust system?
No more so than if something is "attached" it's automatically part of the exhaust system (thus making the whole car an exhaust system).

Though, again, there's no requirement (or referral) in the regs for "attached" so it's moot. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No more so than if something is "attached" it's automatically part of the exhaust system (thus making the whole car an exhaust system).

Though, again, there's no requirement (or referral) in the regs for "attached" so it's moot. - GA

You keep saying that but I disagree completely. The IT rules aren't based on what you can't do, they are based on what you can do - which needs to be specified. So in order to make this connection, the heat shielding needs to be part of the exhaust system.

Please define what the exhaust 'system' is. I submit that it is everything attached to the piping. To say otherwise opens up a can of worms. In the parts catalogs we deal with, heat shielding attached to the chassis is under the chassis/body sections, not the exhaust section. No go.

Like I said in my example above, your line of thinking would include the exhaust valves as part of the exhaust system and therefor would be free.

Really what I am saying is that the OEM determines what is part of the system, not our 'idea' of the system.

[Greg Amy]

I submit that it is everything attached to the piping.
And I submit you are making up words. You, yourself, just stated that the rules say what you can do. Ergo, the words must be in there to allow/restrict what you can do, si?

And yet, take some time to search through the GCR PDF for the word "attach" and show me anywhere where it applies to an "exhaust" and/or "system". In point of fact, that word does not exist in that context. And as you go through that search for that word - it's in a lot of places in the GCR - you'll notice quite quickly that when the GCR intends for something to be "attached" they use the word "attach(ed)". It is not implied.

Remember, once things are allowed "they're bloody well allowed". Exhaust system is free. Unless you can find where in the GCR "exhaust system" is restricted to those things that are "attached" to an exhaust component, then anything that has to do with a reasonable interpretation of the exhaust system is free.

I personally think that exhaust heat shields are within a reasonable interpretation of "exhaust system". You, apparently, do not. :shrug:

(Royal) you guys are saying that only things that are "attached" to the exhaust are part of the exhaust system, that the word "attach" is a limiting factor. Yet that word does not exist in the regs in that regard. You are simply POOMA'ing that word up.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fair enough but not until you provide substantive definitions - I still need to get YOUR definition of the 'system' and the backup for your position. I gave you mine, which is rooted in the OEM parts designations not only defining parts by what section you find these type of items but also calling BS that anything with the word 'exhaust' in its name is obviously not appropriate.

In order to know what you can 'replace, you have to know what the system encompasses. And I need to understand how you define your parameters because you haven't yet.



And I submit you are making up words. You, yourself, just stated that the rules say what you can do. Ergo, the words must be in there to allow/restrict what you can do, si?

And yet, take some time to search through the GCR PDF for the word "attach" and show me anywhere where it applies to an "exhaust" and/or "system". In point of fact, that word does not exist in that context. And as you go through that search for that word - it's in a lot of places in the GCR - you'll notice quite quickly that when the GCR intends for something to be "attached" they use the word "attach(ed)". It is not implied.

(Royal) you guys are saying that only things that are "attached" to the exhaust are part of the exhaust system, that the word "attach" is a limiting factor. Yet that word does not exist in the regs in that regard. You are simply POOMA'ing that word up.

GA

[Greg Amy]

"I" don't provide the definitions. The controlling legal authority for everything is the General Competition Rules & Specifications.

GCR Technical Glossary

Exhaust Pipe – A duct of unspecified dimensions, whose function is to convey exhaust products toward the rear of a car and away from the driver.

Exhaust Port – The duct within a cylinder head or rotor housing through which the exhaust gases pass from the exhaust valve(s) to the outer flange of the head.

Exhaust System – A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car.

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Exhaust System – A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car.

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function.

OK, then I submit the definitions that clearly tell us that ANYTHING not attached (ASSEMBLY) to the 'exhaust system' is not part of said exhaust system.

Not only does a heat shield attached to the chassis not convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car, it is also not part of the 'exhaust system assembly'.

[Greg Amy]

OK, then I submit the definitions that clearly tell us that ANYTHING not attached (ASSEMBLY) to the 'exhaust system' is not part of said exhaust system.
There you go again, pulling that word out of your...anterior.

POOMA, babe. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

There you go again, pulling that word out of your...anterior.

POOMA, babe. - GA

You aren't looking far enough into the words, you are getting hung up on that singular word.

The exhaust system is made up of an 'assembly' of components with an identifiable primary function per the GCR. That primary function is defined as
A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the carA heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not do that. I submit it's primary function is to shield the chassis (or another specific component) from any heat that the 'exhaust system' produces while it is doing its job.

I also submit we are at the agree to disagree point.

[Greg Amy]

You aren't looking far enough into the words, you are getting hung up on that singular word.
Now THAT is funny, coming from you on this subject. Seriously. Though now it seems you're stuck on a second word: "assembly".

OK, so let's go there.

Show me where in the GCR - or even within common English verbiage - where something is only an "assembly" if the components of that assembly are "attached". 'Cause all I have to do is provide one example where it's not to shoot that one down.

GA, about to leave work to join the assembly at the town hall tonight for the referendum discussion...


On edit: keep in mind that if the only function of the exhaust "assembly/system" is to convey the air, then that makes things like exhaust hangers part of the "exhaust hanger assembly" and thus not open within the "exhaust system" regulation.

You might also want to read through the regs and see what other "systems" or "assemblies" your interpretation would affect.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now THAT is funny, coming from you on this subject. Seriously. Though now it seems you're stuck on a second word: "assembly".

OK, so let's go there.

Show me where in the GCR - or even within common English verbiage - where something is only an "assembly" if the components of that assembly are "attached". 'Cause all I have to do is provide one example where it's not to shoot that one down.

GA, about to leave work to join the assembly at the town hall tonight for the referendum discussion...

What I meant was you are hung up on the fact the word can have multiple definitions. My last post is clear. In order to be considered part of the 'assembly', it has to be part of the primary function as described.

A heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not in this example. /debate

My point on 'attached' is specific to this example as illustration of a simple way to look at the 'exhaust system'. I am sure we could all think up other examples where an assembly included non-attached parts - but not a chassis mounted heat shield.

[Andy Bettencourt]

On edit: keep in mind that if the only function of the exhaust "assembly/system" is to convey the air, then that makes things like exhaust hangers part of the "exhaust hanger assembly" and thus not open within the "exhaust system" regulation.


So now you are grasping at straws. I guess you can't attach your system. Come on.

No need to debate further. It's very clear to me what is legal and the GCR supports my thoughts.

[Greg Amy]

This is kinda fun.


What I meant was you are hung up on the fact the word can have multiple definitions.
And yet your definition is the "right" one?

Why?


My last post is clear. In order to be considered part of the 'assembly', it has to be part of the primary function as described...A heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not in this example. /debateNeither do exhaust hangers (you can "convey" the exhaust without hangers, thus they are not part of the exhaust "system"). Thus, you're now declaring that all stock exhaust hangers are required? That'll come as news to a lot of folk.


I am sure we could all think up other examples where an assembly included non-attached parts...Then, by your admission, you agree that "attachment" is not required. Then we don't even disagree on anything!

Frankly, my dear, even if you consider The Great Heat Shield Exhaust System Battle to be intorturation, it is far, far, far less intorturation than using screw holes to run vac lines to sensors mounted on the gizzards of an ECU board, in order to get around a very poorly-worded regulation that was originally and obviously intended to stop people from adding engine sensors...seriously, man. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is kinda fun.


And yet your definition is the "right" one?

Why?

Neither do exhaust hangers (you can "convey" the exhaust without hangers, thus they are not part of the exhaust "system"). Thus, you're now declaring that all stock exhaust hangers are required? That'll come as news to a lot of folk.

Then, by your admission, you agree that "attachment" is not required. Then we don't even disagree on anything!

Frankly, my dear, even if you consider The Great Heat Shield Exhaust System Battle to be intorturation, it is far, far, far less intorturation than using screw holes to run vac lines to sensors mounted on the gizzards of an ECU board, in order to get around a very poorly-worded regulation that was originally and obviously intended to stop people from adding engine sensors...seriously, man. - GA

I just go by the GCR. And to your last point, not even close. I could have anything I wanted in the ECU housing. That was the rule. Non-modified housing allowed me to connect. Technology just caught up to a dumb rule. My official position on the debate was to open it up or go back to stock. Either way, just not the way the rule was written.

Not seeing any other support for your shield position so we can close this one out.

[Ed Funk]

:023::023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey, it's healthy debate. Greg probably got the same message in his inbox but I will take a snippet from a relative newbie:


...while I haven't figured out what side I fall on for this topic, I can tell you that it has helped me look at the GCR in a new way, mostly a lot closer but also on reading what it says instead of what I think it says...

Hell, my brain is so clogged right now I am thinking about a 13B in a new MX-5 chassis.

[Greg Amy]

Which is why I keep whoring this topic:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779

Failures in clear ability to read a reg (exhaust heat shields, using screw holes to run vac lines (andy), using cage regs to stiffen a suspension (me), etc) are not failures on the readers' part, it's failures on the writers' part. Write it clearly succinctly, and with as few words as possible.

This exhaust rule has been around since probably the beginning. Some read and apply it some way, others another. In the end, unless someone challenges it, it's a moot point. Were I to re-write it, I'd change the reg that allow "removal" of stock exhaust heat shields to something like "remove or replace". I mean, really, who gives a rat's patootie?

GA

[Ed Funk]

?The rat?

[Andy Bettencourt]

This rule writing stuff ain't easy. We all 'know' how to do it. In IT world it's a bunch of band aids. I actually have a document that I worked on over the years I was on the committee where I simplified the entire ITCS for submittal.

Look at all the revisions and re-writes the ST rules have go through since its clean-sheet outset.

I'd first ask the CRB what their intent was/is for the rule, then write it as such.

[Chip42]

...Were I to re-write it, I'd change the reg that allow "removal" of stock exhaust heat shields to something like "remove or replace".
ah, December, how I missed thee...


Greg, replace means that the shield can be replaced with the heaviest thing you can rig in place. Another great way to put weight wherever you want it. there needs to be more the the fewest possible number of words, and they need to be well chosen ones.

[Greg Amy]

So what? Only Ed's rats care.

GA, who is among the hundreds that can think of far better ways to get weight "down low" than "hiding" it in an exhaust heat shield.... :rolleyes:

[Flyinglizard]

With no heat shield rule, guys will just add enough to keep their leg from burning. Add a rule with some definitions, and guys will try to use the rule for advantage. In this case, no rule keeps everyone using what is reasonable to them.
IE; "exhaust system" could be a piece or two of safety wire run between the pipe and shield. I cant understand why this thread has 3 pages? plus.Kill it.

[lateapex911]

You know, I always though my car was legal.
It was a rotary, and the exhaust system was reeeaaaly hot. In the rain, water would pour in through the windows, and pool on the floor, and as it washed around it would sizzle and boil, adding copious amounts of steam to the windshield.

The stock shields were shot, and obstructed the system anyway, so I replaced them with custom ones. But...they weren't the EXACT stock ones. Crap...guess I never read that rule that carefully. I thought it was a typical remove/ modify/ replace deal.

But, so what if people want thick shields? It's not like you can't make a 100 pound exhaust system now....or a 100 pound rear sway bar, (cough, Kirk, cough, LOL) or a 50 pound "metal bulkhead" (Cough, Mr. 'I wrote the book'), or a 50 pound fuel cell structure (cough everybody, cough).........weights reeeally easy to add...........and there's always that "prohibited function" clause....

[StephenB]

to be honest I love this thread! I check it everyday to see what is said next.

My exhaust shield is pretty cool I think. It is a water filled shield that covers my fuel lines all the way to the injectors. It keeps the fuel the proper tempature so that the exhuast doesn't make it hotter on its way to the engine. oh and for that shield to be effective as designed I added a radiator for it near the rear of the car, also a diffuser to have proper flow for my new cool exhuast sheild. :)

Stephen

[Ed Funk]

Didja add antifreeze? Ya don't want that shit freezin' and breakin' those injectors.

[Chip42]

So what? Only Ed's rats care.

GA, who is among the hundreds that can think of far better ways to get weight "down low" than "hiding" it in an exhaust heat shield.... :rolleyes:

exactly why, in this case, NO rule allows enforcement of blatant misues of somethign everyone agrees should be allowed, and A rule could allow those same things we did not forsee. Unintended consequences and all that. that I can, FOR EXAMPLE, make a functional diffuser from exhaust and fuel cell rules as currently written is bad enough.