Do we need to specify?

[JeffYoung]

Andy, at least you got me laughing.....I'll weigh in on the substance of this later, we do it see it diferently. I also know you aren't the ITAC, what I wrote was poorly worded, and shouldn't have said it.

Still at lot of holes in your argument though, even to this lawyer...lol....first of which is that the wiki definition of velocity stack is WAY different than the GCR's.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am convinced the definition of 'dynamic change' is where we are at odds. FI cars and carbed cars can both increase air flow. Neither can add a velocity stack. Increased airflow does not a velocity stack make.

[JeffYoung]

have to go work on a Lola, but one question Andy for consideration later:

Other than the limiations on ram air and taking air from outside the engine bay/stock location, what is the policy behind allowing any dynamic change to the air flow EXCEPT velocity?

In other words, wouldn't it be simpler, easier and more congruent with the rest of the air intake rules to simply say:

Intake tracks, tubes and other devices ahead of the carburetor, or AFM/TB , are free, except ram air is prohibited unless fitted as stock. Engine are pick up shall be either as stock, or within the confines of the engine compartment.

[Andy Bettencourt]

have to go work on a Lola, but one question Andy for consideration later:

Other than the limiations on ram air and taking air from outside the engine bay/stock location, what is the policy behind allowing any dynamic change to the air flow EXCEPT velocity?

In other words, wouldn't it be simpler, easier and more congruent with the rest of the air intake rules to simply say:

Intake tracks, tubes and other devices ahead of the carburetor, or AFM/TB , are free, except ram air is prohibited unless fitted as stock. Engine are pick up shall be either as stock, or within the confines of the engine compartment. [/b]

Becasue the PTB want velicity stacks to be illegal...me, I guess I could care less...seeing Jeff's car with one of these wouldn't bother me!





And we WILL ban you from this site unless you provide us pics of the Lola!!!!

[Eagle7]

What's the PTB?

[Greg Gauper]

Powers That Be....

[JeffYoung]

Ron -- get some Lola pics up for Andy and the boys. The cross over headers, and the chassis are works of art. We've got some racing plans for this car, but that will have to stay secret for a while.

Yes, the definition of dynamic is PART of where we differ. In my view there is no way to limit "dynamic" to just velocity. It is not limited that way in the rule, and arguably covers velocity, pressure, quantity and temperature, making almost any change to a carburetor intake track illegal in my view, although this was surely not the intent.

When you replace the filter on your car with a less restrictive one, aren't you by necessity increasing the velocity of the flow? Engine vacuum can now pull air in FASTER.

I saw your point about pull vs. push, which would deal with the above and is a good thought. I think your point is you can reduce the resistance to PULL but you can't PUSH. That is the clearest explanation of why anything but a velocity stack is illegal.

Problems remain even with this though:

1. It still requires a clean up of the definition of velocity stack, which prohibits any change of the "dynamic" on carb'ed cars (not just adding a push). Not to sound like a broken record, but I would think that under the current definition of velocity stack a "dynamic" change such as reducing air intake temperatur is illegal. This needs clean up.

2. There is the unnecessary limitation of the definition of velocity stack to carb'ed cars. I frankly think you can speed up the air going into the intake track on an FI car right now, legally, since velocity stacks are defined only as affecting the dynamic coupling between air and carburetor. This needs clean up.

3. Last, and perhaps my best point in response to your very good push/pull distinction. Most guys (both FI and carb) "look" around the engine bay for the area where there might be high air flow, be it near the front of the radiator on the Z cars where there used to be an inlet for fresh air to the caing, to near the right front headlight on 2nd Gen ITS RX7s where the hood is bowed up a bit, to at the base of the windshield where a low pressure area draws air into the engine bay. ALL of these are seeking to put the air filter in a place where it is in a FASTER air flow. Aren't any such intake tubes, hoses, etc. that seek out such locations of higher flow WITHIN THE ENGINE BAY illegal under the push/pull theory?

It just seems to me that there is a very easy way to avoid all of this mess and just say that ram air, and picking air up outside the engine bay (unless allowed as stock) is illegal. Everything else in front of the intake track is legal.

Would you (personally) support that change/clarification?

[Monkeywrench]

Since the argument concerns velocity stacks

Is this legal?

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/s...r_1952_22557201

It looks like a velocity stack to me

[JeffYoung]

I would say:

1. The perception by most on this board before reading the rule would be: legal.

2. Since that sucker narrows and increases the speed of air flow, on a carb'ed car this would be: illegal.

3. On an FI car, under the rule as presently written: legal.

[Ron Earp]

OK.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What if we took the carb-specific wording from the GCR-based definition of Velocity stack?

Mmmmmm, bundle-o-snakes. Tasty.

[Z3_GoCar]

have to go work on a Lola....

[/b]

As an aside, I though you'd be interested in this. There's a shop here in our little corner of the desert that makes Lola T-40's. They just got one in a few months ago that had been the cause of several divorces Does Matrix ring a bell?

James

[JeffYoung]

James, that's funny. Cars do cause divorces I guess....

Ron's is a T-70 open top with the chassis and body panels made by Fran Hall at Race Car Replicas outside of Detroit. Fran does great, great work.

Andy, removing the carb distinction takes care of the "obvious" (to me...lol) inequity in the rule.

But it doesn't address the contradiction. In one place, the rule says that tubes, hoses, pipes, etc. in front of the carb or the AFM/TB are free. Then, it says that velocity stacks that affect the "dynamic" are illegal. Dynamic is not just velocity, it is quantity and temp. too.

I think you also need to either (a) specifically state "dynamic" for purposes of this rule only means velocity (the "push" you are talking about above) OR ( make everything in front of the carb/AFM/TB free.

I think (a) would still cause problems simply because in my limited view, all intake systems are designed to create some push in some way, either by locating a place of higher air flow in the engine bay and constructing tubes, etc. to get the air cleaner there, or just by well designed and planned tubes and air filter mounts.

When I get some free time, I am going to write a letter on this to the CRB and see what comes of it. My position will be that everything should be free ahead of carb or AFM/TB.