Cold-Air Intakes (CAI) for 88-91 CRX Illegal

[Andy Bettencourt]

Did I miss someplace where if we add 'PRIMARY' to the current rule we create a problem or leave a loophole?

[Gary L]

Did I miss someplace where if we add 'PRIMARY' to the current rule we create a problem or leave a loophole?

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]

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]

The language will change.

[Greg Amy]

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!!!



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'.

GA

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

"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...

[RexRacer19]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.