Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[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.

[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 CR

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.

[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. :-)

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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).

[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....