Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[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!

[tom91ita]

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

https://improvedtouring.com...light=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 CR

[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 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.

[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............

[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?