Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[fivedimeracer]

I say yes, change the rule and take it off...its a race car and its completely unecessary. Even though this will help some. Possibly this could be added to the list of other items that should be removed.....

Joe Zingaro

[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).

[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?

[lateapex911]

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.

Roffes Corollary: If it says you can, you bloody well can.

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.

Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

[Chip42]

Might as well just ask for the whole heater core to be removed too. And the whole HVAC system too, since that's associated.

I think you're over-reading my statement. I understand why we are supposed to keep the heater core and associated HVAC ducting / fans based on the "evolutionary" aspect of the dual use first principle. (even though all of us take it all out, clean and prep the interior, then replace it sans AC specific components). what is allowed, currently, is to block the passage of water through the plumbing to the heater core, but not the removal of the core or ANY of the plumbing. the allowance and limitation don't make sense together.

It is aknowledged that the heater core is not needed to function to be legal. It is often much easier to cap off or "plug" the outlets at the motor or bypass the core with a length of hose from outlet to inlet. what competitive advantage does this create, or necessary limitation that is intrinsic to IT does leaving the plumbing provide? hell- leaving it all is a good way to help you see in the rain!

In the case of an MR2 or simillar, one could theoretically then remove ALL plumbing between the core and the engine water in/outlets to it, which would already be plugged (or bypassed if allowed). This is just a little weight in a good spot (low, center), so there's no reason to remove it.

[lateapex911]

But, taking your thought process further, you're saying 'they let me block the lines, so I'm not required to use them, why have them at all? Let me remove them!". Right?
I think it's very similar that somebody would say, "They let us remove the lines, so therefore i'm not required to use the heater core, why not let me ditch it"?.
And another would say, "They let me remove the heater core, obviously I don't need the ducts and housings associated with it, why not let me remove all of that?".

That's creep.
And, in all reality, the statement COULD be, " they let me block the lines, why do I have to have them at all? ANd obviously with blocked lines, I'm not using the heater core, it's housing, or any of the ducts, flapper valves, controller levers switches, cables, brackets wires or trim bits, so everything should go."

I'm GUESSING the original logic was to allow the guys who live in the south/west and don't need a heater core, to leave the old junky one in and the allowance for blocking is a cheap and easy way to fix a leaking core, while not penalizing the rest of the guys in other parts of the country who need and use a heater core.

[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.

[JeffYoung]

No, it's not as bad. In fact, the worst thing we can do when writing rules or assigning weights is assuming illegality.

We have to do our homework and make a best guess that information we are being given comes from a legal car.

If we assume illegality, then we've introduced an unquantifiable variable into the equation and assigning weights to cars becomes a far too subjective process. How much illegality? How much gain does it give? How do we "balance" that (shivers) against a legal build?

Assuming legality didn't cause the E36 problem. That was a car that had too much power to begin with, and when it had its weight set via the old 'curb weight' formula, it came out FAR too light.

[lateapex911]

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.

The 325, Ron, was assumed to have accurate factory power numbers when it was 'classed'. (I say 'classed' because the system in place at the time of classification is unknown to me, but generally thought to be less rigorous and consistent than todays methods). But, later it was observed to be capable of far exceeding it's presumed gains. See also: Mazda RX-7, Honda CRX, etc. The BMW is 'more than the 'sum of it's parts' because the part we thought we had was much larger!

[Ron Earp]

But, later it was observed to be capable of far exceeding it's presumed gains. See also: Mazda RX-7, Honda CRX, etc. The BMW is 'more than the 'sum of it's parts' because the part we thought we had was much larger!

And we can't see into the future as to what will happen with a car once classed. But hopefully if something like this should repeat itself the ITAC will be proactive and decisive on rectifying the situation.

[Gary L]

To answer the question posed by the subject line... it's creep, plain and simple. I say that because I agree 100% with Andy... it is currently illegal to remove the evaporative canister, so the only legal way for it to disappear is via rules change. But if changing a rule in order to make cars faster isn't creep, what is? To top it off, this change could (nay, would) make some cars faster, but not others. What's up with that?

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions. But sorry, you still can't take them out, because the paragraph as written allows only two types of exhaust emission devices to be removed - air pumps and EGR devices: the butterflies are neither. Oh - and you can block water flow to an intake manifold, which is another exhaust emission control device. Then of course, you can remove the catalytic converter, yet another exhaust emission device. Yes, there are incongruities here.

I guess I might be in favor of a rewrite of this (emission control) paragraph, but I'm just not sure removal of the evaporative canister should be part of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To answer the question posed by the subject line... it's creep, plain and simple. I say that because I agree 100% with Andy... it is currently illegal to remove the evaporative canister, so the only legal way for it to disappear is via rules change. But if changing a rule in order to make cars faster isn't creep, what is? To top it off, this change could (nay, would) make some cars faster, but not others. What's up with that?

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions. But sorry, you still can't take them out, because the paragraph as written allows only two types of exhaust emission devices to be removed - air pumps and EGR devices: the butterflies are neither. Oh - and you can block water flow to an intake manifold, which is another exhaust emission control device. Then of course, you can remove the catalytic converter, yet another exhaust emission device. Yes, there are incongruities here.

I guess I might be in favor of a rewrite of this (emission control) paragraph, but I'm just not sure removal of the evaporative canister should be part of it.

Here is the problem I have with this arguement: You seem to infer that it's not fair that this change would make some cars faster and not others when in fact you could argue that this allowance just equals the playing field with more intake positioning options. I say it would make me more power because right now I don't feel I can get my intake to the coolest pocket of air in the engine bay. Some already can do that. Some can't. Heck, some can have cold air intakes because they have one stock - the inequities you speak of exists all over - it's not like this does something unique to the class.

On the butterflies, SOME may be emissions related (I'd like to see the factory wording) but MOST are like the secondary bbls on a carb. Primaries set up for a cerain RPM range, the addition of the secondaries for another RPM range. About A/F flow and not emissions.

I don't see any incongruencies. EGR emissions equipment and exhaust emissions equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Plugging water passeges is an allowance as it pertains only to an already specified EGR rule if you so choose to take advantage of them.

I appreciate you addressing the original question but I disagree with your path to the answer - or worded differently, why this may be creep. To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.

[Ron Earp]

T

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions.

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:



These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

[tom91ita]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4220

Title of Request: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.

In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.

I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.com

I believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.

A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented.

"All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Thank you for your consideration.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:

I have seen a few people say that the EVAP system can be removed if you replace the stock tank with a cell. Where do you read that allowance?

The only instance where I can think of a charcoal canister can be removed is if it came INSIDE the stock tank and you swapped to a fuel cell.

[tom91ita]

Andy,

it might be just the fact that it is silent when it discusses vents in the fuel cell section of the GCR that the IT section references.

the very first line in the IT section says that i must comply with section 9 of the GCR:

These specifications are part of the SCCA GCR and all automobiles shall

conform with GCR Section 9.

it specifically says the evap emissions devices must be removed from production & gt cars. where are the roll cage specs for IT? it is my understanding that it starts on page 98 for the GT and production based cars?

it does not say the vents must be removed from IT nor does it say they must remain. iidsyctyc?

if you are saying that the vent can be routed out of the car in the back but you then need the charcoal canister to stay, i would not argue that that may be the "letter of the law" but i do not think that was the intent.

anyways, i am basically screwed unless i happen upon a parts car but i do not plan to actively hunt one down.

from page GCR-93 (or 97 of 700 in the adobe version);

3. Filler Cap and Vents

A positive locking fuel filler cap (no Monza/flip type) shall be used. Fuel
pickup openings and lines, breather vents, and fuel filler lines shall be
designed and installed so that if the car is partially or totally inverted,
fuel shall not escape. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude
beyond the bodywork of the car.

If the fuel filler cap is located directly on the fuel cell, a check valve is
not required, provided the filler cap is a positive locking type and does
not use an unchecked breather opening. If the filler cap is not located on
the fuel cell, a check valve must be installed on the fuel cell to prevent
fuel from escaping if the cap and filler neck are torn from the tank.

Fuel cell breathers shall vent outside the car. The cell need not incorporate
a drain fitting. It is recommended that all lines, filler openings, and
vents be incorporated in a single fitting located at the top of the fuel
cell.
In Formula and Sports Racing cars registered prior to January 1, 1994,
the filler cap and neck are exempt from the bulkhead requirements of

9.3.27.1.a

.
Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be
removed from all Production and GT Category cars. Fuel cell vents must
not discharge into the driver/passenger compartments, even if installed
that way by the manufacturer. The fuel system cannot vent through the

roll bar/roll cage structure

[CRallo]

Looking at this from a different point of view...

We should remember the intent and purpose of these devices when originally installed on our racecars during manufacture as a street car.

Removing exhaust emission controls on these vehicles has a limited effect on the environment. This is because these vehicles are used on a limited basis. However, our racecars sit with fuel tanks venting gas fumes into the atmosphere all year round just like any other car.

In a time when environmental laws are being tightened and even auto racing is going green(er), this is important to consider.

[Z3_GoCar]

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:



These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

Here's another example, note the valve is part #6. The official name for this system is DISA. The idea is a long skinny intake runner for low rpm torque, and a short fat runner for high rpm hp. If it really works, it seems it's almost in the noise, only thing is it causes a bog when it chages over. I never thought you could remove this valve...

[Gary L]

Here is the problem I have with this arguement: You seem to infer that it's not fair that this change would make some cars faster and not others when in fact you could argue that this allowance just equals the playing field with more intake positioning options. I say it would make me more power because right now I don't feel I can get my intake to the coolest pocket of air in the engine bay. Some already can do that. Some can't. Heck, some can have cold air intakes because they have one stock - the inequities you speak of exists all over - it's not like this does something unique to the class.

On the butterflies, SOME may be emissions related (I'd like to see the factory wording) but MOST are like the secondary bbls on a carb. Primaries set up for a cerain RPM range, the addition of the secondaries for another RPM range. About A/F flow and not emissions.

I don't see any incongruencies. EGR emissions equipment and exhaust emissions equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Plugging water passeges is an allowance as it pertains only to an already specified EGR rule if you so choose to take advantage of them.

I appreciate you addressing the original question but I disagree with your path to the answer - or worded differently, why this may be creep. To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.

Andy - an example of creep might be - changing a rule and "leveling the playing field", resulting in someone else (who didn't get to go faster by removing some widget) proposing another rule change to "level the playing field"..... again.

About those secondary butterflies. I must admit I had forgotten all about torque enhancement devices that used secondaries. I was only remembering the ones used on carb'd Volvo's in the late 60's and early 70's... they were definitely early anti-smog devices, used to heat the intake mixture at low throttle openings. Okay, so my age is showing again!

Charcoal canisters BTW, go back quite a ways as well... after a bit of research, it appears my ITB car (a '71) would certainly have had one of these devices when new. FWIW, I don't have a clue where it is today. But if I found one and put it back on, I would NOT be going slower as a result.

[lateapex911]

... after a bit of research, it appears my ITB car (a '71) would certainly have had one of these devices when new. FWIW, I don't have a clue where it is today. But if I found one and put it back on, I would NOT be going slower as a result.

But you might, actually, if your car had it mounted on say, the radiator header right next to a stock hole that you currently use to route copious amounts of cold fresh air to your engine. And now the big container blocks that hole, removing your source of air.

Now, the rules don't say you can remove it, nor do they allow it to be moved.