Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[Greg Amy]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA

*Rallo has a valid point about needless hydrocarbon emissions; it goes along with our prior discussions of needless exhaust noise. However, I suggest with all the IT-allowed mods, the canisters are generally not likely to be working correctly. Even if the hydrocarbons were being captured in the canisters, you still need to have the rest of the system connected so those captured hydrocarbons are being pulled into the intake and burned; without that, you're just delaying how long until they eventually get released into the atmosphere...

[Gary L]

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.

But on my car, it doesn't. Ergo, the in my last post.

[Gary L]

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

But there is a reverse argument... that removal can result (according to the OP) in a performance difference, but only on some vehicles.

So just allow the thing to be left in place.

I realize I'm arguing against what appears to be prevailing opinion, but I had to say my piece. I'm done with that process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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:



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);

Tom,

What I am saying is pretty clear in the ITCS. You can replace your tank with a cell. There is NO provision to remove the EVAP canister however (unless that system is inside the stock tank). The IT rules for cells have been grey for years. There is seemingly a min standard for cells in other classes but not in IT - unless this has been fixed recently.

Don't ever make the mistake of looking at other categories rules for a basis on IT unless it says it's true (like SS).

As far as Gary's concern about performance, the only reason I brought it up was because I wanted the discussion to be from a different angle than me asking for a change that could help me. Frankly, I'd rather reign other similar cars to mine in HP wise than open up the rule but I don't really care THAT much either way.

In the end, I think most of us agree that a revision to the 'emissions' allowance is not creep and makes sense. I will write something up and send it in.

[lateapex911]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA

yea, but, theoretically speaking, the bean counters resist changes which cost money. The engineers like fresh air...so it's possible that the bean counters won and the canister doesn't get moved, and the engine gets to breath from a hotter less desirable area, and stock power is reflected.
On other cars, the engineers won, the canister was moved to another location, but the engine got it's cold air, and it's reflected in the stock power....

So, you can argue that that scenario isn't likely, but, there are 300+ cars in the ITCS... and it's certainly possible. So I see reasons to not change the rule.

I also like having mine attached, for the reasons Chris mentioned.

[Knestis]

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.

This was my thinking - Pablo's is gone - applying Roffe's corollary. When the cell went in, a lot of other stuff got put in - and removed - as part of the process. We added a dry break, and took out the stock crap where the cap used to mount. We put in new structure to support it, and cut out metal to make it fit. We took out the stock pump and lines (both feed and return), to effect the connection to the engine, and the canister came out because it was part of that fuel system octopus.

Remember that because a fuel cell is NOT required in an IT car, the language in the ITCS - that allows one - is really brief. And the language in the general requirements for fuel cells doesn't reference IT cars because of the same first assumption.

FWIW, which is probably next to zero.

K