adding heat protection?

[CRallo]

such as gold foil to the fire wall, trans tunnel etc.

or heat pad, double floor, etc. in the foot box.


What is the allowance for this and where is it? thanks!




As of this post, my count is 777!

[CRallo]

Interesting timing on here... I just saw this in the prelim Fastrack:

"Spec Miata
1. #6400 (Todd Green) Seeking rules clarification/suggestion for Spec Miata
In 9.3.24, add the following to the end of the paragraph: "Insulation or heat-resistant material may be added to the
interior (cockpit) surfaces of the firewall, floor, and transmission tunnel."
(Please see letter #7625, Minutes for Recommended Rule Change portion of this letter)."

Not sure what that last part means regarding another letter though...

[pitbull113]

I know this is an old thread but I'm curious as well and surprised there was no response. The off season is here and this is one of the planned changes to my new ITA car. Any thoughts on this?

[Chip42]

there's no specific allowance in the ITCS for these. That said, I don't think anyone will call you on an insulation pad or reflective film etc.. unless you use some sort of rediculously heavy lead sheet or simillarly blatante attempt to use this permissive attitude for an expressly unauthorized purpose.

If it's a big deal, someone write a letter, this one should be easy to hammer out a reply to.

[pitbull113]

Thanks Chip, agreed it would be a weenie protest but I'm of the belief if it's one of those things alot of guys are doing and nobody cares either way then we should have a rule allowing it soooo letter on the way. Lead is a good insulator, just sayin'

[Greg Amy]

"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used" (GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012 GCR).

Heat shields are part of the exhaust "system".

Roffe Corollary --> no letter needed.

GA

[Chip42]

by the strict reading, heat shields are only part of the unrestricted exhaust when attached to same.

it's a pretty silly thing to throw paper at, but there IS NO allowance, specifically, nor really one that's easily twisted other than "duh," which is hard to enforce.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Chip has it right. If you are going to build a heat shield for your intake, your exhaust, your radiator etc....to be legal these things need to be attached to said 'unrestricted' item.

The reason it's now specifically called out in the SM rules the way it is is because it wasn't legal (in either IT or SM).

Weenie? You bet...until someone crosses the line and it serves another purpose.

[Greg Amy]

Where in the regs is this so-called "attached" requirement? - GA

[lawtonglenn]

maybe here?


APPENDIX F: TECHNICAL GLOSSARY

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function

{emphasis added}

.

[Greg Amy]

Where is the definition of "assembly" that requires these parts to be attached [to each other]? Remember, "attached" is (collective) your definition, not mine.

How about even a simple real-world example? Is an "assembly" of people at a town hall meeting not true assembly unless they're attached to each other...?

And this isn't "intorturation". In fact, I'd suggest it's intorturation for anyone to assume that a "system" is not actually a "system" unless the parts touch (or "attach") to each other.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where in the regs is this so-called "attached" requirement? - GA

I would argue that it's simple logic. If you are changing out your intake and adding a custom version under the rule, what makes you think that anything that wasn't attached to your new assembly could fall under this rule?

Show me where it says you CAN add this type of thing...because that is how the rulebook is written.

Exhaust heat shields attached to the car are not part of the exhaust system. They are part of the body. Exhaust heat shields attached to the piping sure are...

...unless you could prove that when you ordered new pipe from the OEM that all the shields came together on the same part number.

[Greg Amy]

I would argue that it's simple logic.

"Logic" is not enforceable regulation. Your assumptions and expectations are not enforceable regulation. The words used in the regulations are the basis for the letter and enforcement of the regulations.

Show me where it says you CAN add this type of thing...

GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012: "Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used"

See Rule #3:

How to Write a Rule

Exhaust heat shields attached to the car are not part of the exhaust system.

Incorrect. While it may not be part of the exhaust pipe, it is most decisively part of the exhaust system, for without that exhaust pipe there would be no need for the exhaust shield.

The rule states the system - not the exhaust piping as you are incorrectly assuming - is free. Thus it is.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Incorrect. While it may not be part of the exhaust pipe, it is most decisively part of the exhaust system, for without that exhaust pipe there would be no need for the exhaust shield.

The rule states the system - not the exhaust piping as you are incorrectly assuming - is free. Thus it is.

GA

I disagree completely. By your logic the exhaust valves are also part of the exhaust system. Those must be free also.

Intorturtation.

(on edit) So I guess we need to define the 'system'. Just because it has the word 'exhaust' attached to it, doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the given allowance. Hence my belief here that the rule applies to everything attached to the piping.

[Dano77]

Ahem....Arent Exhaust Heat Shields already supplied on the car from the factory. Solved that one. And they pretty much match the floors already.

Carpets and Insulating "may be removed" Sounds like some Insulating material can be left in place to aid in driver comfort of the foot well area.


Stretching that one a bit. But it dosent say all of the insulation has to be removed.

Your all overthinking this. Just race the car.

[Ed Funk]

It's December Dan, can't race the car....must not get involved....intake system, hmmmm, exhaust system....so many systems....so little time.

[Greg Amy]

I disagree completely. By your logic the exhaust valves are also part of the exhaust system. Those must be free also.

Intorturtation.

See? You figured out your own response in one post, two paragraphs. +1 Internets for The Bettencourt.



On edit: Andy et al, you can believe whatever you want, whatever lets you sleep at night. But that fact is, exhaust heat shields are part of the exhaust system; after all, what other system would they be a part of? It is my opinion as a competitor, National scrutineer, and member of a CRB sub-committee that such an "interpretation" (as much as it is not) would survive any and all appeal/protest/tech shed scrutiny.

If you really think that exhaust heat shields are not part of the exhaust system, then I strongly encourage you to write a letter to the CRB and ask them to "clarify" the regs accordingly. After all, the very fate of the future of Improved Touring may depend on it...

[Chip42]

the question was addition of heat shield material. I presumed based on common practice that this would be foil, aluminized insulation pads, etc... in the area of the driver.

generally, this is NOT a protested item. it's a stupid and nit picky protest used for 1 of 2 reasons - because you hate someone and are petty, or because someone is performing a prohibited function.

I disagree with Greg's reading, but I don't think it matters because, as above, it's just petty to call someone on insulation used appropriately and for driver comfort or engine survivability (reflective shield on the oil pan, etc...).

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's what we do on the forums, debate the stuff people bring up. Nobody really protests this stuff, we all know that.

Not everything is part of a 'system'. I think you'd be surprised to learn what you'd find under the 'chassis' section in OEM parts ordering microfiche.

Agree to disagree.

[Bill Miller]

the question was addition of heat shield material. I presumed based on common practice that this would be foil, aluminized insulation pads, etc... in the area of the driver.

generally, this is NOT a protested item. it's a stupid and nit picky protest used for 1 of 2 reasons - because you hate someone and are petty, or because someone is performing a prohibited function.

I disagree with Greg's reading, but I don't think it matters because, as above, it's just petty to call someone on insulation used appropriately and for driver comfort or engine survivability (reflective shield on the oil pan, etc...).

So tell me Chip, who gets to make the call as to what rules are ok to ignore because it would be 'nit picky' and 'petty' to protest?

"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used" (GCR 9.1.3.D.1.g, p404 Dec 2012 GCR).

Heat shields are part of the exhaust "system".

Roffe Corollary --> no letter needed.

GA

Greg,

Where your logic fails is in the assumption that all heat shielding is related to heat emanating from the exhaust system. Both the engine and the transmission give off heat that is unrelated to the exhaust system. So, you're allowed to use a a heat shield to shield your exhaust system, but if that same heat shield is insulating something from the heat being given off by the transmission, you could make the case that your heat shield is performing a prohibited function, as there is no allowance to provide insulation against the heat emanating from the transmission.