adding heat protection?

[Greg Amy]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.

I recall an incident many years ago (Modified solo?) where there was a rule about how the 'horn has to be heard over the engine' or something like that. Some guy removed his horn entirely, got protested over it. When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.

This kinda stuff is why I'm so adamant about rulesmakers saying what they mean using the fewest number of words.

[Dano77]

When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.

Thats some serious short track interprtation right there. Almost as good as doing something so blatent that they spend so much time on the Headlight covers on an AS Camaro that they missed the "extra" 695 ccs of engine. Lose qualify time and remove covers, start at the back, walk the field on the start and win.

[dickita15]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.

I recall an incident many years ago (Modified solo?) where there was a rule about how the 'horn has to be heard over the engine' or something like that. Some guy removed his horn entirely, got protested over it. When asked about it he reached into his pocket and pulled out a little clicker device used for training dogs, held it vertically above the engine with the engine off, and clicked it so you could hear it.

This kinda stuff is why I'm so adamant about rulesmakers saying what they mean using the fewest number of words.

Marcus Merideth used to say we should have all rules interpretations done by 10 year old girls. Sometimes we allow people to think too much.

[Bill Miller]

While I disagreed that Bill's example did not meet what I interpreted as the spirit of the regs, I agree that it met the technical letter of the regs.


.

Greg,

I don't think it met the spirit or the letter. I considered it a strained and tortured interpretation. But, we'll never know, as the rule was changed to make ECU's wide open, before it was ever put to the test of protest process.

I'm inclined to agree w/ Andy on this one, limit the addition of insulation to the driver's foot well area and possibly the transmission tunnel (but only as far back as the rear of the driver's seat).

[JeffYoung]

If you go the "non-attached" route, isn't effectively teh whole car an exhaust system?

[Greg Amy]

If you go the "non-attached" route, isn't effectively teh whole car an exhaust system?

No more so than if something is "attached" it's automatically part of the exhaust system (thus making the whole car an exhaust system).

Though, again, there's no requirement (or referral) in the regs for "attached" so it's moot. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No more so than if something is "attached" it's automatically part of the exhaust system (thus making the whole car an exhaust system).

Though, again, there's no requirement (or referral) in the regs for "attached" so it's moot. - GA

You keep saying that but I disagree completely. The IT rules aren't based on what you can't do, they are based on what you can do - which needs to be specified. So in order to make this connection, the heat shielding needs to be part of the exhaust system.

Please define what the exhaust 'system' is. I submit that it is everything attached to the piping. To say otherwise opens up a can of worms. In the parts catalogs we deal with, heat shielding attached to the chassis is under the chassis/body sections, not the exhaust section. No go.

Like I said in my example above, your line of thinking would include the exhaust valves as part of the exhaust system and therefor would be free.

Really what I am saying is that the OEM determines what is part of the system, not our 'idea' of the system.

[Greg Amy]

I submit that it is everything attached to the piping.

And I submit you are making up words. You, yourself, just stated that the rules say what you can do. Ergo, the words must be in there to allow/restrict what you can do, si?

And yet, take some time to search through the GCR PDF for the word "attach" and show me anywhere where it applies to an "exhaust" and/or "system". In point of fact, that word does not exist in that context. And as you go through that search for that word - it's in a lot of places in the GCR - you'll notice quite quickly that when the GCR intends for something to be "attached" they use the word "attach(ed)". It is not implied.

Remember, once things are allowed "they're bloody well allowed". Exhaust system is free. Unless you can find where in the GCR "exhaust system" is restricted to those things that are "attached" to an exhaust component, then anything that has to do with a reasonable interpretation of the exhaust system is free.

I personally think that exhaust heat shields are within a reasonable interpretation of "exhaust system". You, apparently, do not.

(Royal) you guys are saying that only things that are "attached" to the exhaust are part of the exhaust system, that the word "attach" is a limiting factor. Yet that word does not exist in the regs in that regard. You are simply POOMA'ing that word up.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fair enough but not until you provide substantive definitions - I still need to get YOUR definition of the 'system' and the backup for your position. I gave you mine, which is rooted in the OEM parts designations not only defining parts by what section you find these type of items but also calling BS that anything with the word 'exhaust' in its name is obviously not appropriate.

In order to know what you can 'replace, you have to know what the system encompasses. And I need to understand how you define your parameters because you haven't yet.

And I submit you are making up words. You, yourself, just stated that the rules say what you can do. Ergo, the words must be in there to allow/restrict what you can do, si?

And yet, take some time to search through the GCR PDF for the word "attach" and show me anywhere where it applies to an "exhaust" and/or "system". In point of fact, that word does not exist in that context. And as you go through that search for that word - it's in a lot of places in the GCR - you'll notice quite quickly that when the GCR intends for something to be "attached" they use the word "attach(ed)". It is not implied.

(Royal) you guys are saying that only things that are "attached" to the exhaust are part of the exhaust system, that the word "attach" is a limiting factor. Yet that word does not exist in the regs in that regard. You are simply POOMA'ing that word up.

GA