adding heat protection?

[Chip42]

Bill - read andy's post. the point is that what's being asked for is not something anyone reasonable would decline, despite there not being a rule allowing it. illegal, but c'mon. who makes that call? tech and the competitors who choose to ignore such things 99.9% of the time. should a protest come up, it is 100% acceptable to find the material non compliant. doesn't make that protest a good one though.

oh, and good post.

[Bill Miller]

Bill - read andy's post. the point is that what's being asked for is not something anyone reasonable would decline, despite there not being a rule allowing it. illegal, but c'mon. who makes that call? tech and the competitors who choose to ignore such things 99.9% of the time. should a protest come up, it is 100% acceptable to find the material non compliant. doesn't make that protest a good one though.

oh, and good post.

Chip,

I do get it. And I understand 'weenie' protests. But you know how that slippery slope goes. If it's something silly (like washer bottles), add a rule that allows it (whatever it is), and be done with it. Don't leave the door open for people. I keep thinking back to a Runoffs' protest ~10 years ago. It was a Prod car, so not really an IT issue, but I think it's a good example. The requirement was that the transmission had to have a 'functional reverse gear'. Most people would think that meant that you had to be able to put the car in reverse, from inside the car, by using the gear selector. The person in question had the reverse gear in the trans, but the only way you could engage reverse, was to get out of the car, climb under it, and move the linkage arm on the trans. The protest was not upheld, and the rule was re-written to indicate that you had to be able to select reverse from inside the car, via the gear selector. The point I'm making, is that reasonable people will disagree, and some will push things as far as they can.

[Chip42]

Bill, I completely agree. and we now have a letter to consider on this very topic, so I'll be brief.

my General feeling is that the way it works now, everyone letting those who use some insulation slide, is fine if not "right". If we allow the addition of insulation via a rule, we have to write a VERY well worded rule or we basically invite insulation of whatever sort wherever on the car based on readings like the gearshift example. right now you see a guy saving his legs from heat, and you say "who cares." ditto the false floors and grip tape and all that to help driver comfort and controls accessibility. if you see someone with 25 lbs of dynomat all around the RR corner of the interior trunk area - you know it's BS and you can call him on it. I'm leaning toward "no rule works better than a rule" in this scenario.

[ShelbyRacer]

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.

No stretch. All, some, or none of the insulation *may* be removed. This is my current thought process. Chances are, any place where insulation is needed would probably have had factory insulation. Leave it.

It may not be what you *want* to do, but it's what you *can* do.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I completely agree. and we now have a letter to consider on this very topic, so I'll be brief.

my General feeling is that the way it works now, everyone letting those who use some insulation slide, is fine if not "right". If we allow the addition of insulation via a rule, we have to write a VERY well worded rule or we basically invite insulation of whatever sort wherever on the car based on readings like the gearshift example. right now you see a guy saving his legs from heat, and you say "who cares." ditto the false floors and grip tape and all that to help driver comfort and controls accessibility. if you see someone with 25 lbs of dynomat all around the RR corner of the interior trunk area - you know it's BS and you can call him on it. I'm leaning toward "no rule works better than a rule" in this scenario.

The issue there Chip, is, let's say you're the guy that has the dynomat on your trans tunnel, to keep your right leg from ending up Med. Rare after a session. And you're also the guy that throws paper at at the guy w/ the 25# of dynomat in the RR corner of his trunk. If he's going to lose, so are you, when he throws paper back.

And I thought of an even better example. Remember when the ECU rule said all mods had to be w/in the stock, unmodified housing, and all connections had to be through the stock connector? Somebody figured out how to run a non-electrical connection from a MAP sensor into the stock housing, where there was a daughter board that was able to use that signal.

[Chip42]

and that "line" ended up being codified as an allowance to add a map sensor to ANY CAR in IT. NOT the example I'm wishing to copy. the rest of the committee might have a different opinion on the matter, I don't know, but for me - the current lack of rule is actually pretty good compared to the unintended consequences of another allowance. particularly one that's not necessarily needed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kind of different as some ECU's have MAP sensors onboard that only require vacuum. So the sensor that was not specifically illegal was part of a 'free' unit...so it's a tough call from there.

Specific wording that allows heat shielding in the drivers footwell may serve the purpose.

[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

[Greg Amy]

"I" don't provide the definitions. The controlling legal authority for everything is the General Competition Rules & Specifications.

GCR Technical Glossary

Exhaust Pipe – A duct of unspecified dimensions, whose function is to convey exhaust products toward the rear of a car and away from the driver.

Exhaust Port – The duct within a cylinder head or rotor housing through which the exhaust gases pass from the exhaust valve(s) to the outer flange of the head.

Exhaust System – A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car.

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Exhaust System – A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car.

System – An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function.

OK, then I submit the definitions that clearly tell us that ANYTHING not attached (ASSEMBLY) to the 'exhaust system' is not part of said exhaust system.

Not only does a heat shield attached to the chassis not convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car, it is also not part of the 'exhaust system assembly'.

[Greg Amy]

OK, then I submit the definitions that clearly tell us that ANYTHING not attached (ASSEMBLY) to the 'exhaust system' is not part of said exhaust system.

There you go again, pulling that word out of your...anterior.

POOMA, babe. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

There you go again, pulling that word out of your...anterior.

POOMA, babe. - GA

You aren't looking far enough into the words, you are getting hung up on that singular word.

The exhaust system is made up of an 'assembly' of components with an identifiable primary function per the GCR. That primary function is defined as

A passive system, whose components serve to convey the exhaust of an engine past the driver and away from the car

A heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not do that. I submit it's primary function is to shield the chassis (or another specific component) from any heat that the 'exhaust system' produces while it is doing its job.

I also submit we are at the agree to disagree point.