"The Confines of the Engine Compartment"

[vtluu]

To further muddy the waters...

I've read this thread closely as I had a friendly discussion this past weekend with one of our scrutineers about the legality of the intake I've run for years:

IMG_20140706_090514.jpg IMG_20140706_090457.jpg

It's a modified Racing Beat intake; the latter came with a hole in the back of the "box" for a more stock-like intake routing, which I fiberglassed closed and ran a straight pipe over from the throttle body, through the MAF and into the side of the box.

Inarguably, the intake & intake box are located within the confines of the engine compartment, and aren't a ram air system nor cowl induction. In my case the point of contention is what "source" means. The induction box (mostly) seals the intake filter off from the engine compartment so it draws air from the wheel well. So you could say it's drawing air from outside the engine compartment... but as someone here pointed out earlier, all air comes from outside the engine compartment one way or another.

It would be nice to get some kind of "official" (such as it is) word on this; I haven't contacted the ITAC in so long that I don't even remember how...

[Greg Amy]

It's a gray area that, like splitters, we've all chosen to ignore. IMO, as long as all the bits are physically located within the "confines of the engine compartment", and you're not doing cowl induction or ram air, then it's compliant to the current letter of the regs, despite having been sealed off from the rest of the engine compartment. Its compliance to the spirit of the regs in current context IMO is also OK. But it would be extremely hard to interpret it to the original context of the regs because, as with splitters, they didn't exist back then at our level of competition.

There's no longer any "official" method of getting rules interpretation. You can send a request to the ITAC for clarification (http://crbscca.com) but that clarification is really non-official and will only last through the current year and/or ITAC; all it does is indicate to you how the CRB/ITAC would rule should they be asked during a protest/appeal. The other way is to have someone protest you ($25 and you'll probably get that back) and run it through protest/appeals.

GA

[JeffYoung]

And we really don't offer clarifications anymore (we've been asked not to).

My personal opinion is that this intake is legal as it is within the confines of the engine bay BUT the IT Miatas and RX7s I've seen have a habit of having the hood bend up slightly in that area to effectively pressurize the area around the filter, which is even more effective here due to the well designed and essentially sealed box. If the hood is bent up, I could see this conceivably being called "ram air."

[Andy Bettencourt]

And we really don't offer clarifications anymore (we've been asked not to).

My personal opinion is that this intake is legal as it is within the confines of the engine bay BUT the IT Miatas and RX7s I've seen have a habit of having the hood bend up slightly in that area to effectively pressurize the area around the filter, which is even more effective here due to the well designed and essentially sealed box. If the hood is bent up, I could see this conceivably being called "ram air."

Which would put doing that illegal from two angles. 'Modifying' your body work is illegal in this context and even if it was legal it wouldn't be allowed here since it facilitates a specifically disallowed modification.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's a gray area that, like splitters, we've all chosen to ignore. IMO, as long as all the bits are physically located within the "confines of the engine compartment", and you're not doing cowl induction or ram air, then it's compliant to the current letter of the regs, despite having been sealed off from the rest of the engine compartment. Its compliance to the spirit of the regs in current context IMO is also OK. But it would be extremely hard to interpret it to the original context of the regs because, as with splitters, they didn't exist back then at our level of competition.


GA

I would only add one thing...like exhaust heat shields and custom intake shrouding, in order to be compliant under the 'intake is free' or 'exhaust is free', these designs must be attached to said free item.

So that Miata intake shroud above looks legal provided it's actually attached to the intake tubing in some way.

[vtluu]

Thanks Greg, Jeff, Andy.

So that Miata intake shroud above looks legal provided it's actually attached to the intake tubing in some way.

Is duct tape considered a legal method of attachment?

[Greg Amy]

Is duct tape considered a legal method of attachment?

Yup. In fact...when I did a heat shroud on my ITA NX2000 many moons ago, Andy was looking under the hood. He made a comment regarding the shield being a separate part from my intake. I reached over, grabbed a roll of duct tape, and connected them together.

The look on his face was priceless...

[chuck baader]

Fasteners are free!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yup. In fact...when I did a heat shroud on my ITA NX2000 many moons ago, Andy was looking under the hood. He made a comment regarding the shield being a separate part from my intake. I reached over, grabbed a roll of duct tape, and connected them together.

The look on his face was priceless...

And in one move, it was legal!