Quote Originally Posted by Gary L View Post
To answer the question posed by the subject line... it's creep, plain and simple. I say that because I agree 100% with Andy... it is currently illegal to remove the evaporative canister, so the only legal way for it to disappear is via rules change. But if changing a rule in order to make cars faster isn't creep, what is? To top it off, this change could (nay, would) make some cars faster, but not others. What's up with that?

Interesting exchange on secondary butterflies, but I think a couple of points were missed. Those butterflies are exhaust emission devices; AFAIK, their design purpose was to alter exhaust emissions. But sorry, you still can't take them out, because the paragraph as written allows only two types of exhaust emission devices to be removed - air pumps and EGR devices: the butterflies are neither. Oh - and you can block water flow to an intake manifold, which is another exhaust emission control device. Then of course, you can remove the catalytic converter, yet another exhaust emission device. Yes, there are incongruities here.

I guess I might be in favor of a rewrite of this (emission control) paragraph, but I'm just not sure removal of the evaporative canister should be part of it.
Here is the problem I have with this arguement: You seem to infer that it's not fair that this change would make some cars faster and not others when in fact you could argue that this allowance just equals the playing field with more intake positioning options. I say it would make me more power because right now I don't feel I can get my intake to the coolest pocket of air in the engine bay. Some already can do that. Some can't. Heck, some can have cold air intakes because they have one stock - the inequities you speak of exists all over - it's not like this does something unique to the class.

On the butterflies, SOME may be emissions related (I'd like to see the factory wording) but MOST are like the secondary bbls on a carb. Primaries set up for a cerain RPM range, the addition of the secondaries for another RPM range. About A/F flow and not emissions.

I don't see any incongruencies. EGR emissions equipment and exhaust emissions equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Plugging water passeges is an allowance as it pertains only to an already specified EGR rule if you so choose to take advantage of them.

I appreciate you addressing the original question but I disagree with your path to the answer - or worded differently, why this may be creep. To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.