Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
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 To me it's simple: Are we writing a rule because everyone is 'doing it anyway' or are we clarifying a rule that is obsolete.
Andy - an example of creep might be - changing a rule and "leveling the playing field", resulting in someone else (who didn't get to go faster by removing some widget) proposing another rule change to "level the playing field"..... again.

About those secondary butterflies. I must admit I had forgotten all about torque enhancement devices that used secondaries. I was only remembering the ones used on carb'd Volvo's in the late 60's and early 70's... they were definitely early anti-smog devices, used to heat the intake mixture at low throttle openings. Okay, so my age is showing again!

Charcoal canisters BTW, go back quite a ways as well... after a bit of research, it appears my ITB car (a '71) would certainly have had one of these devices when new. FWIW, I don't have a clue where it is today. But if I found one and put it back on, I would NOT be going slower as a result.