Removal of Charcoal Canisters (fuel tank vents) okay?

[nj1266]

NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up....

I was with NASA in SE-R Cup until 2007. I raced my first season in RS class with SCCA CalClub. I then moved my 98 SE-R to ITA. It really was not that hard to comply with the rules. Here is what I removed:

CF hood
Gutted and de-winged rear trunk lid
Lexan windshield
Lightweight battery
Cams
Added a glove box (comes in very handy btw)
AD22VF brakes from the NX2000 (I miss those the most. I wonder if there is a way to allows the NX2000 brakes on the 91-98 SE-R for an add weight)

The engines/trannies that I get are from the junkyard. I never built a 5000 engine nor would I ever do that. This is Club Racing and it is supposed to be cheap. My var is very competitive as is and I am thankfull to Greg Amy for bringing it into ITA from its also ran ITS status.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate.

I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...

ALL driven by popularity. As soon as a BimmerWorld, Speedsource, etc decide they want to dominate their local PT class and win the Championship, you will understand what Kirk's definition of 'competition' is. It's NOT about 10 good drivers driving mildly prepped cars in a tight pack (like some of our SCCA historians will tell you were the good ole days of IT), it's about ONE guy, ONE team, or ONE company deciding that they are going to run every rule through the X-Ray machine and build a car to win, then pair it with a driver who can extract what they need. Then the price of tea in PT goes out of the reach of the 'average Joe'.

[JeffYoung]

Andy is exactly right.

All of this has happened before....

IT used to be place where until say the mid 90s, you could bolt on some good stuff, and go run up front anywhere in the country. Then, for whatever reason, a number of amateur race shops decided to (a) go pro and (b) turn primarily ITS into a farm league for World Challenge and other US "pro" road race series.

In the early part of last decade, the price of poker went through the roof. I caught the tail end of it, and at the time it seemed 'normal' but looking back now on $50k turnkey ITS cars from Speedsource and Bimmerworld....whew....

And while that era has passed, they ratcheted up the bar for prep level and it won't come back down. It's just done differently now.

This could happen to PT in an instant.

But the key point? For the most part, the rules never changed, and it had nothing to do with them -- or rather, it did have something to do with them since an attractive ruleset attracted the talent and the prep level that B-World and S-source brought to the table.

It's not the IT ruleset per se that creates the need for a $5k IT build motor. It's the level of competition and what they are willing to do under that ruleset that does so.

[RacerBill]

And once the genie is out of the bottle, there ain't nothin getting him back in !!!!!!

[lateapex911]

I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...

Yea, but EV likes the current status in his chosen class. I called him out a bit on it because, I think, deep down the "rules issues" he's citing as his reasons for leaving IT are red herrings. The real deal reason is, at this point in PT's evolution, he's having fun and racing for what he feels are 'value finishes" considering his financial investment. (And that's FINE!!!)

Now, as you and Jeff point out, Sunbelt engines might decide to go all in on a PT car. They'll build several engines/combinations of the "cheap" power adders to find the setup that, for the points, provides the most power under the curve. Custom ground cams based on hundreds of dyno runs, custom exhausts, special ECU tunes, and so forth. They'll spend a fortune removing driveline friction and drag, as well as looking at rolling resistance. They'll build a suspension that meets the points requirements but flat out works. And gee, they might decide the whole "power cap" thing is so easy to cheat it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and POOF!.....the fun...for the guys with bolt on parts and cams who've been having a good old time racing at the front in 'cheap' cars..... is gone.

And maybe, in his area, there's an IT class that now has great races with 5 guys vying for the win on 12 cycle tires and junkyard engines, and suddenly things like charcoal canisters and washer bottles aren't the end of the world.

Or Sunbelt or whoever might never bother...and he's going to be happy doing what he's doing for a long time to come, and will smile when he sits out in the garage with a beveridge and gazes into his engine compartment and sees the space where his charcoal canister and washer bottle used to be.....and that's FINE....

Kirk studies policy and policy implementation (If I understand his job sorta correctly), and often sees that the things and reasons people cite for doing the things they do and making the decisions they make are often not the real drivers in those decisions. And i bet he'd tell us that often the people making the decisions don't really know that......

[Z3_GoCar]

I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...

ALL driven by popularity. As soon as a BimmerWorld, Speedsource, etc decide they want to dominate their local PT class and win the Championship, you will understand what Kirk's definition of 'competition' is. It's NOT about 10 good drivers driving mildly prepped cars in a tight pack (like some of our SCCA historians will tell you were the good ole days of IT), it's about ONE guy, ONE team, or ONE company deciding that they are going to run every rule through the X-Ray machine and build a car to win, then pair it with a driver who can extract what they need. Then the price of tea in PT goes out of the reach of the 'average Joe'.

I hightly doubt that BW would mess with PT. That's what GTS is for.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hightly doubt that BW would mess with PT. That's what GTS is for.

I doubt it too, mostly because they have no demand. But the point remains valid - as soon as someone contracts them to do so, PT isn't all rainbows and lollypops anymore.

[Z3_GoCar]

I doubt it too, mostly because they have no demand. But the point remains valid - as soon as someone contracts them to do so, PT isn't all rainbows and lollypops anymore.

If one wants rainbows and lollypops, then 24hrs of Lemons is the place to race:

[tom91ita]

actually planning on doing a LeMons next year. if their scheduling pattern holds, most likely April at Gingerman. July is too close to now and October has too many other conflicts (GRM 2011 challenge, etc.)

did you know the LeMons rollcage speciications are tougher than SCCA? min wall thickness for under 3500 #'s is 0.12 wall.....

[Chip42]

If one wants rainbows and lollypops, then 24hrs of Lemons is the place to race:

personally - I find that whole crapcan racing thing completely uninteresting. it looks like lets make a deal crossed with deathrace 2000. I'm glad their cage rules are more hardcore than SCCA.

[tom91ita]

personally - I find that whole crapcan racing thing completely uninteresting. it looks like lets make a deal crossed with deathrace 2000. I'm glad their cage rules are more hardcore than SCCA.

what i found interesting/amusing was that their insurance requirements dictate a "thicker" cage (better could be debated....) but they allow Isaacs. that is, SFI 38.1 is not mandated.

[tom91ita]

any update on letter #4220 to allow charcoal cannisters to be removed?

this was submitted in Feb of 2011. and tabled in May 2011.

what is the tracking policy of these types of requests. is more info needed?

Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring
Class: IT
Car: none
Request: The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.comI believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented."All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."Thank you for your consideration.

letter number #4220

[Chip42]

Tom,

we did vote on a new rule during our last meeting in february. it took a while to get to this item and we vetted the wording pretty thuroughly. it was sent up to the CRB, but they haven't had a chance to vote on it yet.

what we recommended was an allowance to remove eveporative system components, with an added requirement for rollover spill protection (vent check valves).

we'll wait to see what the CRB does with the actual wording.

[tom91ita]

posting for completeness. from the June Fastrack Prelim Minutes:

1. #4220 (Tom Lamb) Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

Thank you for your letter. Add new section: 9.1.3.D.1.b.1.:

1. Fuel system evaporative emissions systems
may be removed or replaced. Use or addition of rollover spill protection (i.e. check valve) is required.

[Greg Amy]

Note that's a proposed rule change for 2013. Don't go rippin' that s**t out yet... - GA

[tom91ita]

Greg,

if we go back to the beginning of this thread, i freely admitted that i screwed up and removed it years ago.

this rule request was to recognize that many of us had and were technically illegal.

[tdw6974]

posting for completeness. from the June Fastrack Prelim Minutes:


[/LEFT]

Do We get to vote yes on this???

[Chip42]

Do We get to vote yes on this???

write your BoD / the BoD in support if you like. they are the next to vet it. after them, it's official (one way or the other).

[Ralf]

Legal now.

D.1.b.1 pg 464

Fuel system evaporative emissions systems may be removed or replaced. Use or addition of rollover spill protection (i.e. check valve) is required.

[tom91ita]

Any suggestions for a check valve?