Cold-Air Intakes (CAI) for 88-91 CRX Illegal

[Greg Amy]

There is NOTHING that stops another set of stewards from ruling at the track that the set-up is legal.

And then the protester appeals to Topeka, where, apparently, cooler heads prevail*...

...why not try and LIMIT the potential for intorturtation?

What makes you think you can? Do you really believe you write a rule that I can't intorturate?

If you think the rule leaves open a gray area for intorturation that someone will take advantage of but that Topeka won't support on appeal, then we've got the process to address that (i.e., protest, then appeal, then Fastrack publication). But, if you think Topeka is going to let it go as 'legal' then what you're proposing to do is not clarification but a de facto rule change (i.e., if Topeka says the intorturation is legal, then your clarification is actually a rule change that must go through the process.)

On the other hand, if the intorturation is accepted by the community as contrary to the spirit of the rules, and it gets protested, then appealed to Topeka, and Topeka says it's legal, then - and only then - should we proceed to request a rule change to make it illegal.

This is especially silly when one recognizes that it's NEVER been done (as far as we know) and that the only reason it's come up for discussion is because someone, in some forum, tossed it out as a theoretical possibility. Are we going to be tilting every Internet-based (or email-based, or paddock BS-session-based) theoretical windmill we see/hear, or are we going to use the protest/appeal process that's been in place for decades as it was intended?

The process works, dude. Don't f**k it up.

GA

* A perfect example: the spherical suspension bearings bastardization. I was *this* close to having Topeka make a ruling on those, using the existing, GCR-defined process, when someone on the CRB decided to unilaterally and preemptively over-ride the GCR process. Had I been allowed to proceed, we could have used the process to change the rule, which most reasonable persons agree it was.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What makes you think you can? Do you really believe you write a rule that I can't intorturate?

All I said was TRY. I believe there are PLENTY of rules we can make more clear as to the intent.

[bonespec]

Outsider looking in.......tKR knows me well......

For those cars that the MAIN air inlet is in the engine compartment, like the CRX, the IT setup must stay within those confines.

So what defines an engine compartment????? Mind you I'm working on a design for 92-95 Civic/94-01 Integra. The engine compartment to me is between the metal of the shock towers and the bottom of the block, aka oil pan rail, to the hood. Thus to prevent a bottom feeder inlet.

[wbp]

The confines of an engine compartment seems to be well understood to be from firewall to core support/radiator, between fender inner liners and under the hood. What isn't well defined is the bottom of this compartment. I suggest a bottom be defined.
Bottom of side frame rails or
At level of bottom of the wheel
Probably not bottom of block as bonespec is considering because some blocks have a bottom face that is sloped.
We were glad the bottom of the engine compartment was not a consideration in the Moser/Ginsberg decision as it is not clearly defined.

[mossaidis]

What happened to keeping it simple...

"Any air intake system in front of the throttle body (including mass air sensor) may be used (stock
throttle body must be retained)." And hold the mustard on cutting holes...

Yes, it's from HC rule set but it would put an end to the complex and very limiting option of not buying 90% of the off the shelf solutions out there that produce reasonable performance gains. (I have a hard time imagining I am the only exception.) Perhaps it's because I am nob and my car is 3 hours away from where I live/work, but it will take more money and more time to construct a good IT-legal air-intake assembly. The cheap short intake from e-bay will not make a top running car, but might be a good setup for April SCCA at NHMS.

I am building a 92 Civic Si.

What up bones! Let us know how your new intake works out.

[Xian]

Annnnnnnnd, the HC ruleset was largely cribbed from the IT Rules by Scott & Karl. Since HC was limited a single marque series, it was easy for them to open up the intake rule without a high risk of unintended consequences.

IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake

Christian

[mossaidis]

IT is a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Multiple marques and models... no way to open this rule up further without running the risk of needing to rebalance everything. Add on top of this the additional cost of all the current IT cars needing to test different length/design intake systems.

Oh, BTW, I know of several top running cars that are running short ram style intakes. There's waaaay more to a fast car than an intake

Christian

Your answer is boilerplate to some degree. I can't blame you since you have bought into the 'whole' SCCA IT rule set and mentality. I have not totally, though I have yet to race IT. I may regret this... Ok, forget the source of my quote for a moment.

1) Give me an example where it imposes an inbalance. The rule would applies to all the same way. Could there be exceptions? Perhaps... someone please help me put my shoe in my mouth. If so, I will become the wiser for it.
2) I will argue that the cost for me to fabricate and test a current IT legal intake system that maximes HP is no less than the cost is for me to fabricate and test an intake that is designed with a less restrictive rule set. (wait... I am thinking... yes, I still stand by that comment).
3) To me and many others, IT is a bolt-on class. Yes IT allows for 'minor' fabrication for gear heads like G. Amy and like to maximize HP, adjust suspensions and make top class runners. Yes, there is fun in fabricating. Yet for many starter entrants like myself, IT is bolt-on, tune and go. The rule has prohibited me and others from just purchasing $150 air intake and be done with it.

PS. You should know Xian (yes I know you know), the difference between a shorty and AEM CAI v2 on z6 is about 4-5 whp. That's a big number when you're only putting down 125whp.

PPS. This is probably a calling for me to go with SS or Touring, but I don't have $25K and I love my civic.

PPPS. There is cost in time, materials, effort and energy in fabricating. It costs me less to buy an AEM CAIv2 or a simple passwordJDM intake - niether of which are IT legal, both are velocity stacks and the AEM is much like Moser's.

PPPPS. I have been home all day with a cold, sorry for being crabby. Yet these thread has given me the oppurtunity to voice my concerns for something that has bugged me for a long time.

PPPPPS. Now I just remember that IT never allowed aftermarket intakes... simple, cheap, the way IT should be.... No, let's overcomplicate it to 'keep costs down and be fair' ...hmmmm.