Is it 'Creep' or is it a clarification?

[Gary L]

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Gary L]

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.

[lateapex911]

... 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.

But you might, actually, if your car had it mounted on say, the radiator header right next to a stock hole that you currently use to route copious amounts of cold fresh air to your engine. And now the big container blocks that hole, removing your source of air.

Now, the rules don't say you can remove it, nor do they allow it to be moved.

[Greg Amy]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA

*Rallo has a valid point about needless hydrocarbon emissions; it goes along with our prior discussions of needless exhaust noise. However, I suggest with all the IT-allowed mods, the canisters are generally not likely to be working correctly. Even if the hydrocarbons were being captured in the canisters, you still need to have the rest of the system connected so those captured hydrocarbons are being pulled into the intake and burned; without that, you're just delaying how long until they eventually get released into the atmosphere...

[Gary L]

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

But there is a reverse argument... that removal can result (according to the OP) in a performance difference, but only on some vehicles.

So just allow the thing to be left in place.

I realize I'm arguing against what appears to be prevailing opinion, but I had to say my piece. I'm done with that process.

[lateapex911]

Generally speaking, I cannot imagine ANYONE at ANY point of ANY process has ever considered the evaporative canister or its location when considering competition weight. If that is a part of the process - or even considered as part of the process - then there needs to be a "subtractor" for all cars (the vast majority of them) that have these canisters safely tucked up in the fender wells of the car, where they can't possibly affect vehicle performance...

Said differently, if removal the evap canister is considered a performance enhancement, then it needs to be applied - or adjusted - equally. But it ain't, so it ain't, so just allow the thing to be removed*.

GA

yea, but, theoretically speaking, the bean counters resist changes which cost money. The engineers like fresh air...so it's possible that the bean counters won and the canister doesn't get moved, and the engine gets to breath from a hotter less desirable area, and stock power is reflected.
On other cars, the engineers won, the canister was moved to another location, but the engine got it's cold air, and it's reflected in the stock power....

So, you can argue that that scenario isn't likely, but, there are 300+ cars in the ITCS... and it's certainly possible. So I see reasons to not change the rule.

I also like having mine attached, for the reasons Chris mentioned.

[Gary L]

But you might, actually, if your car had it mounted on say, the radiator header right next to a stock hole that you currently use to route copious amounts of cold fresh air to your engine. And now the big container blocks that hole, removing your source of air.

But on my car, it doesn't. Ergo, the in my last post.

[Ron Earp]

T

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.

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:



These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

[tom91ita]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4220

Title of Request: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

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.com

I 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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Feel free to agree or disagree. I have tried to be completely honest in that this crap is gone from my car and i have no intention of trying to find a 25 year old parts cars to replumb it. any races i run in 2011 will make me subject to a protest.

Submitted this morning:

I have seen a few people say that the EVAP system can be removed if you replace the stock tank with a cell. Where do you read that allowance?

The only instance where I can think of a charcoal canister can be removed is if it came INSIDE the stock tank and you swapped to a fuel cell.

[tom91ita]

Andy,

it might be just the fact that it is silent when it discusses vents in the fuel cell section of the GCR that the IT section references.

the very first line in the IT section says that i must comply with section 9 of the GCR:

These specifications are part of the SCCA GCR and all automobiles shall

conform with GCR Section 9.

it specifically says the evap emissions devices must be removed from production & gt cars. where are the roll cage specs for IT? it is my understanding that it starts on page 98 for the GT and production based cars?

it does not say the vents must be removed from IT nor does it say they must remain. iidsyctyc?

if you are saying that the vent can be routed out of the car in the back but you then need the charcoal canister to stay, i would not argue that that may be the "letter of the law" but i do not think that was the intent.

anyways, i am basically screwed unless i happen upon a parts car but i do not plan to actively hunt one down.

from page GCR-93 (or 97 of 700 in the adobe version);

3. Filler Cap and Vents

A positive locking fuel filler cap (no Monza/flip type) shall be used. Fuel
pickup openings and lines, breather vents, and fuel filler lines shall be
designed and installed so that if the car is partially or totally inverted,
fuel shall not escape. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude
beyond the bodywork of the car.

If the fuel filler cap is located directly on the fuel cell, a check valve is
not required, provided the filler cap is a positive locking type and does
not use an unchecked breather opening. If the filler cap is not located on
the fuel cell, a check valve must be installed on the fuel cell to prevent
fuel from escaping if the cap and filler neck are torn from the tank.

Fuel cell breathers shall vent outside the car. The cell need not incorporate
a drain fitting. It is recommended that all lines, filler openings, and
vents be incorporated in a single fitting located at the top of the fuel
cell.
In Formula and Sports Racing cars registered prior to January 1, 1994,
the filler cap and neck are exempt from the bulkhead requirements of

9.3.27.1.a

.
Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be
removed from all Production and GT Category cars. Fuel cell vents must
not discharge into the driver/passenger compartments, even if installed
that way by the manufacturer. The fuel system cannot vent through the

roll bar/roll cage structure

[CRallo]

Looking at this from a different point of view...

We should remember the intent and purpose of these devices when originally installed on our racecars during manufacture as a street car.

Removing exhaust emission controls on these vehicles has a limited effect on the environment. This is because these vehicles are used on a limited basis. However, our racecars sit with fuel tanks venting gas fumes into the atmosphere all year round just like any other car.

In a time when environmental laws are being tightened and even auto racing is going green(er), this is important to consider.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

it might be just the fact that it is silent when it discusses vents in the fuel cell section of the GCR that the IT section references.

the very first line in the IT section says that i must comply with section 9 of the GCR:



it specifically says the evap emissions devices must be removed from production & gt cars. where are the roll cage specs for IT? it is my understanding that it starts on page 98 for the GT and production based cars?

it does not say the vents must be removed from IT nor does it say they must remain. iidsyctyc?

if you are saying that the vent can be routed out of the car in the back but you then need the charcoal canister to stay, i would not argue that that may be the "letter of the law" but i do not think that was the intent.

anyways, i am basically screwed unless i happen upon a parts car but i do not plan to actively hunt one down.

from page GCR-93 (or 97 of 700 in the adobe version);

Tom,

What I am saying is pretty clear in the ITCS. You can replace your tank with a cell. There is NO provision to remove the EVAP canister however (unless that system is inside the stock tank). The IT rules for cells have been grey for years. There is seemingly a min standard for cells in other classes but not in IT - unless this has been fixed recently.

Don't ever make the mistake of looking at other categories rules for a basis on IT unless it says it's true (like SS).

As far as Gary's concern about performance, the only reason I brought it up was because I wanted the discussion to be from a different angle than me asking for a change that could help me. Frankly, I'd rather reign other similar cars to mine in HP wise than open up the rule but I don't really care THAT much either way.

In the end, I think most of us agree that a revision to the 'emissions' allowance is not creep and makes sense. I will write something up and send it in.

[Knestis]

I have seen a few people say that the EVAP system can be removed if you replace the stock tank with a cell. Where do you read that allowance?

The only instance where I can think of a charcoal canister can be removed is if it came INSIDE the stock tank and you swapped to a fuel cell.

This was my thinking - Pablo's is gone - applying Roffe's corollary. When the cell went in, a lot of other stuff got put in - and removed - as part of the process. We added a dry break, and took out the stock crap where the cap used to mount. We put in new structure to support it, and cut out metal to make it fit. We took out the stock pump and lines (both feed and return), to effect the connection to the engine, and the canister came out because it was part of that fuel system octopus.

Remember that because a fuel cell is NOT required in an IT car, the language in the ITCS - that allows one - is really brief. And the language in the general requirements for fuel cells doesn't reference IT cars because of the same first assumption.

FWIW, which is probably next to zero.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

With butterflies we're talking about the butterflies IN the intake runner that is controlled by ECU/vacuum to keep intake velocities high and promote low end torque:



These ARE NOT emission related in any way and cannot be removed. Even if they were emissions related you couldn't remove them. So if these aren't present on a build it is bad news unless there are model years that didn't have them at all and allow an alternative intake.

Here's another example, note the valve is part #6. The official name for this system is DISA. The idea is a long skinny intake runner for low rpm torque, and a short fat runner for high rpm hp. If it really works, it seems it's almost in the noise, only thing is it causes a bog when it chages over. I never thought you could remove this valve...