At 10:27 AM 4/22/01 -0500, Sam & Greg Scharnberg wrote:
>All of the discussion of the GCR and FCS has prompted me to spend some time
>reading. I found the GCR interesting but the plot was difficult to follow.
>:-)
>
>Anyway, I ran across 17.4.2 in the GCR and it appears to me that we may be
>required to add a fuel acquisition port on any vehicle governed by the GCR.
> This would include BM, CM, and FM. Probably prepared also but I have
>given up trying to follow prepared rules.
>
>I plan to ask the SEB to add this to the exceptions under Solo II rule 16.3
>for next year since BM uses last years GCR. I think that requiring BM
>vehicles to add this port in 2002 increases costs, adds complexity, serves
>no purpose, and would be really dumb! (If the SEB elects not to add this
>exception, I would probably ignore it anyway since disconnecting a fuel
>line MAY be considered acceptable. :-)
>
>My question for the CM group is if you want me to add CM to my letter since
>it already effects your class.
>
>Yours for the sport.
>
>Greg Scharnberg
>(old and slow, but havin fun)
Greg,
I "vote" for adding CM to your letter!
I do not want to have to add a separate fuel acquisition port in order to
facilitate fuel testing which is not required in Solo 2. I run pump gas (93
octane Exxon except where Exxon is not available such as Topeka where I run
Amoco). Neither probably would not pass the road racing fuel tests . . .
probably not a fuel anybody with any sense would run for road racing.
Anybody wants to test my fuel can help me syphon it out of the fuel cell or
pump it out of the cell through the normal fuel line. :-)
I have been "assuming" that since we don't use the road racing fuel tests
that we would not need the port which is now required to facilitate the
test for the road racers.
Thanks,
Dick Rasmussen
CM 85
85 Van Diemen RF-85 Formula Ford
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|