> I read through the re-wording of the fuel related SP rules in this month's
> FasTrack and they seem to be written in such a way as to make "surge
> tanks"
> (like the RX3 thread after Nationals) illegal. My question is: Why? A
> surge tank is not a device for enhancing performance, it is a device
> designed to eliminate losing performance. There is a difference.
> Convertible
>
---
Doug:
I feel your pain.
The turbocharged vehicles out there are grossly discrimintaed
against in the rules, bu nothing more than sheer ignorance by the SCCA.
Upgrading the compressor release valve is illegal.
Increased performance? No. Its only racing purpose is to prevent
snapping the shaft of the turbocharger because of the violent pressures
created by a WOT run and then a suddenly closed throttle, even at stock
boost levels.
Somehow the N/A crowd sees this as a threat, and gets all huffy
about it.
"Remember that we're talking about SP here, not stock, so a lot of achilles
heels can be fixed already (chain tensioners come to mind)."
Preventative work on a turbocharger is suddenly Modified class, not to
mention the requirement to add restrictor plates.
I will be doing some letter writing this season now that Ive had a year to
see how unfairly classed anything with forced induction is in the SCCA.
Also, the automatic assumtion that a 3.0L motor turbocharged, is
suddenly a 4.5L motor is rediculous. The potential of ANY motor is directly
due to its ability to flow air. Wanna class a turbocharged motor the
-right- way? Lets look at the published OEM flow rates on the heads.
Theres the true indication of potential...not some incredibly vague
displacement x 1.5 math.
Imagine this being competative: A toyota celica with a 2.L motor
(stock internals/head..etc) with a turbocharger on it competing in EM.
Yeah...ok.
|