Doug Chase wrote:
>
> Both posts implied that these competitors can simply run more gas in the
> tank and that would fix the problem. Perhaps I'm not clear on the exact
> problem. Is the problem that these people want to run on fumes and they
> can't do it, or is the problem that even when they have gas in the tank,
> fuel slosh in the carbs or fuel rail is causing problems? I was assuming
> the latter. Perhaps I was wrong. But given the rest of the mods allowed in
> SP, I don't see a reason for this being illegal.
Nope. It's fuel sloshing away from the pickup in the gas tank and
starving the engine out in high G turns. This happens on more than just
a couple of cars, although CSP mazdas seem to be noticeably prone to it.
Both RX-3's in question are running very sophisticated engine management
systems. There are two other ways an RX-3 can legally get around the
fuel starvation problem. One, run with a full tank. For these guys
that's effectively adding 60-80lbs of ballast. Or two, install a fuel
cell. Which has with additional weight penalties of proper GCR rollover
protection and fire suppression equipment. Either way, the weight
penalty exists. No don't ge me wrong, I think the "de-embolizer" was a
fantastically ingenious way of getting around the problem -within- the
allowances spelled out in the rules. I think it's disappointing that
such an imaginative (and relatively inexpensive) and legal solution to a
performance problem has been rendered illegal.
> > I does make sense that there is a consideration for a slippery slope. This
> > mod would only be required by X number of cars (and most of them would do
> > it), and then we also the fix for every car's achilles heel, and pretty
> > soon the rule book is HUGE and complex.
>
> 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).
Nope. Chain tensioners are illegal in SP as well as Stock. Too bad, we
might see alot more PCA drivers show up in ASP if their otherwise stock
motor didn't put them into Prepared. And before anyone gets on me about
"they could come and run anyway!", that argument doesn't really fly. I
have been a member of PCA for many years, and there is a large opinion
about SCCA (I won't repeat it in mixed company) that keeps alot PCA
autoxers away from SCCA events. The chain tensioner issue is always
mentioned. It may not be a majority opinion, but it is common enough.
> ...But I'm also of
> the opinion that we should allow cars to fix their achilles heels. I know
> I'm in the minority here.
The problem is, what may simply be a longevity enhancing addition to
one car, may make another car an overnight class winner. That's the big
"slippery slope" that keeps getting mentioned.
> > Yup. But I would also accept that driving the car you love means you
> > replace synchros, or mounts, or whatever, or even live with running with a
> > half full tank of gas.
>
> True, but as I said above, I'm of the opinion that we should make
> accomodations to minor problems that are annoying and costly to maintain,
> but are of little or no performance advantage to fix correctly.
But that's the slippery slope argument right there.
-Josh2
--
Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan Racing #29 - CONIVOR
'87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth quattro
jhadler@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
|