> 1. "Fuel tank changes are permitted only as allowed under 14.1C. No
> additional tanks or reservoirs may be used." At the very least, this
> needs to be worded so as not to appear to outlaw OEM fuel systems that
Why? You start with the Stock rules, which permit the OEM configuration,
and then you add the SP update/backdate rule at the front of Section
14, and then you go to the item-specific parts of the book and see
what the other allowances are. This is part of that "read the rules
in context" thing...
> 2. "Fuel filters must be of automotive type..." as opposed to what?
> Bicycle type? Aviation type? How we gonna tell the difference? "... and
Oh come on. Go to Schuck's and see what they'll sell you. Not Boeing
Surplus, or Mort's Marine.
> may serve no other purpose." So I can now protest a car for a fuel
> filter that holds too much fuel. As a point of back-to-Earth reference
Not if the competitor can show it's for a car, not a 737. Wanna run
some herkin' filter? It better say FRAM (Wix, Purolator, etc.; I can see
you getting farfetched on brand name requirements) on it and have a part
number that can be looked up in an automotive catalog. Doesn't sound hard
to me.
> 3. "Fuel lines may be no larger than 1/2" i.d...." Well, thank God for
> ONE specific item. No problems here, unless your STOCK lines are larger
See above, regarding Stock, update/backdate, etc. IN CONTEXT. THE
WHOLE &%$@ BOOK.
> than that (admittedly unlikely). "...and may only connect to the
> original fuel tank or allowed fuel cell." In my experience, a fuel line
> usually has TWO ends. Are both ends REALLY required to connect to the
You're descending into the "people probably have no common sense" argument
stream... Next you'll want the book to explicitly say that your aftermarket
shocks can be connected (i.e., at both ends), or that you really should
put bolts into the mounts for your aftermarket seat.
> But wait! What about the size of the fuel pump HOUSINGS? The way I read
> the new wording, you're subject to protest if anyone else thinks they're
> big enough to "serve another purpose."
Oh probably. At some point the Protest Committee has to be made up
of people with more aptitude than Kelly Bundy.
> 2. There is still no restriction on the number of fuel filters you can
> install. Does that make sense to anyone?
Why restrict them, as long as they really are filters? Some people use
a filter near the tank, and another one at the carb(s). I suppose you'd
extend the notion and have a fuel line with 20 filters in it just to
get that reservoir capacity. Okay, maybe they need to say "no more
than X" or some such. But what's a reasonable number there?
> Will it be worth the effort and acrimony that the new gray areas are
> almost certain to generate?
Why can't people just stop trying to screw the system and focus their
attention on springs, bars, shocks, diffs, etc.? And if you are so
convinced that the run-really-low-fuel-tank-levels "clever" setups
ought to be legal, why don't you write a proposed change to permit
it (but be sure it doesn't open any side-effect doors, or take away
any other reasonable allowances, or use any wording which isn't
completely definitive)? It sure seems easy for you to criticize when
you have an axe to grind. Soon I'll have to dare you to volunteer for
the SPAC, so you can see what it's like on the other end :-)
KCB
|