I've been watching this current debate develop, and loath as I am to
step into the middle of a fracas, I feel strangely compelled... must...resist...
"K.C. Babb" wrote:
>
> > The slippery slope here is "intended purpose." The fuel supply system of
> > a car accomplishes several purposes:
>
> As a whole, yes. But the SP rules don't address the entire "fuel
> supply system" as being "unrestricted". For example, they do not
> authorize a fuel tank swap, or a fuel cell.
Huh? I realize I might not have doing the SP thing for as long as
others have, but the rules seemed pretty clear to me to allow almost
anything under the sun with only minor exceptions being spelled out
specifically in the rules.
14.2.H
Fuel cells (alternate fuel tanks) -are- allowed given the current GCR
provisions. I read that as an allowance with very specific limitations
that are written down on paper.
14.10.A
Specifically allows -any- fuel filter(s)
14.10.C
Carburetors and fuel injection are -unrestricted-
14.10.G
"Fuel lines and pumps are unrestricted as long as they do not pose a
safety hazard. This does not authorize 'cool-cans'". Here again,
-unrestricted- with the specific wording preventing the use of the
system for a specific application.
Apart from disallowing the use of cool-cans, and placing restrictions
on the use of fuel cells, there are no limitations on the fuel system of
an SP car. I see a fuel systems as being composed of:
A) The fuel tank, which is covered very clearly in 14.2.H
B) The fuel lines and pumps, which are -unrestricted- as per rule 14.10.G
C) The fuel filter, which is allowed the use of -any- filter per rule 14.10.A
D) The fuel delivery/induction method and equipment (carb/FI) which is
also -unrestricted- per rule 14.10.C
I see no ambiguity in these rules as written. And further more, I see
no need for these rules to have been rewritten in such a laborious
manner to eliminate something that is by reading the rule as written,
legal.
And this is part of the body of a letter that I am sending to the SEB
this week.
> > 1. Storage of fuel. Mostly in the tank, but also everywhere else in the
> > fuel system.
>
> If the fuel line is designed to be used as a fuel storage component,
> why don't the car builders just use the aforementioned 50' of 1" tubing?
> Because it's a routing component (conduit) not a storage one (reservoir).
Now you guys are just arguing semantics. Yes, a fuel line exists to
transport fuel from one place to another, but in so doing it has an
inherent volume of its own. This volume acts as a reservoir when the
pickup no longer draws fuel. Some cars can run for quite a while with no
fuel being drawn into the lines, and others not as long. Face it, the
fuel filter, fuel pump, and fuel lines all have an inherent capacity to
store fuel. I know that I could easily store over a pint of fuel in my
30 year old stock FI system, and that's with the itty bitty stock fuel
filter. What's to prevent me from doubling or even tripling that
capacity by slapping on a big ol monster Canton Mecca fuel filter?
Nothing, -any- fuel filter is allowed. And if that filter happens to
have a pressure return, so what? Fuel lines and filters are free, open,
unrestricted, etc.
> > Now, saying the fuel line, fuel pump, fuel filter, and induction system
> > can't "store" fuel is not correct, since there sure enough IS fuel all
>
> Of course they can. A fuel line CAN be a roll cage. Is it supposed
> to by design? Probably not.
Geez, that's really getting off the path here now.
> If the reservoir effect is simply a side-effect of a configuration
> which is clearly otherwise valid (,
> or replacment lines only as necessary to deliver fuel to the allowed
> induction), then it's not reasonable to prohibit it. If, however,
> the system is deliberately re-designed to cause it to serve as
> something which it formerly did not (to a useful degree), I don't think
> that is proper unless the new purpose is explicitly allowed.
But that's just it. We're not talking about "stock fuel lines in stock
positions...", we're talking about -any- fuel line, pump(s), or
filter(s) as clearly allowed in the rules.
Let's play in your court for a second here. What about a prepared car?
Let's take a very simply worded rule like 15.10.I.1 "Any camshaft(s) may
be used". The wording is clear and concise and makes absolutely no
distinctions about anything that -can't- be used. What if I build a wild
and exotic unobtainium camshaft and that gives me an extra 10% power
gain over the next nearest competitor? There's nothing at all wrong with
that, but what if the argument is made. "hey, that's not what the rules
intended!". Well, that's what the rule allows. And to punish someone for
ingenuity and legality under the rules is unfair.
> What does normal "fuel filter" do? It contains a porous material,
> typically paper, and is there to filter out particulates from the
> gas. Extending the concept of "filter" in order to make an argument
> for a let-me-run-my-gas-tank-low reservoir does, IMHO, come close to
> that "tortured interpretation" area.
Nah, I won't get into that one, I've already dug my own hole. But
suffice it to say, I think Jay has a valid point.
> Note: I never said the guys who use them don't honestly believe
> they're okay. I'm sure they do, and that's fine. I just don't think
> that contending the components are _not_ okay is at all unreasonable.
And so did their competitors in DSP for years. And if you think that
Steve Hoelscher, doing battle with the Toms every year, would have let
something slide that he thought was an illegal edge, then I'm surprised.
He, and no doubt many other DSP competitors probably found it just fine.
I can't speak for them as I'm not them. And if I'm making a wild
assumption here on Steve's or anyone else's part I apologize.
> When I drive down the freeway, there's a sign which says "Carpool
> lane" and a picture of a car with two heads in it. Now, can I not
> assume that if I have three people in my car it's okay to drive
> there? Or am I supposed to think that only two-person cars can
> drive there? "It is assumed" that I'm intellectually capable of
> figuring out that (a) a carpool lane is for high-occupancy vehicles,
> and (b) three people is more than two, so I'm okay there. Are you
> contending that people who are smart enough to design a system
> to overcome fuel sloshing shouldn't also have to have some shred
> of ability to understand the purpose of a rule set?
And this applies to the argument you -were- discussing how? Because
some people decided that a mannequin sitting the passenger seat
qualifies them for a carpool? I think we're really straying from the
topic here.
> That's a stretch of justificational logic, IMHO. You're extrapolating
> from what's not in the book, which is even worse than extrapolating
> from what is.
I don't think he is. He's going by exactly what is in the book. And not
assuming what isn't written.
> True via the dictionary, but a conservative person would have looked
> at that rule, and the no-locker part, and figured out that the idea
> was to permit items like your typical clutch-pack LSD, but not items
> like a Detroit Locker (or things which functioned like one). The
> prohibition was probably put in because people were spending the
> money on a posi, then adjusting it to the Nth degree to achieve true
> locking. I do agree that the eventual solution was better than the
> interim one.
Right, but we're all racers here, and we understand that anything that
can help us out under the rules will inevitably be utilized by someone.
That's the nature of the game. That's why alot of us are in SP to begin
with, we like tweaking, we like to come up with innovative ways around
some flaw or other imperfection we might perceive.
> > Well, that would accomplish exactly the same purpose as a "fuel
> > reservoir." Why allow one and not the other?
>
> Because the carb bowls are part of the carb, and the rules permit
> different carbs. The rules we have are not written to address
> "effects", but rather to permit "components". I suppose now we'll
> digress into the "why not just spec how much camber you can get
> and let you get it any way you can" discussion....
Oh pooh. And a pressure accumulator isn't part of an FI system? Then we
better tell the millions of people driving VW's, Audi's, Porsche's,
Mercedes and anything else with a Bosch CIS system on it that they can't
come and play with us any more.
Let's face something else here, we all acknowledge that the rules
makers never envisioned the exotic fuel injection systems that we all
see today. And I'm sure they never envisioned seeing a VW rabbit on 9"
wide wheels with 225/45-13 tires that can practically pass for slicks
either. Carbs have been around for a very long time, and they have
evolved into a static and very thoroughly understood piece of equipment.
FI on the other hand is still relatively new to the amateur racer and it
is still evolving. What if the rules originally prevented the use of
'oversized' float bowls on the otherwise unlimited carbs? What kind of
uproar would that have generated? Probably exactly the same that this is
today. And in my eye, there is NO difference between the two. The same
effect is achieved through different means.
There, I've said my piece. That's just my opinion...
-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/
|