Johh Hadler:
>
> 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.
A "fuel cell" is not the same as an "alternate fuel tank", and this
allowance has specific GCR connections, so there are safety requirements
to meet which may not be all that optimum in the autocross arena. You
can't do the cell without the safety mods.
> Specifically allows -any- fuel filter(s)
Is that (s) yours or the book's (mine's at home for a change)? Makes
a difference.
> "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.
Yes, but the latter was only necessary because once upon a time (before
mine) somebody tried to extrapolate "unrestricted fuel lines" into
permitting a cool-can. Rather similar to the current topic, actually.
> A) The fuel tank, which is covered very clearly in 14.2.H
With substantial limitations; you can't just blow past those.
> D) The fuel delivery/induction method and equipment (carb/FI) which is
> also -unrestricted- per rule 14.10.C
It does not say "fuel delivery systems are unrestricted". That would
reasonably imply the fuel conduit, IMHO.
> Now you guys are just arguing semantics. Yes, a fuel line exists to
This whole thing is about semantics. When is a fuel line a reservoir?
When is a filter a surge tank? If you're going to discuss implications
of particular words which may be interpreted in your favor, you have to
allow for the alternative interpretations as well, or the objectivity of
your discussion is questionable. But then, it's clear that there are
the "creative reader" folks and the "by the book" folks, and nothing is
going to change that.
> Geez, that's really getting off the path here now.
Why is one "alternative" purpose so different from another? Because
it doesn't support your view?
> 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
But it doesn't say I can use that camshaft as, for example, a torque
suppression device.
> 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.
History of non-protesting doesn't mean a configuration is legal. It
may just mean that there was a "gentleman's agreement", or that those
who might have cared didn't think it was a significant performance
issue. Somebody obviously did care this year.
> And this applies to the argument you -were- discussing how? Because
By noting that people are occasionally expected to be able to think in
our society in general. There are those who seem to think they shouldn't,
when it comes to competition rules.
> I don't think he is. He's going by exactly what is in the book. And not
> assuming what isn't written.
IF IT DOESN'T SAY....
I don't see wording which says "fuel lines may be enlarged to serve as
surge tanks". Or "fuel filters may be used as supplemental reservoirs".
KCB
|