> From: richj50@bit-net.com
> Subject: SP rules on catalytic converters
>
> (1) "Ostensibly" legal? What is that supposed to mean? That turbo SP
>From Websters: ostensible = representing or appearing as such.
I think you're probably reading more into that word than is there. The
item simply refers to cars that seem to be legal.
The reason for publication of this item is probably to elicit calm,
fact-based, reasonable member input. It's not a done deal just because
it is published. The SEB would no doubt appreciate some well thought
out letters on the subject.
One consideration which comes to mind is that a rule which cannot
realistically be enforced is in essence no rule at all, and perhaps
this change is an attempt to address that problem with regard to
turbo cars, since no matter what you do up front the gains you can
achieve are limited by how restrictive your exhaust is. The induction
rules in SP appear to want to permit carb and injection changes, but
not boost increases, other than those which are side-effects of mods
which are explicitly allowed elsewhere (e.g. exhaust). If boost is
controlled by the chip, and a competitor may change the functionality of
that chip as far as fuel delivery is concerned but not as far as boost
limitation is concerned, can the implementation be realistically policed?
Should the rule instead simply say no chip changes at all for turbo cars?
It's been said that a boost increase is roughly comparable to a
compression increase in terms of yield. If N/A cars are not permitted
to change compression, and turbo cars can achieve something like it via
external mods (cat removal), does that create a preparation-level disparity?
Questions abound, and it doesn't seem like an easy-fix issue.
Of course an alternative path of action is to simply be conservative
in the classification of turbo cars, taking into account the maximum
level of optimization including likely boost gains. That might be a
reasonable alternative. Letters are encouraged, whatever your view.
K. Babb
|