ba-autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: noise at Monster

To: "'John J. Stimson-III'" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>
Subject: RE: noise at Monster
From: <charlescox@coastalbay.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:43:53 -0700
Nope...you just called it an exhaust tip, it would not then be a muffler.

Doesn't matter what my definition of a muffler is, as the rules state there
must be some muffler that is adequate.  Not having one is not the intention
of the rules or again, it would not mention mufflers at all.

I bring no additional criteria into the equation at all.  If you look at the
totality of the rules both the 3.3.1 and 3.5, one certainly can not read
into those as meaning no muffler is required (allowing open exhaust).  Do
you think the SEB anticipated considering the last inch of an exhaust tip as
being capable of adequately or properly muffling a car? It could be
reasonably assumed they mentioned mufflers or muffling the car for some
reason.

As far as tech, if the car is ineligible by having open exhaust (among the
other issues), indeed it is within the purview of the tech inspector to
refer it to the event chair. Remember, in 3.1 under 3. VEHICLES and 3.1
ELIGIBLE VEHICLES, the criteria specified in the same sentence: "A Solo
event is open to any vehicle that can pass safety inspection, has the
minimum bodywork specified by these Rules, and is properly muffled. This is
a Mandatory Provision (see 1.1), just like Vehicle Safety (3.3) and fuel.
However; 3.5 is not mandatory (again see 1.1).

So it would appear it is optional to have a muffler of some [any] kind but
not optional for the car to be properly muffled...it must be muffled
properly. Open exhaust does not comply.  It is mandatory to be properly
muffled but not mandatory to have an adequate muffler...go figure...

Charles




-----Original Message-----
From: John J. Stimson-III [mailto:john@harlie.idsfa.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:02 PM
To: charlescox@coastalbay.com
Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: noise at Monster

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:27:47AM -0700, charlescox@coastalbay.com wrote:
> I don't read it as contradictory. On the contrary, what it does say is
there
> must be a muffler (and essentially, that a muffler can take any
> form...meaning, an open exhaust does not suffice) but the adequacy of, or
> whatever device it takes to muffle it doesn't matter...that's what they
are
> saying.  Otherwise, why mention mufflers at all?

Okay, then the last inch of the exhaust tip is a muffler.  Its
adequacy is defined according to the criterion in section 3.5.

What is your definition of a muffler?  You seem to refer to function,
but then you reject the functional definition in section 3.5.

Rule 3.5 defines a muffler as far as the rules are concerned.  The
rules are intended to be complete as written.  You are bringing in
additional criteria from outside the rules.

Also note that it is not the role of the tech inspector to enforce
that rule.  If you feel that someone is in violation of 3.5, you
should bring it to the attention of the Event Chair or the Chief of
Sound.

-- 

john@idsfa.net                                              John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/                              HMC Physics '94




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>