Doug Chase wrote:
>
> I read through the re-wording of the fuel related SP rules in this month's
> FasTrack and they seem to be written in such a way as to make "surge tanks"
> (like the RX3 thread after Nationals) illegal. My question is: Why? A
> surge tank is not a device for enhancing performance, it is a device
> designed to eliminate losing performance. There is a difference.
Well... I would think anything that eliminates "losing performance" to
therefore becomes something that "enhances performance". There are many
examples of this. My inside rear wheel spin is only a problem when
autocrossing, and I would like to be able to add the LSD to my car.
Like you say, every car has it's achilles heel and it's strong points.
My MR2 does best running on fumes. I hear some cars out there need a
full tank (like the MX6 also). Part of the equation.
>
> Could it be because the cars are already classed with this achilles heel in
> mind and allowing somebody to fix it would upset the current classing
> structure? No way. This is the type of problem that you don't encounter
> until you start racing. Nobody can convince me that cars exhibiting this
> problem are well known and classed accordingly.
Hey, I think it is the point, that this happens during racing. Cars are
not classed based on street use. Specially SP cars. They are based on
ulimate potential combined with demonstrated results.
>
> Could it be because if this is legal then everybody will have to have one
> and that will increase costs? No way. Like I said above, this is not a
> performance enhancing device. Only the people that have a problem that
> needs to be fixed will have to do this. As for cost, the class already
> allows you to upgrade fuel lines to 1/2" braided steel, and it allows you to
> add aftermarket fuel injection to previously carburated cars.
>
> If somebody can tell me a legitimate reason for disallowing this, I'd love
> to hear it. Note that I don't have a dog in this fight as I run in CS.
I don't have a dog in this fight either as I also run in CS (for one
more year). I does make sense that there is a consideration for a
slippery slope. This mod would only be required by X number of cars (and
most of them would do it), and then we also the fix for every car's
achilles heel, and pretty soon the rule book is HUGE and complex.
>
> Along the same lines, why not allow aftermarket motor mounts? Lots of cars
> eat stock motor mounts when raced. Why not let everybody change them?
>
> Because it's a performance advantage? So what? It's gotta be a small gain
> at best.
>
> Because then everyone will have to do it? No they won't. It's a small
> gain. Just let them replace them with whatever they want when the stock
> ones wear out.
>
> Because it would be hard to write a rule discerning what's legal from what
> isn't? Don't worry about it. Write it like "completely free but
> maintaining the stock attachment points" and then let people run solid metal
> motor mounts if they want.
>
> Because all cars may not have access to aftermarket motor mounts? Well,
> life isn't fair. MR2 drivers in my class have their choice of three
> adjustable shocks (Koni, GAB, Tokiko). My Fiero has a choice of one (Koni).
> Heck, I don't even have access to a lot of STOCK parts on my car
> (discontinued). I just accept this as the price I pay to run the car I
> love.
Yup. But I would also accept that driving the car you love means you
replace synchros, or mounts, or whatever, or even live with running with
a half full tank of gas. AGAIN...I am just supplying what I see is the
rationale. I don't have a strong opinion about the merits of this
particular decision. I do know my MR2 has some weak points that we deal
with.
>
> These are serious questions. If you have answers or a better solution, I'm
> open to it. Just Cc: me on the reply as I'm on digest mode.
>
> Doug "no relation to Randy" Chase
Hey, admit you really want an MR2..then I will welcome you to the
family. 8)
Randy "could be related to Doug since I (and my dad) lived in Seattle
for a while" 8) Chase
|