>> Is the problem that these people want to run on fumes and they
>> can't do it, or is the problem that even when they have gas in
the tank,
>> fuel slosh in the carbs or fuel rail is causing problems? I
was assuming
>> the latter. Perhaps I was wrong. But given the rest of the
mods allowed in
>> SP, I don't see a reason for this being illegal.
>
> Nope. It's fuel sloshing away from the pickup in the gas tank
and
>starving the engine out in high G turns. This happens on more
than just
>a couple of cars, although CSP mazdas seem to be noticeably
prone to it.
>Both RX-3's in question are running very sophisticated engine
management
>systems. There are two other ways an RX-3 can legally get around
the
>fuel starvation problem. One, run with a full tank. For these
guys
>that's effectively adding 60-80lbs of ballast. Or two, install a
fuel
>cell. Which has with additional weight penalties of proper GCR
rollover
>protection and fire suppression equipment. Either way, the
weight
>penalty exists. No don't ge me wrong, I think the "de-embolizer"
was a
>fantastically ingenious way of getting around the
problem -within- the
>allowances spelled out in the rules. I think it's disappointing
that
>such an imaginative (and relatively inexpensive) and legal
solution to a
>performance problem has been rendered illegal.
>
So I don't have a dog in this fight (yet) but if the very clever
"de-embolizer" is what is required to make the sophisticated fuel
management systems work on these and other cars, could it be that
a good carburetor would then be the best choice for performance?
Gee, could the cost of car prep actually come down?
Bruce Wentzel Green Dot Racing, Inc. Road Race & Solo II
rentals
BSP 71 Corvette LS6 - the original Greendot; RX-7's; 83 ITA, 84
ITS, 86 ITS
One person brake bleeding with Speed Bleeders, racer discount 20%
Ask me about 24 hr / 7 day $.07/minute long distance service
|