>
> The slippery slope here is "intended purpose." The fuel supply system of
> a car accomplishes several purposes:
As a whole, yes. But the SP rules don't address the entire "fuel
supply system" as being "unrestricted". For example, they do not
authorize a fuel tank swap, or a fuel cell.
> 1. Storage of fuel. Mostly in the tank, but also everywhere else in the
> fuel system.
If the fuel line is designed to be used as a fuel storage component,
why don't the car builders just use the aforementioned 50' of 1" tubing?
Because it's a routing component (conduit) not a storage one (reservoir).
> Now, saying the fuel line, fuel pump, fuel filter, and induction system
> can't "store" fuel is not correct, since there sure enough IS fuel all
Of course they can. A fuel line CAN be a roll cage. Is it supposed
to by design? Probably not.
> HOW are we going to police a ban on "fuel reservoirs?" I claim it's
> impossible.
If the reservoir effect is simply a side-effect of a configuration
which is clearly otherwise valid (stock fuel lines in stock positions,
or replacment lines only as necessary to deliver fuel to the allowed
induction), then it's not reasonable to prohibit it. If, however,
the system is deliberately re-designed to cause it to serve as
something which it formerly did not (to a useful degree), I don't think
that is proper unless the new purpose is explicitly allowed.
> filters, etc. They all accomplish the same function. "Porosity" is not a
> necessary component in a filter. Separation of undesired content is.
What does normal "fuel filter" do? It contains a porous material,
typically paper, and is there to filter out particulates from the
gas. Extending the concept of "filter" in order to make an argument
for a let-me-run-my-gas-tank-low reservoir does, IMHO, come close to
that "tortured interpretation" area.
Note: I never said the guys who use them don't honestly believe
they're okay. I'm sure they do, and that's fine. I just don't think
that contending the components are _not_ okay is at all unreasonable.
> > It didn't used to; it was assumed to be a generally-applicable
> > caveat.
>
> "It was assumed." That's exactly what I'm trying to point out.
When I drive down the freeway, there's a sign which says "Carpool
lane" and a picture of a car with two heads in it. Now, can I not
assume that if I have three people in my car it's okay to drive
there? Or am I supposed to think that only two-person cars can
drive there? "It is assumed" that I'm intellectually capable of
figuring out that (a) a carpool lane is for high-occupancy vehicles,
and (b) three people is more than two, so I'm okay there. Are you
contending that people who are smart enough to design a system
to overcome fuel sloshing shouldn't also have to have some shred
of ability to understand the purpose of a rule set?
> And it would be a trivial exercise to do so. The fact that this hasn't
> been done over the course of many years inicates, to me, that this is
> not the "intent."
That's a stretch of justificational logic, IMHO. You're extrapolating
from what's not in the book, which is even worse than extrapolating
from what is.
> A general statement similar to the one about front swaybar mounting in
> Stock would do quite nicely.
Probably true.
> no circumstances be definitive. No thanks. I prefer that the rules be
> definitive as worded.
To the extent that nobody can possibly mis-read them? Unlikely, as
long as people are motivated to do just that. Heck, when technical
book writers like VanValkenburg advise doing it, it must be part of
the natural racing mindset to hunt for loopholes.
> Nope. "Limited" Includes "zero," which ALLOWS a locked diff. The revised
> wording took away something that was previously allowed.
True via the dictionary, but a conservative person would have looked
at that rule, and the no-locker part, and figured out that the idea
was to permit items like your typical clutch-pack LSD, but not items
like a Detroit Locker (or things which functioned like one). The
prohibition was probably put in because people were spending the
money on a posi, then adjusting it to the Nth degree to achieve true
locking. I do agree that the eventual solution was better than the
interim one.
> Well, that would accomplish exactly the same purpose as a "fuel
> reservoir." Why allow one and not the other?
Because the carb bowls are part of the carb, and the rules permit
different carbs. The rules we have are not written to address
"effects", but rather to permit "components". I suppose now we'll
digress into the "why not just spec how much camber you can get
and let you get it any way you can" discussion....
KCB
|