I'm taking what I sincerely hope to be one last pass at this. If
I could trust Karen's reading of the rules revisions to be
generally observed by PCs and future SEBs, I'd be a whole lot
less concerned about the whole situation.
I can't for the life of me imagine how you'd word a restriction
on what were previously "unrestricted" fuel lines so as to make a
clear distinction between a fuel line and a reservoir for Solo II
purposes, given the very small amount of fuel needed to complete
a run. This is what I've been trying to get across w/r/t the
futility of the effort.
Karen asserts that any "standard" off-the-shelf fuel filter would
be legal under the revised wording, even though I read the new
rules as to prohibit one with "excessive" capacity and as NOT to
outlaw a one-off unit. I'd very much like to see clearer wording
in this area.
>So pick a number. What's a good value for maximum capacity of
>fuel lines and filters which will prohibit the reservoir
function
>and still not outlaw something which is perfectly reasonable in
a
>simple, non-clever, aftermarket induction installation?
What exactly is wrong or illegal about "clever?" You're not
taking the engineering point of view. If I can achieve multiple
goals with a single device or system, that's an elegant solution.
I don't perceive any equivalency between true creativity in car
preparation and cheating.
>What's the capacity of the
>biggest genuine automotive fuel filter you've ever seen?
Pretty darn large. My Jetta uses a Bosch filter that I'd guess
holds close to a quart. The real point here is you don't need
that much capacity for a Solo II run.
> Is this
>a realistic point of discussion, or rhetorical only?
Realistic.
>Weight is in general considered relevant to performance.
A performance advantage from an allowed modification is LEGAL.
That's the greater part of the motivation for performing those
modifications. The protested party produces a letter from
J.L. saying that this is a legal device. He need not then defend
it as "not enhancing performance," since, as far as he was
concerned, it's allowed. Hell yes, he was trying to go faster.
But he was doing so as part of a good-faith effort to comply with
the rules.
>>I install an automotive-type fuel
>> filter and fuel lines of the maximum allowed1/2"i.d. What I'm
>
>Then you're okay.
Can I save a copy of this email and use it as a defense in a
future protest? If not, then I'd prefer the rules be worded so as
not to require this sort of judgement call.
> What's the big deal? Yeah, it gives you
>some reservoir effect. Will you chance your runs at Nationals
>that it's enough for a full run?
Ever heard of "testing?" Lots of folks do that before attending
Nationals. In any case, you don't have to do the whole run on
just what's in the lines and filter. You can count on your fuel
pump to get SOME fuel from the tank at some point during a run.
You just have to set up your system so that the fuel pump draws
from the bottom of the filter ("gravity feed") and make sure
there's no air in the system when you start. In the very unlikely
event that your tank pickup were totally uncovered as you started
and you only drew air from the tank for the duration of the run,
you'd need something more than a pint (depending on your fuel
mileage and the length of the run) elsewhere in the system so as
not to experience a "burp" before you complete the run. If you DO
get any fuel from the tank, you need correspondingly less
capacity elsewhere in the fuel system.
>> OK, so what if the car in question had had a functional paper
>> filter element in the container in question? Would that be
enough
>> to have made it legal?
>
>Actually, from the "any fuel filter" standpoint, it probably
would.
>One of the amusing aspects of rule-stretching is how thorough
>you may wish to be about little details. If this had been my
>game to play, I'd have had some foam or paper in that cylinder.
So, as several of us have pointed out before, there remain
perfectly legal means for accomplishing the same end. Result:
purely cosmetic changes to the status quo. Tom's gotta have a
filter element in his container and a label that sez
"gen-yoo-wine ferreal automotive type filter, no-shit certified
by Shadetree Enterprises, Inc.," and he's gotta run his return
line back to the tank rather than to the fuel filter.
Inconvenient, perhaps, but no net change other than cosmetic. Is
that all we've been arguing about?
>> Nope. Say what you mean. Don't say what you don't mean. That
>> seems simple enough to me.
>"I did not have sex with that woman." (Thanks, GreenDot; LOL).
"It's my soap and my you-know-what and I can wash it as fast as I
want." Apologies to the PC and the humor-impaired.
>> All it used to say was "Limited slip differentials are
>> permitted." No specification as to HOW the slip was limited.
>
>Maybe my automotive background is limited, but it never
>occurred to me that a locker or a welded rear end met the
>definition of "limited-slip differential".
It's likely that, when the SP rules were originally written, the
Torsen-Gleason and Quaife type LSDs weren't yet available, so the
rulesmakers didn't envision those either. Still, the wording of
the rules was such that they were allowed once they appeared.
Not every consequence is envisioned. That's no argument that it's
not allowed, however.
Jay
|