Cliff Loh wrote:
> "Robert M. Pickrell Jr." <brnrubr@midusa.net>
>
> >Speed bleeders are not stock, I think we all agree with that definition.
> >So therefore they are not legal.
>
> Agreed, but neither are alternate shift knobs, steering wheels
> (pre-1990 vehicles). I would guess that those items are more of a
> performance advantage than a speed bleeder.
True but these have been ruled on. I am not for against, just as you note
later
pointing out the technical illegality of them.
>
>
> >The SEB must rule on this.
>
> Yes, either a ruling or a clarification. However, if they rule speed
> bleeders illegal, then they would also need to disallow the use of
> vacuum assisted brake bleeding tools such as the kind made by Mity-Vac
> since the two devices allow a single person to perform the same
> function. Would they then also disallow the function of having a
> co-driver help you bleed brakes since that is an advantage over
> someone having to bleed brakes by himself?
This i would disagree with. It is not how many people it takes to bleed the
brakes,
but the addition of a non stock part.
>
> Here's something to think about. A potentially parallel concept
> (getting very nit-picky too). Is a speed bleeder to brakes similar to
> a tire valve to tires? Both allow the competitor to adjust vehicle
> performance between runs/heats. There's no rule saying tire pressures
> may/may not be adjusted between runs and IMHO, there shouldn't be
> one. Same goes for bleeding brakes, regardless of method used.
Again I think you know this, but tire valves are stock.
Rob
|