Bill Miller
New member
Can one of the ITAC members explain how the Mazda Protege landed in ITC?
March FasTrack is up
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Why Bill, you think it's a B car?
Fuel testing got some attention. Does anyone know if these new standards are any better at allowing plain old pump gas pass? A couple of years ago I had gas from a couple of different local stations and some Powermist race fuel all tested. All failed. So I'm curious if these revised standards will allow any more lattitude.
Also, can anyone give insight as to why a sample can't be drawn directly out of the cell/tank? Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system? When the sample port requirement first came out, I asked Topeka why you couldn't use a bulb baster (sp?) from the cell. I was told it was too dangerous. Its pretty obvious that they are concerned w/ fuel spillage in a hot engine bay, but they don't seem to be offering up as many options as they could.
Matt
Also, can anyone give insight as to why a sample can't be drawn directly out of the cell/tank? Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system? When the sample port requirement first came out, I asked Topeka why you couldn't use a bulb baster (sp?) from the cell. I was told it was too dangerous. Its pretty obvious that they are concerned w/ fuel spillage in a hot engine bay, but they don't seem to be offering up as many options as they could.
Matt
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
I'd like to know how it landed in ITC. I don't necessarily think it's an ITB car, but there are certainly a few ITB cars that have similar specs. What's the process weight for the car in ITB? If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around 2175#.
Bill Miller
New member
As far as the fuel testing thing goes, I'd say it's a safe bet that they've made what were otherwise perfectly acceptable fuel test ports, illegal.
mbuskuhl
New member
Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.
Does this new rule kill the easy "T" in a line with a small hose and cap on the end?
"All cars shall be equipped with an accessible sampling port/valve/device located in a fuel line between the fuel tank or fuel cell and the carburetors or fuel injection system to allow safe acquisition of a fuel sample. If possible, the port/valve/device should be located outside the engine compartment. The sampling port/valve/device will be installed and used by the competitor to obtain the sample without fuel leaking, spraying or squirting. Siphoning of fuel directly from the fuel tank or fuel cell or removing a hose or line is not allowed."
Removal of sound deadening material is specifically approved, take the stuff out. Should clear up the discussion on here a few months back.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It landed in ITC because that is where we think it fits best based on achievable weight. 103hp SOHC, FWDer with struts.
2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)
Curb weight of ~2400lbs.
Bill Miller
New member
So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,
1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).
One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?
Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.
Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.
The way I read it, it has to be on the supply side because they say "between the tank/cell and the rail/carb". On the return side it would be after the rail/carb, therefore not between it & the tank. I'd be curious for opinions here.
That's kind of what I was thinking. So much for a threaded connection, now you have to have some sort of a dry break valve which adds places for it to leak.
All this for a test that unless I'm confused, will most likely fail, therefore tech will never test it.
Bill Miller
New member
I don't think there's any 'direction' indicated in what they wrote. It can be on either 'side' of the circuit.
dickita15
New member
March Fastrack
Section 9.1.3.D.5.c.1, clarify the section by changing the first sentence to read as follows: Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added, removed or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.
I have added a traction bar (tri-link) so does this change, adding the word removed, allow me to take out the currently non functional upper links.
Section 9.1.3.D.5.c.1, clarify the section by changing the first sentence to read as follows: Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added, removed or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.
I have added a traction bar (tri-link) so does this change, adding the word removed, allow me to take out the currently non functional upper links.
Dave Gomberg
New member
With regard to the fuel test changes: these are proposed changes, effective 11/01/08. If you have questions/issues with the proposal, write to the CRB and make them known.
Dave
Dave
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Because of the way you phrased your initial question Bill. Read it ot loud to yourself. Typicall Miller-stuff, really.
All we are going to do is class the new stuff (requests) whatever legacy stuff remains are adressed by member request. If this car was classed by the current ITAC, it was obviously felt it could make weight. Just because two car look alike on paper doesn't mean they are.
All of the conversations have focused on sway bars but yes, that is the case. Of course, this presumes that any part in question fits the glossary definitions of "traction bar," etc.
K
Racerlinn
New member
Any comment on this:
GCR
Item 1. Effective 1/1/08: Correct the first Note of section 9.1.12 to read as follows:
Note 1: For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF),
Note 1: For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF),
did-not-start (DNS), or disqualified (DQ).
Does this mean a class can have a bunch of DNS entries to make numbers for the RubOffs? Essentially allowing a class to buy their way in?
Does this mean a class can have a bunch of DNS entries to make numbers for the RubOffs? Essentially allowing a class to buy their way in?
I just installed, last week, the Pegasus port in the return line. Hope it can stay there! The thread sealant is still wet!
shwah
New member
I am pretty sure there are a lot of A2 Jettas that weigh less than 2600. Maybe the last of the breed when equiped with AC, sunroof, power windows and that big ole knee bar get into 2500 territory.
According to Consumer Automotive Guide the 2door 90-92 version has a curb weight of 2275, 4door 90-92 version 2330.
According to Consumer Automotive Guide the 2door 90-92 version has a curb weight of 2275, 4door 90-92 version 2330.
I believe, in the past, the only thing that counted was the number of cars to take the race green flag. Cars that qualified and could not make the race grid were not included in the participation numbers. All this does is give a class credit for these entrants.
To "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car still must enter and run at least one session. This is little different from the previous rule where to "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car had to run at least one session where the race must be included in the sessions run.