adding heat protection?

Andy Bettencourt said:
You aren't looking far enough into the words, you are getting hung up on that singular word.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is funny, coming from you on this subject. Seriously. Though now it seems you're stuck on a second word: "assembly".

OK, so let's go there.

Show me where in the GCR - or even within common English verbiage - where something is only an "assembly" if the components of that assembly are "attached". 'Cause all I have to do is provide one example where it's not to shoot that one down.

GA, about to leave work to join the assembly at the town hall tonight for the referendum discussion...


On edit: keep in mind that if the only function of the exhaust "assembly/system" is to convey the air, then that makes things like exhaust hangers part of the "exhaust hanger assembly" and thus not open within the "exhaust system" regulation.

You might also want to read through the regs and see what other "systems" or "assemblies" your interpretation would affect.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Now THAT is funny, coming from you on this subject. Seriously. Though now it seems you're stuck on a second word: "assembly".

OK, so let's go there.

Show me where in the GCR - or even within common English verbiage - where something is only an "assembly" if the components of that assembly are "attached". 'Cause all I have to do is provide one example where it's not to shoot that one down.

GA, about to leave work to join the assembly at the town hall tonight for the referendum discussion...
Click to expand...

What I meant was you are hung up on the fact the word can have multiple definitions. My last post is clear. In order to be considered part of the 'assembly', it has to be part of the primary function as described.

A heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not in this example. /debate

My point on 'attached' is specific to this example as illustration of a simple way to look at the 'exhaust system'. I am sure we could all think up other examples where an assembly included non-attached parts - but not a chassis mounted heat shield.
 
Greg Amy said:
On edit: keep in mind that if the only function of the exhaust "assembly/system" is to convey the air, then that makes things like exhaust hangers part of the "exhaust hanger assembly" and thus not open within the "exhaust system" regulation.
Click to expand...

So now you are grasping at straws. I guess you can't attach your system. Come on.

No need to debate further. It's very clear to me what is legal and the GCR supports my thoughts.
 
This is kinda fun.

Andy Bettencourt said:
What I meant was you are hung up on the fact the word can have multiple definitions.
Click to expand...
And yet your definition is the "right" one?

Why?

My last post is clear. In order to be considered part of the 'assembly', it has to be part of the primary function as described...A heat shield attached to the chassis simply does not in this example. /debate
Click to expand...
Neither do exhaust hangers (you can "convey" the exhaust without hangers, thus they are not part of the exhaust "system"). Thus, you're now declaring that all stock exhaust hangers are required? That'll come as news to a lot of folk.

I am sure we could all think up other examples where an assembly included non-attached parts...
Click to expand...
Then, by your admission, you agree that "attachment" is not required. Then we don't even disagree on anything!

Frankly, my dear, even if you consider The Great Heat Shield Exhaust System Battle to be intorturation, it is far, far, far less intorturation than using screw holes to run vac lines to sensors mounted on the gizzards of an ECU board, in order to get around a very poorly-worded regulation that was originally and obviously intended to stop people from adding engine sensors...seriously, man. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
This is kinda fun.


And yet your definition is the "right" one?

Why?

Neither do exhaust hangers (you can "convey" the exhaust without hangers, thus they are not part of the exhaust "system"). Thus, you're now declaring that all stock exhaust hangers are required? That'll come as news to a lot of folk.

Then, by your admission, you agree that "attachment" is not required. Then we don't even disagree on anything!

Frankly, my dear, even if you consider The Great Heat Shield Exhaust System Battle to be intorturation, it is far, far, far less intorturation than using screw holes to run vac lines to sensors mounted on the gizzards of an ECU board, in order to get around a very poorly-worded regulation that was originally and obviously intended to stop people from adding engine sensors...seriously, man. - GA
Click to expand...

I just go by the GCR. And to your last point, not even close. I could have anything I wanted in the ECU housing. That was the rule. Non-modified housing allowed me to connect. Technology just caught up to a dumb rule. My official position on the debate was to open it up or go back to stock. Either way, just not the way the rule was written.

Not seeing any other support for your shield position so we can close this one out.
 
Hey, it's healthy debate. Greg probably got the same message in his inbox but I will take a snippet from a relative newbie:

...while I haven't figured out what side I fall on for this topic, I can tell you that it has helped me look at the GCR in a new way, mostly a lot closer but also on reading what it says instead of what I think it says...
Click to expand...

Hell, my brain is so clogged right now I am thinking about a 13B in a new MX-5 chassis.
 
Which is why I keep whoring this topic:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779

Failures in clear ability to read a reg (exhaust heat shields, using screw holes to run vac lines (andy), using cage regs to stiffen a suspension (me), etc) are not failures on the readers' part, it's failures on the writers' part. Write it clearly succinctly, and with as few words as possible.

This exhaust rule has been around since probably the beginning. Some read and apply it some way, others another. In the end, unless someone challenges it, it's a moot point. Were I to re-write it, I'd change the reg that allow "removal" of stock exhaust heat shields to something like "remove or replace". I mean, really, who gives a rat's patootie?

GA
 
This rule writing stuff ain't easy. We all 'know' how to do it. In IT world it's a bunch of band aids. I actually have a document that I worked on over the years I was on the committee where I simplified the entire ITCS for submittal.

Look at all the revisions and re-writes the ST rules have go through since its clean-sheet outset.

I'd first ask the CRB what their intent was/is for the rule, then write it as such.
 
Greg Amy said:
...Were I to re-write it, I'd change the reg that allow "removal" of stock exhaust heat shields to something like "remove or replace".
Click to expand...
ah, December, how I missed thee...


Greg, replace means that the shield can be replaced with the heaviest thing you can rig in place. Another great way to put weight wherever you want it. there needs to be more the the fewest possible number of words, and they need to be well chosen ones.
 
So what? Only Ed's rats care.

GA, who is among the hundreds that can think of far better ways to get weight "down low" than "hiding" it in an exhaust heat shield.... :rolleyes:
 
With no heat shield rule, guys will just add enough to keep their leg from burning. Add a rule with some definitions, and guys will try to use the rule for advantage. In this case, no rule keeps everyone using what is reasonable to them.
IE; "exhaust system" could be a piece or two of safety wire run between the pipe and shield. I cant understand why this thread has 3 pages? plus.Kill it.
 
You know, I always though my car was legal.
It was a rotary, and the exhaust system was reeeaaaly hot. In the rain, water would pour in through the windows, and pool on the floor, and as it washed around it would sizzle and boil, adding copious amounts of steam to the windshield.

The stock shields were shot, and obstructed the system anyway, so I replaced them with custom ones. But...they weren't the EXACT stock ones. Crap...guess I never read that rule that carefully. I thought it was a typical remove/ modify/ replace deal.

But, so what if people want thick shields? It's not like you can't make a 100 pound exhaust system now....or a 100 pound rear sway bar, (cough, Kirk, cough, LOL) or a 50 pound "metal bulkhead" (Cough, Mr. 'I wrote the book'), or a 50 pound fuel cell structure (cough everybody, cough).........weights reeeally easy to add...........and there's always that "prohibited function" clause....
 
to be honest I love this thread! I check it everyday to see what is said next.

My exhaust shield is pretty cool I think. It is a water filled shield that covers my fuel lines all the way to the injectors. It keeps the fuel the proper tempature so that the exhuast doesn't make it hotter on its way to the engine. oh and for that shield to be effective as designed I added a radiator for it near the rear of the car, also a diffuser to have proper flow for my new cool exhuast sheild. :)

Stephen
 
Greg Amy said:
So what? Only Ed's rats care.

GA, who is among the hundreds that can think of far better ways to get weight "down low" than "hiding" it in an exhaust heat shield.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

exactly why, in this case, NO rule allows enforcement of blatant misues of somethign everyone agrees should be allowed, and A rule could allow those same things we did not forsee. Unintended consequences and all that. that I can, FOR EXAMPLE, make a functional diffuser from exhaust and fuel cell rules as currently written is bad enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top