April 08 FastTrack is up
- Thread starter Andy Bettencourt
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I seem to be having some formatting issues!
Below is the original request: Seems to be asking for equality between carbs and FI...YMMV.
****************************************************************************
Rule Change Request
Under item D. Background and current wording,
1a. Reciprocating Engines (only) reads -- “Any carburetor jets, needles, and/or metering rods may be used in the stock or approved optional carburetor(s). Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized.”
Carburetors have not been used on American marketed automobiles since the late 80’s or early 90’s. Fuel Injection systems replaced them and some configuration of fuel Injection is now the standard on American marketed cars. The "inner components" of Fuel injectors contain a combination of jets, needles and metering rods that were part of carburetors.
I request that the CRB consider the following changes in order to update the ITCS by incorporating similar / existing language as written in the 2008 ITCS to better reflect the current complement of automobiles that are now included.
Therefore I would like to propose a change to the current ITCS to permit the replacement of fuel injectors on fuel injected vehicles. I submit 2 alternative rule changes to the CRB. To add an item 8 to read:
8. On fuel injected cars it is permitted to replace the fuel injectors as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.
OR, to amend item 6 to include
6. ……. Fuel injectors maybe substituted as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.
With the most recent changes to the ITCS, specifically the addition of items 6 and 7. on page 331 of the GCR, I believe that this request is within line of the CRB’s philosophy of permitting the upgrading of the Engine Management Computer and the addition of needed / required sensors. I also firmly believe that this change will not add any additional cost or rules creep that is beyond the current thinking of the CRB and the ITCS. I can make myself available at any time to further discuss these change requests and necessary.
*************************************************************************
Below is the original request: Seems to be asking for equality between carbs and FI...YMMV.
****************************************************************************
Rule Change Request
Under item D. Background and current wording,
1a. Reciprocating Engines (only) reads -- “Any carburetor jets, needles, and/or metering rods may be used in the stock or approved optional carburetor(s). Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized.”
Carburetors have not been used on American marketed automobiles since the late 80’s or early 90’s. Fuel Injection systems replaced them and some configuration of fuel Injection is now the standard on American marketed cars. The "inner components" of Fuel injectors contain a combination of jets, needles and metering rods that were part of carburetors.
I request that the CRB consider the following changes in order to update the ITCS by incorporating similar / existing language as written in the 2008 ITCS to better reflect the current complement of automobiles that are now included.
Therefore I would like to propose a change to the current ITCS to permit the replacement of fuel injectors on fuel injected vehicles. I submit 2 alternative rule changes to the CRB. To add an item 8 to read:
8. On fuel injected cars it is permitted to replace the fuel injectors as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.
OR, to amend item 6 to include
6. ……. Fuel injectors maybe substituted as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.
With the most recent changes to the ITCS, specifically the addition of items 6 and 7. on page 331 of the GCR, I believe that this request is within line of the CRB’s philosophy of permitting the upgrading of the Engine Management Computer and the addition of needed / required sensors. I also firmly believe that this change will not add any additional cost or rules creep that is beyond the current thinking of the CRB and the ITCS. I can make myself available at any time to further discuss these change requests and necessary.
*************************************************************************
lateapex911
Super Moderator
There are several reasons that the writer might want different injectors....perhaps he actually is rich at certain points, lean at others, and the combination of higher pressure and smaller injectors yields more power. Or vice versa.
To your other points.
Actually, you should say "Standalones have been legal for years now", assuming you are talking about ECUs. Keep in mind the Process and weighting of the cars was done post open ECU rule.
Which leads to the next point. Cars are classed based on stock hp and a process. The stock HP is made with stock injectors. To now open up injectors would change the balance that exists. Good idea? I think not.
Your RR shock comment is, to my eye, not comparable. First, there is no rule change or proposal regarding RR shocks on the table. Second, people more knowledgeable that I can tell you that RR shocks are not the savior, and won't have seconds off your lap times, no matter how bright you are, compared with monotube or twintube designs. There is a perception that they are the magic bling item that shaves seconds, but that's just it, a perception.
I disagree with the comparison in terms of degree, but mostly because any shock rule would affect all cars more or less evenly while an injector change would not. Any such change would be equivalent to a post classification competition adjustment.
Or someone with mechanical injection could use the rule to go to electronic and make it work with the opened up ECU and wiring.Now you have some serious changes in that classes parity.
EXACTLY. I don't think it's appropriate, at least not with any wording option shown.
Might as well just start re-profiling cams, IMO...
Ummm... hang on. I didn't notice this immediately, had to be pointed out... The Mk3 Golf is a single-cam 2.0L, right? But, according to the classification, this is a DOHC 2.0L? Sounds more like an ITA car, to me, than an ITB car. At least at that weight. Bigger brakes than the Mk3 also - doesn't concern me as much, but worth noting...
Doesn't sound like the same car anymore... Did we just move the target?
Bill Miller
New member
Vaughan,
The Mk IV car has an SOHC motor, not a DOHC motor. VW hasn't offered the DOHC 2.0 since the late A2 Golf/Jetta and the B3/B4 Passats. I didn't catch the issue about the larger brakes.
The reason I posted this, was as a result of the discussion around the Protege landing in ITC. One of the main reasons put forth for it going to C and not B, was it's ability to make the B process weight. It was pretty much the same argument that was used for the New Beetle (which has a curb weight of maybe 50-60# more than the Mk IV Golf). I just don't know how you'll make the ITB process weight w/ a Mk IV Golf. 700# is a lot to get out of a car that starts out at <2800#.
OK, cool, thanks for the clarification. I'm definitely no VW expert, just have to go by what's in the book - which is apparently already in need of correction, 'cause it does state DOHC!
I'm not so sure that larger brakes are so much of a big deal - are the Mk3's so limited in braking? Either way, based on what you've pointed out about the weight, may be a moot point?
As for pressure regulation - is it really reasonable to try to claim that the fuel injectors are part of the pressure regulation system? Put it that way - so's my CIS fuel distributor, so I can replace the whole thing. Good luck with that argument!
(but hey, no complaints about playing devil's advocate)
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Matt,
Are you saying that the entire 'fuel pressure regulation system', including the injectors, is/are free because you are allowed to ADD an external 'fuel pump pressure regulator'?
Ummm, yeeeeeeeeah. I think Matt's working from "The New Paradigm" but even "The New Greg" finds that a bit of stretch...
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Funny, I don't see it as a new paradigm so much as I see the intArweb as a vehicle to see how more people 'read' the rulebook. Which is to say I don't think the 'thinking' has changed, just how much you know about other peoples thinking.
vr6guy
New member
seckerich
New member
Now thats the biggest streeeeeeetch of a rule I have ever seen.
My master cylinder regulates my brake pads and they are free so I will run a tilton setup.
You are thinking outside the box, I'll give you that.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Merriam Websters had this entry, which helps illustrate my meaning....
Perception is a word that is often used to describe that a person believes that something exists in a certain manner, yet in reality, the facts don't always align with the belief, or the perception.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well no, I don't reaaaallly think I could win a protest on my logic, but then again, innocent until proven guilty. It is a huge stretch, but what happens when someone gets protested for it and they stand w/ folded arms and tell the scrutineer to prove why it is wrong?
There are two sides to the IIDSYC bit which says, if you can, you can, free = free-for-all.
I just threw this out there for giggles, see what would happen. I have no reason to swap injectors at this time, but I am sure that someone would like to.
Matt
There are two sides to the IIDSYC bit which says, if you can, you can, free = free-for-all.
I just threw this out there for giggles, see what would happen. I have no reason to swap injectors at this time, but I am sure that someone would like to.
Matt
dickita15
New member
My guess is the car would be deemed noncompliant and you argument would be ruled a tortured interpretation.
Reminds me of the SSC driver who put mirrored film on his side windows of his X19. He then ran the runoffs with the windows up based on his interpretation that mirrors are unrestricted. He was told by the stewards that if he ran that way he would be disqualified. He won the runoffs by a good margin and was disqualified.