Removal of Charcoal Canisters (fuel tank vents) okay?

[tom91ita]

Meaning what Chris?

pretty much my point, i guess.

i had trouble at the IT fest with pressure in my tank and had commented that i had removed the charcoal evaporative emissions device around 1993. this is long gone.

but someone asked me where it was in the rules and i was convinced there was language regarding emission equipment but when i looked, i could not find it.

it sort of struck me as odd that something i was absolutely sure about and i could not find any specific thing other than possibly implied via "etc." or those with "emissions controls removed" type of vague hard to stretch into removal.

and i really do not see any where that a fuel cell means you can remove it. maybe not connect it to the cell but not remove it.

look, i am not going to protest anyone and do not expect anyone to protest me but darn i thought this was allowed.

 

[JeffYoung]

Interesting. Yep, when I was a noob and built the car I thought "all emissions" could come off.

I do have a fuel cell so I'm ok, but that is a gotcha one right there with the charcoal canisters.

 

[DoubleXL240Z]

I thought it sort of implies ( or I inferred) that emission related components could be removed. I have been under the same spell/ thought process that a charcoal canister could be removed. Reread rules twice tonight and this was all I could find. Don't know where I got the original okie dokie for removal!!
ASSUME= ass+u+me!! or just me, Tom, joeg et al

 

[lateapex911]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

 

[wcmcarlos]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

My close friend's 99 Chevy truck sucked the element out of the canister, I dont know how,, and cost him two fuel pumps, two fuel filters, and finally, cost him a gas tank clean out.
Just Sayin,

 

[tom91ita]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

circa 1993 when the car was being prepared, the minimum weight for the car (still in ITA) was 1800#'s. it then changed to 1980#'s with driver.

i agree that at 2130 #'s minimum weight in ITB, i could likely install about 150 of the darned things.

 

[Marcus Miller]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor? Or ar we calling that part of the 'Air pump and associated lines'?

huh....

 

[EV]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor?<snip>.

Must be...

 

[Rud]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor? Or ar we calling that part of the 'Air pump and associated lines'?

huh....

It's been a while since I fooled around with an RX-7, but the "rats nest" is all idle control and bypass air stuff, isn't it? Seems like it would have to stay...

edit: on the other hand, seems like leaving all that functional would conflict with "all air entering the intake tract must pass through the carburetor."

 

[Marcus Miller]

On topic: yow. that was the first thing I threw away ... (car is DOA and has been for years)
off topic: Russ, you should buy my silver car...

 

[tom91ita]

Bringing this back from the dead. i had submitted a request (#4220 on 2/9/11) and it is still not reviewed (not in a hurry really, mostly curious because i know there are more pressing issues).

but also bringing this up since the following info might have some bearing on this issue.

Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

Class: IT

Car: none

Request: The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.comI believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented."All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Thank you for your consideration.

letter number #4220

Letter number #4220 is currently waiting to be reviewed by the IT committee. After the IT committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

but when in the GCR for an unrelated matter, i came across this nugget under
9.3.27. FUEL CELL SPECIFICATIONS 3. Filler Cap and Vents

Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be​

removed from all Production and GT Category cars.

now it was my understanding that we could run factory fuel tanks in PROD if it was in front of the rear axle, etc. but this says that we would then have to remove the fuel emissions system. i would assume for safety sake.

if it must be removed from PROD (presumably for safety purposes), why not allow it to be removed for IT?

or is it actually less safe because it is an uncontrolled vent/leak point if the car rolls over?

 

[Chip42]

Tom,

I think 9.3.27 supports the "understanding" by many that evap components can be removed in IT with the addition of an optional fuel cell. IT rules are a bit wierd at times, but I suspect that tech or the COA would agree with such a reading or at least find it well founded.

but nothing in 9.3.27 or in the ITCS says these devices should be removed without the instalation of a cell. my only argument against their removal would be with rollover fuel containment, but I can't say that all systems are suited to that from stock so...

 

[23racer]

I don't know if this is my place to comment and no disrespect intended at all, but if you can get 2 pages of responses discussing whether or not it is legal to remove the charcol canister maybe the rule set is far too detailed. Think about it, if I took the charcol canister off of any car, what possible benefit would I gain other than saving a couple of pounds of weight. I can go to the can before the race and drop that weight just as easily.

When I see this kind of discussion about what amounts to an appendix on a race car, it makes me wonder if the rules makers have the focus in the wrong areas. Has anybody thought about the impact that nit-picky rules has on the desire of new competitors to run at SCCA Club Events? I would think about rule sets that are simple, easy to understand and inclusive to what people want to do to their cars, rather than exclusive and just frustrating to a newcomer as they wade through a 200 page rule book.

Just my $.02 Cdn. and just wondering...

Eric

 

[lateapex911]

Eric, I assume the situation is the result of rules that didn't think specifically about the canister and have morphed over time. I imagine the ITAC should clean it up.............

..............Like they are the engine mount request.
Riiiight guys?

 

[Greg Amy]

My take is that this discussion, like washer bottles, is not about charcoal canister and not about washer bottles, and not about any other "non essential for racing" items; it's all about philosophy, and how a hard stance on that philosophy has allowed Improved Touring to maintain its quarter-century position as the consistent king of SCCA Club Racing while all other categories have come (and gone). It's about the philosophy of racing in general and how saying "oh, that doesn't affect performance in any way we should allow it" eventually results in 'ship in a bottle' GT cars.

Think that's hyperbolic? Then you haven't been paying attention over the last 50 years of motorsports evolution.

GA, who's going to go over there to the Old Farts Get Off My Lawn Corner...and just watch. With a beer.

"In our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and "more reliable" we ha[ve] pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan"

 

[TomL]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. The problems with Prod rules creep are a direct result of allowing things that improve performance (and also usually cost a lot of money). It things like allowing aftermarket gearboxes, or allowing free suspension pickups/arms/everything else that caused all the problems in Prod, not allowing the removal of emission canisters. The only thing that falls into the same category for IT is the (almost) free ECU rule, but that's another (water under the bridge) topic.

Sometimes people forget, but there have been a bunch of rules changes that have been made that: 1) make cars easier to build and/or maintain, 2) cost almost nothing to perform (like removing extraneous items) and 3) don't improve performance beyond allowing you to take off a few pounds. If we're going to discuss "philosophy", why not start by forgetting about the fiction that IT is a place for old SS cars and adopt the philosophy that IT is a class for honest-to-goodness race cars that have limited modifications, but will allow modifications that meet the three criteria above.

The IT rule set has slowly evolved over the years to allow a whole pile of stuff that wasn't originally allowed. When the rules were changed to allow the removal of interior trim panels, was that the time we went down the path of production? Or maybe when passenger seats could come out? No, IT has done just fine with those changes and it will do just fine if emission canisters and washer bottles go away. Just don't allow stuff that does improve performance and we'll be just fine.

BTW, if removal of canisters is going to start the ruin of IT, then the Great Realignment must surely have been the beginning of the end of the world .

 

[Knestis]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. ... .

And the ability to not see creep is a necessary condition for it to happen.

I have noticed that we haven't had much pressure on the washer bottle front in the last year. I attribute that largely to STx sucking some of the "what a race car should be" energy - and some drivers - out of IT. It's going to be interesting to watch how those people eventually react to a new ecosystem in which creep will be able to flourish.

Greg - Beer me, dood.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, I see this thread as a very simple thing. The OP asked if something was legal, and it was an interesting and enlightening discussion to some that what they had ASSUMED was legal, wasn't. Why? Because they really didn't know the rule.

Not being able to remove your EVAP canister isn't keeping anyone out of IT.

 

[joeg]

Let's add horns to the delete list too!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. .

So this kind of statement, while it works for ME - IF I WAS KING FOR A DAY - is exactly why it doesn't work.

My 'kingdom' doesn't look like like your kingdom Tom. You want to remove EVAP, washer bottles and have open motor mounts (all of which I would like too in real life), but *I* was to remove my dash, inner bumpers, etc.

Jake says, 'you guys are dumb'. Screw that piddly stuff. Let's focus on cost! Instead of having to do 20 small and expensive proceedures to make HP, let's just allow open cams, be able to go fast and not break the bank. Same speed, cheaper.

Kirk says, 'morons'. It's always about safety. We need alternate brakes and open wheel sizes.

I know it can be extreme, but each of us in our minds has a line in the sand we think we can lock down and never have to address. Those lines are all over the board, and that is why keeping it where it is has no real problem. Every rule set I have ever read had something *I* thought was dumb. Unless that rule cost me an ass-load of money and prevented me FINANCIALLY from building a car, then I could care less about washer bottles and EVAP cans. Seriously.