140 replies to this topic

[Brian129]

To that point I see your request, and would not wish to limit that. 

 

But if the original letter was asking why do we need the system as a whole? 

The reason it is still here is that it is a relic from the Showroom Stock rules.

Then why do we keep it?  

 

(my only motivation here is if I can remove it and its weight then that's good!! 

My fat a$$ isn't making 2275 with my car no way, no how)

[ChrisA]

deleted

[ChrisA]

The quoted letter was to allow the entire system to be removed. I wrote a seperate letter that was encompased into this letter. This is what is intended:

 

On 1999 Miatas ONLY. Not on NA and not on 2000+. There are 2 small fuel vapor lines that go from the fuel tank to the fuel filler neck. These can be seen in the trunk. If you tear everything apart, these lines do not actually go to the tank, they go to the evap system. Under hard cornering, fuel will slosh up into the filler neck, some of the fuel will drain through the small tubes and eventually fill the charcoal cannister with fuel. This causes the car to run PIG F-ing rich, spit sputter etc. By simply looping the rubber hoses back on themselves (filler neck back to filler neck and fuel tank to fuel tank) you prevent the fuel from getting to the evap cannister.

 

This is not a performance advantage. It only defeats a very small portion of the evap system. The fuel tank still vents the same. Only the fuel filler neck does not vent. This is something that has been done by virtually every car builder for at least 5 years. The SMAC approved it back when I was Chairman. At some point it got lost and is not currently in the GCR. For the 2000 model year, Mazda modified the system to eliminate the 2 lines. It takes about 2 minutes to do this mod. Only tool required is a pair of pliers and costs ZERO dollars.

 

The rule should read something like:

 

On 1999 model year cars, the 2 small fuel vapor lines that attach to the fuel filler neck may be looped back upon themselves. They may not be plugged or modified in any other method.

 

Maybe somebody on the CRB or SMAC will read this and correct the wording

 

Dave

 

Those 2 lines create a circuit between the Rollover valve/Tank Pressure Sensor (TPS) and the Tank Pressure Check Valve which bypasses positive tank pressure and vapors to the Charcoal Canister. If you loop those two lines at the Filler neck, how are you dealing with the positive pressure in the tank? Also, I have heard some of these components are no longer available/made should there be a failure. The rule should allow complete removal of the system. The Rollover valve vented to the atmosphere via a filtered tube to the underside of the car. Any EVAP related tubing removed from the intake manifold must be plugged to prevent unmetered air from entering the manifold. There is no performance gain other than perhaps saving the engine.

[davew]

Those 2 lines create a circuit between the Rollover valve/Tank Pressure Sensor (TPS) and the Tank Pressure Check Valve which bypasses positive tank pressure and vapors to the Charcoal Canister. If you loop those two lines at the Filler neck, how are you dealing with the positive pressure in the tank? I have heard some of these components are no longer available or made should there be a failure. The rule should allow complete removal of the system. The Rollover valve vented to the atmosphere via a filtered tube to the underside of the car. Any tube removed from the intake manifold must be plugged. There is no performance gain other than perhaps saving the engine.

 

 Simple answer is 2 words  RULES CREEP

 

Why do we need heater core, heater controls, dash panel, etc. It costs nothing to leave it in place and we all abide by the same rules.

[KW78]

Xav, SMac, et al...

 

As a shop owner that specilized in emissions failures for years:   Yes the entire EVAP system should be removed from SM and all race cars in reality.

 

Having the EVAP on a race car shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works.  The EVAP absorbs fuel fumes while sitting key off and driving.  It does not directly vent the tank in most cases until some PSI threshold is met, then it makes a last ditch effort to do that.  On the miatas, a key piece is a 7psi or so fuel cap to regulate it.  

 

After absorbing fuel fumes, it is critically "dried out" by being purged from being exposed to vacuum under hiway cruise conditions, drawing small amount of air thru the canister and drying it.   Furthermore, most Mazda/Ford strategies for doing this is after a warm up cycle, in closed loop cruise, and partial throttle.  This is so the additional hydrocarbons being burned will not affect stoich fuel mixture and create an unregulated rich running condition.   This should happen every time you cruise about 35mph or above with a fully warmed up car....

 

 

Enter race duty...  No part throttle, no steady cruise, and often overfilling the tank with a funnel.  Rare closed loop operation with speed sensor reading 35+, 

 

Pretty quickly we have a breaking down charcoal canister, that is introducing grit into the vacuum lines.  Furthermore this canister is never dried out, so it just gets worse.  Once charcoal bits get in the EVAP valves, it becomes some kind of leak - major or minor, that with a little tank pressure can become a false source of fuel..

 

So if you ever wonder why heat soak, or hot exhaust on a hot day on a hot track has the fuel boiling in the tank - and your car is flat rich despite all those dyno $ spent, you might eliminate the EVAP system and see if the performance is better...

 

Since SMAC and Xav monitor this site, hope the info helps and consider this my letter to have it removed.  

 

Kyle

[Johnny D]

Those 2 lines create a circuit between the Rollover valve/Tank Pressure Sensor (TPS) and the Tank Pressure Check Valve which bypasses positive tank pressure and vapors to the Charcoal Canister. If you loop those two lines at the Filler neck, how are you dealing with the positive pressure in the tank? I have heard some of these components are no longer available or made should there be a failure. The rule should allow complete removal of the system. The Rollover valve vented to the atmosphere via a filtered tube to the underside of the car. Any tube removed from the intake manifold must be plugged. There is no performance gain other than perhaps saving the engine.

They always look forward to receiving your letters.

J~

[ChrisA]

 Simple answer is 2 words  RULES CREEP

 

Why do we need heater core, heater controls, dash panel, etc. It costs nothing to leave it in place and we all abide by the same rules.

I think this response was intended for Brian129. 

[ChrisA]

Xav, SMac, et al...

 

As a shop owner that specilized in emissions failures for years:   Yes the entire EVAP system should be removed from SM and all race cars in reality.

 

Having the EVAP on a race car shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works.  The EVAP absorbs fuel fumes while sitting key off and driving.  It does not directly vent the tank in most cases until some PSI threshold is met, then it makes a last ditch effort to do that.  On the miatas, a key piece is a 7psi or so fuel cap to regulate it.  

 

After absorbing fuel fumes, it is critically "dried out" by being purged from being exposed to vacuum under hiway cruise conditions, drawing small amount of air thru the canister and drying it.   Furthermore, most Mazda/Ford strategies for doing this is after a warm up cycle, in closed loop cruise, and partial throttle.  This is so the additional hydrocarbons being burned will not affect stoich fuel mixture and create an unregulated rich running condition.   This should happen every time you cruise about 35mph or above with a fully warmed up car....

 

 

Enter race duty...  No part throttle, no steady cruise, and often overfilling the tank with a funnel.  Rare closed loop operation with speed sensor reading 35+, 

 

Pretty quickly we have a breaking down charcoal canister, that is introducing grit into the vacuum lines.  Furthermore this canister is never dried out, so it just gets worse.  Once charcoal bits get in the EVAP valves, it becomes some kind of leak - major or minor, that with a little tank pressure can become a false source of fuel..

 

So if you ever wonder why heat soak, or hot exhaust on a hot day on a hot track has the fuel boiling in the tank - and your car is flat rich despite all those dyno $ spent, you might eliminate the EVAP system and see if the performance is better...

 

Since SMAC and Xav monitor this site, hope the info helps and consider this my letter to have it removed.  

 

Kyle

 

Yep! And the EGR should also be allowed for removal. It's sole purpose is to protect the catalytic converter from excessive heat. And no one is running with those in SM. It comes into play on similar parameters as the EVAP system, is just garbage under the hood. 

[davew]

We don't need the turn signals either. So lets take them out. Well except for Drago         

 

Let's face it, there are lots of things we don't use on the race track. But we keep them in the car anyways.

[davew]

 The rule should allow complete removal of the system. 

 

Let me change my quote.

 

Now can you say "Rules Creep"

[ChrisA]

We don't need the turn signals either. So lets take them out. Well except for Drago         

 

Let's face it, there are lots of things we don't use on the race track. But we keep them in the car anyways.

Oh geez louis Dave, you're becoming curmudgeonry.    Rules creep is okay, when your dealing with things like the EVAP system, which has the potential to harm an engine under the right (or is it wrong) circumstances. The phrase "may be removed" would be appropriate language. The cost impact to remove the system is zip, but occasionally the cost of retaining it could be great.

[KW78]

Oh geez louis Dave, you're becoming curmudgeonry.    Rules creep is okay, when your dealing with things like the EVAP system, which has the potential to harm an engine under the right (or is it wrong) circumstances. The phrase "may be removed" would be appropriate language. The cost impact to remove the system is zip, but occasionally the cost of retaining it could be great.

 

"Rules creep", "against class philosophy", "regardless of performance potential" are phrases that doom the SCCA imo....   

 

Rules that define the maximum performance of an item or an area are rock solid and make sense.  Rules such as timing and fuel pressure.  There is one best timing and fuel pressure for a given motor, and then all cheating in this area is gone.  Bigger fuel pump?  Bigger (smaller) fuel injectors?  moving a crank pickup?  All that is off the table and the situation is maximized for all, and info shared.  Timing and AFR advice is all over this forum...  NOW if we could only get PnP Megasquirts so everyone could have a flat fuel curve for $300 and have half a chance of solving the mystery sync problems with the cam sensor circuit, components....  

 

Rules that set up a gotchya situation, and have a theory that is extrapolated to the Nth degree in order to create some mystical performance advantage have no place in club racing.  That creates a gotchya culture where if 1 in 16 valves is out by .002 your club race effort is ruined...  bogus...

 

My .02

Kyle

[Sean - MiataCage]

 

Rules that set up a gotchya situation, and have a theory that is extrapolated to the Nth degree in order to create some mystical performance advantage have no place in club racing.  That creates a gotchya culture where if 1 in 16 valves is out by .002 your club race effort is ruined...  bogus...

 

My .02

Kyle

 

What number above the written rule are you ok with?  .005?  Let us know, then we can change the rule to that number and all will be fixed right?  

 

Sean

[Jim Drago]

Rules that set up a gotchya situation, and have a theory that is extrapolated to the Nth degree in order to create some mystical performance advantage have no place in club racing.  That creates a gotchya culture where if 1 in 16 valves is out by .002 your club race effort is ruined...  bogus...
 
My .02
Kyle

 


 

What number above the written rule are you ok with?  .005?  Let us know, then we can change the rule to that number and all will be fixed right?  
 
Sean

I agree on the gotcha mentality.. never a good thing. But when we intentionally make the tool .005 over the rule so not to have anyone fall into the gotcha territory.. What can you do? No performance gain agreed, but we must take some responsibility here too as we all know that .005 on these silly cuts does nothing.. so don't get so dam close

[wheel]

The gotcha mentality is a fraction of what it was when I started racing.  Tech is much more friendly than when they looked for any excuse to bust someone. I have not seen that in years, although I am sure there still are cases where it happens.  On the other hand, the SM community has demanded precisely written rules, to be aggressively enforced to insure that everyone is running a compliant car.  Perfect system? Hardly, but as close as we can get with a diverse group and limited funds.  I do think something has to be done for guys like Danny, who has had his engine torn down too many times.  The CRB will be working on that in the future.  

wheel

 

p.s. if you are worried about getting busted for one hole .002 over, make all of them .002 under - no problem.  Knowing the rule, and knowing that the measurements are being done, why get even close to the max.  As Jim points out, nothing is to be gained by that last couple of thousandths. 

[KW78]

What number above the written rule are you ok with?  .005?  Let us know, then we can change the rule to that number and all will be fixed right?  

 

Sean

 

I understand this post.  There has to be a limit somewhere.  And then as Jim says you build a tool with a slush factor in... Its a step, but it doesn't address the built-in culture.  Wasn't there a head "illegal" at daytona that wasn't oversized but had a stray deburing tool mark?  (that's how I read between the lines anyway).  Forgive me for using an ASedan example here, but Andy M lost a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP over and illegal carb.  Like here in SM, we were trying to write rules that define spec parts in order to limit performance instead of writing rules that limit performance directly, so the carb rule was a spec unaltered carb aspect, and visual scotchbrite marks were present.  The marks were not measurable, but visual, but still an indication of non-compliance against the key work "unaltered"...   

 

(Note:  now you see rules that say "normal cleaning methods" ok, even in SM - thats where that came from)  

 

The gotcha mentality is a fraction of what it was when I started racing.  Tech is much more friendly than when they looked for any excuse to bust someone. I have not seen that in years, although I am sure there still are cases where it happens.  On the other hand, the SM community has demanded precisely written rules, to be aggressively enforced to insure that everyone is running a compliant car.  Perfect system? Hardly, but as close as we can get with a diverse group and limited funds.  I do think something has to be done for guys like Danny, who has had his engine torn down too many times.  The CRB will be working on that in the future.  

wheel

 

p.s. if you are worried about getting busted for one hole .002 over, make all of them .002 under - no problem.  Knowing the rule, and knowing that the measurements are being done, why get even close to the max.  As Jim points out, nothing is to be gained by that last couple of thousandths. 

 

I agree with Jim here the gotcha mentality is way less, and dare I say shifted from Tech people looking to be a pita to Tech people responding to class pressure from other competitors feeling like they need to use gothch rules to level the playing field.

 

I cite the 2 examples above, and I think we need to write into SM category rules a NEW TECH STRUCTURE TO ADDRESS THE CULTURE.  As I have posted before, I think this starts with a competitor base tech period where the struggling midpack guy gets to look over leaders as well leaders looking over each other...  Again like solo has done for years.  This does several positive things that bring later dividends, including bringing the class together and tightening the racing, and even will address driving issues like we saw at Mid ohio.  I would think if those guys had to be standing in the same group about 3 times throughout the year and then there is a problem on this weekend, the conduit to get things out in the open generally will lower the chances of on track grudges...  (just an example of a side benefit of a culture change..)

 

Everyone reading this agrees that .;002 on a valve made no difference, and everyone realizes there must be some published limit.  The key to having this example work out right is for SCCA (or SM at least) to get rid of the notion that "performance benefit" of some issue cannot be evaluated, just compliant or non compliant.  Furthermore, the completely blind notion of a non-compliant competitor not finishing in front of a compliant competitor has to be tossed in the trash.  There is not a one sentence solution for this, but I can easily visualize where a competitor influenced tech that is happening goes a step further after tech has done a diligent job in finding a .002 out valve, to have a straw poll about the significance of something like this that could be binding....  And at the same time rules that let a steward take all this in and do a 1 second penalty instead of a dnf.

 

SCCA should take note, these notions are already creeping into the way NASA does things.  It is informal, but it is happening.  At BOTH the west and east nationals this year in SM, some or all of the competitors were gathered to hear input into adminstration of some part of the rule book.  IMO a brilliant way to make sure whats going on passes the common sense test.  (and even despite this, a culture of the letter of the rulebook unfairly IMO ruined the day of about 3 racers when the entire group was say wait, just make the executive decision to fix it).  I could cite other examples of this from my local NASA region, which all starts with a manditory drivers meeting in tech after the race at least once a day.  It is a notion that is working.

 

Kyle

[Johnny D]

we were trying to write rules that define spec parts in order to limit performance instead of writing rules that limit performance directly,  
Kyle

So you define this is club/class culture X.
You're suggesting we should do Y.
Suggesting there is something wrong with X.
So why did you join X ?
Have you looked for Y in another class or club ?

You can always write a letter to change X to Y.

Kind of the discussion we've been having with SM, SMM and SMSE or SM2. "oh I wouldn't do A class because of B that's in the rules"

Just saying, not taking sides.
J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

1

[KW78]

So you define this is club/class culture X.
You're suggesting we should do Y.
Suggesting there is something wrong with X.
So why did you join X ?
Have you looked for Y in another class or club ?

You can always write a letter to change X to Y.

Kind of the discussion we've been having with SM, SMM and SMSE or SM2. "oh I wouldn't do A class because of B that's in the rules"

Just saying, not taking sides.
J~

 

I am assuming you mean SCCA road racing here as culture x...  I believe these aspects in SM are SCCA aspects moreso than NASA aspects.  I believe the close racing in SM has exposed the need for the SCCA to philosophically change.... 

 

Do I really think this will plausibly happen? no...

 

 

So you define this is club/class culture X.
You're suggesting we should do Y.
Suggesting there is something wrong with X.

 

Yes there is something wrong... the .002 valve example, and a myriad of others exposed in the national scene here...   a local example at the pueblo majors, having a competitor whose master switch did work correctly, just not fast enough for tech to be happy....  erasing his on track results despite the ENTIRE class asking stewards for this off track, non performance bearing item to just be a logbook fix and not ruin this guy's first taste of success...  wait, and the real rub was that the car was OK'd with the master switch behavior specifically at the previous event....    gotcha culture...  and customer lost..

 

And that's the real issue here, is that the issues are happening at a rate that has made the club unsustainable.  People are chased off at a rate greater than newbies are added.  It has gone on for years and years and is now driven the weaker parts of the club into non existence.  Weaker classes have disappeared and now one of the strongest classes in weaker divisions is disappearing.  It isn't critical in the SE yet for example, but here in the midwest one of  this years major had 3 entrants in SM.  

 

So why did you join X ?

 

It was the only game in town when I started racing.   Friday night drags, saturday circle track, or road racing in SCCA...  And SCCA won because it was a club environment with enthusiasm....

Have you looked for Y in another class or club ?

 

Yes, but I thought I was looking to see where the racing got off to, not knowing I was looking for Y.  Nasa springs to mind because while SCCA was having 2 to 5 SM cars show up this season, NASA here had 24 once and averaged high teens...   

You can always write a letter to change X to Y.

 

Been there, done that.   When that didn't work even got behind the scenes...  Still the tides started in the 60's prevail..  Good Great people and all that, but the more modern paradigm to implement the competitive situation to keep racing alive just works better the way the newer clubs are built, when put under the pressure of close racing in a club setting.

Kind of the discussion we've been having with SM, SMM and SMSE or SM2. "oh I wouldn't do A class because of B that's in the rules"

Just saying, not taking sides.
J~

 

This is probably pretty far off topic for this thread...

[wheel]

A gentle reminder to Kyle.  Andy did not lose a National Championship to the carb issue.  Although he was written up for the carb, that was determined to be a rule clarity issue, which the ASAC and the CRB cleaned up for the next season.  So, the CoA let the carb issue slide after testimony that the rule was not clear and it was common practice to clean carbs with scotchbrite pads.  He was DQ'd for having .513" valve lift in a class with a .500" maximum.  He and his engine builder acknowledged that they made a mistake when fitting the new shaft rockers that had different geometry from the old style.  My lift went from .480" (the old cam) to .493" with the same shaft rockers.

wheel