K.C. Babb wrote:
> That's probably a good point, but how do you allow someone to
> substitute something in more or less unlimited ways, and yet
> restrict them to using it for its intended purpose?
The slippery slope here is "intended purpose." The fuel supply system of
a car accomplishes several purposes:
1. Storage of fuel. Mostly in the tank, but also everywhere else in the
fuel system.
2. Supply of fuel (as opposed to air, water, or sediment, all of which
can and do find their way into fuel under normal circumstances) to the
induction system.
3. Protection of the fuel supply from igniting.
Now, saying the fuel line, fuel pump, fuel filter, and induction system
can't "store" fuel is not correct, since there sure enough IS fuel all
those places even when fuel is not being "routed" or "conveyed" to the
engine. If your car gets 7mpg under autox conditions, you'll use just
over 18 OUNCES of fuel in a 1-mile autox run. It's not unreasonable to
expect a typical OEM fuel system to contain sufficient fuel to complete
an entire autox run, even if there's no fuel in the tank! So, exactly
HOW are we going to police a ban on "fuel reservoirs?" I claim it's
impossible.
> > just such a device. It IS, after all, a fuel filter, as Paul
>
> What filtering action is provided by an empty tube of sub-
> stantially larger diameter than the attaching lines?
The device in question removed air from the fuel. See above. Air is one
of the things that can get into fuel that you want to remove (filter).
See
> Webster for "filter": "a device containing a porous substance
> through which a liquid or gas can be passed to separate out
> suspended matter".
Filters, in general, remove unwanted content and pass through desired
content. There are electrical filters (lowpass, highpass, bandpass,
allpass), gas filters (e.g., in your AC system in your residence), fluid
filters, etc. They all accomplish the same function. "Porosity" is not a
necessary component in a filter. Separation of undesired content is.
> > The fact that that phrase appears in specific sections rather
> > than as a general restriction is, to me, a very powerful argument
>
> It didn't used to; it was assumed to be a generally-applicable
> caveat.
"It was assumed." That's exactly what I'm trying to point out.
> Then people started playing interpretation games and
> it began to be used in specific instances where those games
> had cropped up. Should probably have gone in a general-application
> section instead.
And it would be a trivial exercise to do so. The fact that this hasn't
been done over the course of many years inicates, to me, that this is
not the "intent."
> Your "implicit meanings" are my "common sense" and application of
> that same old premise ("IF IT DOESN'T SAY..."). I don't think
> the book should have to spoon-feed people.
It certainly doesn't say you can drill holes to install allowed fuel
pumps, filters, and lines. What am I missing here?
> > ANY allowed accessory unless those mods are specifically allowed.
> > Isn't that consistent with your philosophy.?
>
> Probably. Then again, your approach would probably be to say that
> if the use of something is allowed, the installation is implicitly
> approved.
A general statement similar to the one about front swaybar mounting in
Stock would do quite nicely.
> Mine would be to be very careful that the implementation
> of the installation was not "creative", and to ask about it if I
> had a question.
And the answer would depend VERY MUCH on who you asked and would under
no circumstances be definitive. No thanks. I prefer that the rules be
definitive as worded.
> Well, yes. The original change was probably made to strengthen a ban
> on lockers (virtual or actual)
Nope. "Limited" Includes "zero," which ALLOWS a locked diff. The revised
wording took away something that was previously allowed.
>and the subsequent change was probably
> made based on member input concerning cost and feasibility.
The stated reasons in Fastrack had more to do with enforceability.
> So
> you'd rather they not fix it once they were convinced?
No, they should never have tried to close what someone apparently had
decided was a "loophole," and they should have recognized that a new
gray are was being created where none existed before.
> > carb float bowl and the EFI fuel rail. Can't I make my carbs'
> > float bowls as large as I want, or are there unwritten
> > "restrictions" in that "unrestricted" as well?
>
> Actually, now that you mention it, you could and I'd have no
> problem with it. Call it a "JayCarb" and get rich selling 'em.
Well, that would accomplish exactly the same purpose as a "fuel
reservoir." Why allow one and not the other?
Jay "non-EFI, non surge tank, but definitely non Stock Europa" Mitchell
|