DG Says:
Yes, a very simple one. LEAVE THE RULES ALONE, AS THEY EXIST TODAY. If the
SEB
is _really_ that worried about an interpretation of the current rules
allowing
turbos to be added to non-turbocharged cars, then WRITE A RULE THAT
EXPLICITLY
FORBIDS PUTTING TURBOS ON ENGINES THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH FACTORY
TURBOS.
But I thought ENGINES didn't have turbos, I thought exhaust/intake systems
had turbos...
And I quote: " Come on, the turbo is part of the intake and exhaust
systems, not the motor. It's even held onto the car downstream of the
exhaust manifold. It's as much
part of the motor as the catalytic converter is."
Your words. If we go with defining the turbo as part of the engine,
then
you're screwed again.You can't have it both ways.
Or maybe "types of cars" have turbos. Do we define a "type of car" as
"all vehicles on one line in the SP listings"? If it's just "part of the
car" then update/backdate with the 89 Trans Am turbo previously mentioned
would be OK. (Provided, of course, you could somehow do this without other
illegal mods to facilitate it.)
If it's part of the exhaust/intake then its free in SP and anybody can
put
one on. (Already explicitly forbidden? So we have precedent for making a
special case for turbos.)
I quote again: "You mean the same way that an upgraded air filter does?
Or
an intake manifold? Or an aftermarket carb or FI system does?"
Yep. the same way. Are you suggesting that *anything* upstream of the
first inch of the intake port that can suck more air into the combustion
chamber should be legal in SP? Then I can slap a turbo from an MG Metro on
my Midget, or better yet, an Eaton blower. I'll run the belt off of my
driveshaft if I have to, to get around any pulley rules. If they can say
"except for turbos" regarding induction, why is so shocking that they say
"except for turbos" regarding update/backdate? Given the length of an
autox run, somebody could probably come up with something driven off the
battery that gave *some kind* of boost, should that be legal too?
I think you got screwed when somebody told you it was legal in the
first
place. I think that Denver has decided that turbos are part of the motor,
(possibly retroactively, and THAT is where you got screwed, I'm guessing
they got scared by what this might leave open in the future.) They can't
wait and see or you'll have eight years of development in your car when
they spring the "no turbo swap" rule. (and there'll be more of you.) Yes,
if a really scary turbo swap candidate pops up they could use the "put it
on two lines" strategy, but then they are using a band aid approach. It
just seems like that would be messy. The fact that this turbo swap applies
only to DSMs shouldn't make a difference. It would be even less fair, in
my opinion, if they arrived at the conclusion that turbos were part of the
engine, but then bent the rules, or deliberately left a hole in, to allow
the swap just so the DSM could be competitive.
If you convince them to change their mind and view turbos as "something
different" you shouldn't be surprised if they continue treat all turbo cars
as "something different." No, it ain't fair, and there really is no way to
make two things that are different the same. It's too bad really, I like
classes where different cars are competitive.
You can still be competitive though. Get the motor that goes with your
turbo, shave the head and enjoy your larger valves. That's what NA folks do
if they want more air. It does suck that it costs more money just to be
legal though, but that's what it is.
Phil Vanner
DSP Midget
|