FP prep level 2 ?
- Thread starter manny
- Start date
Only if it is listed as allowed on the car's spec line, e.g., Porsche 914-4 Level 2, p GCR 522 September 2022 version.
BTW, that whole engine section regarding carbs and EFI could use a good re-write, clearly differentiating the two. It is obviously an evolution from before fuel injection and is not particularly clear in regard to the OP's question.
BTW, that whole engine section regarding carbs and EFI could use a good re-write, clearly differentiating the two. It is obviously an evolution from before fuel injection and is not particularly clear in regard to the OP's question.
Matt Blehm
Moderator
Manny,
I'm assuming you're referring to the 2.3L Mustang since you've talked about them previously.
The spec line for the Mustang states "(1) Holley-Weber 5200 or fuel injection." therefore you can run either option for any model year in that spec line. Since the Holley-Weber 5200 is specified, I don't see an allowance in 9.1.5.E.2.b. to use other alternate carbs as if they'd said "auto type" or just "Weber".
Maybe someone else can chime in on that part.
I'm assuming you're referring to the 2.3L Mustang since you've talked about them previously.
The spec line for the Mustang states "(1) Holley-Weber 5200 or fuel injection." therefore you can run either option for any model year in that spec line. Since the Holley-Weber 5200 is specified, I don't see an allowance in 9.1.5.E.2.b. to use other alternate carbs as if they'd said "auto type" or just "Weber".
Maybe someone else can chime in on that part.
Dayle Frame
Well-known member
When in doubt about car legality……contact the Tech staff at HQ. Rick Harris and Scott Schmidt will know the answer (or figure it out) so you don't have to guess.
Dayle
Dayle
Or...just read the regs.
I tought the OP was asking a general question. If this actually is about the 2.3L Ford engine, and that's on the spec line as Matt describes, then all ya gotta do is "read the regs."
If you bother Technical Services about something that's clearly written in the regs...well...you may as well ask them what to do when your printer flashes "PC LOAD LETTER" on the LCD screen (yes, I'm in IT and yes that happens...and I make a mental note not to answer the phone when that number comes up next time...)
1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR (p. GCR 18)
1.The Category Rules take precedence over the General Technical Specifications.
2.Specific class rules in the Category Section of the GCR shall take precedence over the general Category Rules and the General Technical Specifications.
3.Any item not addressed in the Category Rules is controlled by the General Technical Specifications. The specification line for a particular car takes precedence over the specific class rules, the general Category Rules and the General Technical Specifications.
I tought the OP was asking a general question. If this actually is about the 2.3L Ford engine, and that's on the spec line as Matt describes, then all ya gotta do is "read the regs."
If you bother Technical Services about something that's clearly written in the regs...well...you may as well ask them what to do when your printer flashes "PC LOAD LETTER" on the LCD screen (yes, I'm in IT and yes that happens...and I make a mental note not to answer the phone when that number comes up next time...)
1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR (p. GCR 18)
1.The Category Rules take precedence over the General Technical Specifications.
2.Specific class rules in the Category Section of the GCR shall take precedence over the general Category Rules and the General Technical Specifications.
3.Any item not addressed in the Category Rules is controlled by the General Technical Specifications. The specification line for a particular car takes precedence over the specific class rules, the general Category Rules and the General Technical Specifications.
Although, as a follow up...I will offer that this new bastardization of our regs culture and philosophy, GCR 1.2.3.D.1, pretty much tosses rationality and logic out the window. I cannot believe something like this passed our Board of Directors:
"The intent of a specific rule will override a participant’s interpretation of a rule. The intent of a rule will be determined by the CRB. If any rule is unclear to the participant, the participant is advised to obtain written approval by submitting a compliance review request under GCR section 8.1.4 prior to making any modification."
Bottom line, the CRB wants to abdicate its core responsiblity of writing clear and logical regulations, and wants us to inquire with them in advance to ensure we understand their intent.
So yeah I suggest sending in a letter to them to ensure we are properly "interpreting" that carb regulation. After all, what if my interpretation is wrong...?
BTW, this new reg makes GCR 1.2.3.A moot. There is no longer interpreting the GCR logically, it's now "because I'm the CRB, that's why":
"Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations."
You should submit your question to them at https://www.crbscca.com just to ensure we're "intepreting" their reg properly. Otherwise you risk falling afoul of what they actually intended (whatever that is)...but if they insist on an 8.1.4 process then submit it that way, let the Court form and set a bond, and the CRB can get involved with micro-managing all this minutae.
Wait, you're telling me that's not what they intended? Well, maybe I should submit a GCR 8.1.4 request to interpret what they mean in their new GCR 1.2.3.D.1 intepretation regulation...
Such silliness. And laziness and arrogance.
Not that I feel strongly about it or anything
GA
"The intent of a specific rule will override a participant’s interpretation of a rule. The intent of a rule will be determined by the CRB. If any rule is unclear to the participant, the participant is advised to obtain written approval by submitting a compliance review request under GCR section 8.1.4 prior to making any modification."
Bottom line, the CRB wants to abdicate its core responsiblity of writing clear and logical regulations, and wants us to inquire with them in advance to ensure we understand their intent.
So yeah I suggest sending in a letter to them to ensure we are properly "interpreting" that carb regulation. After all, what if my interpretation is wrong...?
BTW, this new reg makes GCR 1.2.3.A moot. There is no longer interpreting the GCR logically, it's now "because I'm the CRB, that's why":
"Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations."
You should submit your question to them at https://www.crbscca.com just to ensure we're "intepreting" their reg properly. Otherwise you risk falling afoul of what they actually intended (whatever that is)...but if they insist on an 8.1.4 process then submit it that way, let the Court form and set a bond, and the CRB can get involved with micro-managing all this minutae.
Wait, you're telling me that's not what they intended? Well, maybe I should submit a GCR 8.1.4 request to interpret what they mean in their new GCR 1.2.3.D.1 intepretation regulation...
Such silliness. And laziness and arrogance.
Not that I feel strongly about it or anything
GA