This is my opinion only; as someone that works course, the 991.2 GT3s sound like an angel choir, and the 718 GT4 sounds stopped up and lacking, maybe even one of the worst sounding stock cars in autocross to my taste. If I owned one I would want the opportunity to change out the muffler for sound only. There’s no reason based on precedent that people shouldn’t be able to change it out or remove it (if it meets sound). I don’t think it’s a performance advantage, and just because I don’t want mufflers for my car doesn’t mean I can’t understand why others might. Why would we tell people they can’t replace the same type of muffler everyone else is allowed to swap, just based on the way the warranty information happens to be written?

 

Oh man, would I be stoked if the 718 GTS2.5 gets moved to A street. And here I thought I was going to get whomped on by Rachel Baker in SS all year! Glad I didn't buy that DSC controller yet.

 

The muffler isn't what's choking the 718, it's the GPF dummy filters that we can't change either.

 

Here's the rule as written. Pretty clear that muffler is ok to change. Sticking point is whatever is in the over axle pipes. To be sure you're legal, don't change them. If you want to modify over axle pipes, better have enough evidence that they are not pollution control devices to convince a protest committee, should a competitor protest you.

Ignore the various unsportsmanlike conduct associated with this issue.

 

Make sure you write a letter in support. Please note the C7GS, 4C, 2g Viper, 991GTS are also in the proposal so ring in on those guys too.

 

It's pretty clear that if enough people are asking questions, that it's not clear. Why is it so hard to clarify that mufflers aren't pollution control devices even if they're covered under the same emissions equipment warranty that the OAP is? When you have a system that relies on a protest committee for all the answers it's not unthinkable that two different volunteer protest committees could come up with two different answers. It's not any less sportsmanlike to want clarification than it is to be an SEB that wants to leave everythign vague and let the PC figure it out.

 

I figured as much... I would think you could at least make it sound a little better with a different muffler though? no?

 

Here's what I posted to Facebook under the Solo Matters post about the new Fastrack. Chris Drabouski wrote the letter requesting clarification. This is my response to what he wrote. I should note that the claification feels like a slap in the face with regards to the initial ruling about the OAPs that I'd been trying to get a ruling on back in 2021 when I was running my car in SS. I tried to get clarification prior to Nationals after hearing that someone was thinking about protesting me, even though nobody told me this directly. I was not given the courtesy of a clarification one way or another, and decided that I didn't want to deal with the extra stress of it potentially going to a protest committee.. In the end, I didn't run them at Nationals and haven't had them on during competition since then, including my win in SSR this past year.

" two things. First of all, the US cars don't have the "precious metals" in the OAP/GPF that react with the soot or whatever you want to call it to scrub the bad particles. Secondly, the SCCA doesn't have the ability to determine what is and isn't a "pollution controls device." That is between the manufacturers and various government entities around the world, in our case, the EPA and CARB. According to CARB, both the OAP _and_ the rear muffler are covered under the emissions warranty and therefore are BOTH emissions control devices. If you choose to not use CARB and use the Federal warranty then NEITHER item are considered emissions control devices.
The rules have to be clear. There should be no picking and choosing what is and what isn't legal. The SEB already said the OAP wasn't legal, so they can't now say the muffler is when the emissions warranty says both are emissions control devices according to CARB."

The muffler rule is from a time when exhaust frequently rusted out and OEM replacements were super expensive compared to aftermarket replacements. We are in a very different time now, and the rules need to be clear with regards to emissions items.

Ron

 

Competitors are strongly suggested to read the intro page to Appendix F which covers this in entirety.

With that in mind:
#31078 The SEB classified the OAPs as emissions control devices.
#33348 The SEB has clarified the GT4 muffler is not an emissions control device.

IMO could not be more clear what the current SEB stance is, and 13.10.C is very clear on how to apply these decisions.

Please read, understand, and follow the rulebook. Autocross is a self-policing sport which means it is the burden of the competitor to prepare a car as 100% compliant in good faith, as it is the burden of your competitors to enforce compliance. It is also in the best interest of the sport as a whole to be a positive ambassador so that we can continue to play around with cars in parking lots. I understand that at a high level the competition and rules mincing becomes fierce, but at the end of the day we do this for fun with little to nothing on the line. People considering entering the sport or just starting local events see these types of arguments and think they are normal for the SCCA where they are not.

 

Matt, from appendix F
"they do not afford specific cars permanent protection from subsequent protest and disqualification"

The SEB clarified the muffler on the GT4 by saying the manufacturer does not classify the muffler as an emissions device. That's not true. There is documentation in this thread and many others that illustrates that statment is not a blanket truth. That means the documentation already exists to overturn that "clarification" based on appendix F. What you did is incomplete and not helpful.

If you don't like it when people point out that the SEB action is incomplete and not helpful, you should push for complete and thorough action. If you don't want to do the job the right way you should step down instead of leaning on a passage in the rule book that basiacally says: we're just spit balling, hope you don't get protested.

Don't be incompetent and then just say: we're volunteers, please don't tell new members about it.

 

A muffler being covered by a manufacturer's emissions warranty, does not automatically equate to it functioning as an emissions control device.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument, but I doubt this is the last we'll hear of this issue being raised, unless the rule is further clarified.

 

Per Appendix F, a clarification was requested by the membership and the SEB issued a clarification based on the evidence provided by the membership at that time.

OAPs - no touchy
Muffler - swap away

There's a safety valve in the wording to not permanently cement an SEB clarification since member provided information may not be complete or further information may come to light in the future. I cannot think offhand of a time a clarification in Appendix F was reversed, at least in Street.

Any reading in between the lines or tortured wordsmithing should be abandoned as a fool's errand.

 

Mufflers control noise emissions, which can contribute to noise pollution, which makes ALL mufflers anti-emissions/anti-pollution control measures. Just protest back anybody who protests you with this equally spurious argument.

 

Seems an OAP being similarly covered by same emissions warranty does not equate it to be an emissions control device. If the stock OAP is defined as having a functional GPF then I would walk away from this issue, but to my knowledge the stock GPF assembly is basically what we used to call a resonator, to soften the tone of the muffler. This issue needs to be further reviewed.

 

The problem is that Porsche doesn't call it an OAP. They call it a catalytic converter. I've checked countless sites and even asked my local Porsche dealer to verify it in their own system. https://www.delawareporscheparts.com...ust-components

It very well may be the case that the precious metals that are required for it to function as a particular filter/catalytic converter may not be used in the US models, but do we expect the SEB to rip it apart and test it? I think we would be in a different situation if Porsche clearly stated it was a resonator or silencer for the US market. I not trying to be shady, but I think it was a long shot to get the SEB to allow the OAP pipe removal and honestly agree with the SEB on this. If they allowed the change, it would have opened up a much bigger can of worms. I don't think them allowing a muffler change, where Porsche clearly states it's a silencer, is cause for such backlash.