Rule Changes for 2014?

I imagine it is making a cover that is 4" long say 5" diamter, at the end of the 4" length is a 2.6 circle that the plug is checked. Then you put a .25 MWE behind the 2.6" opening in the 5" diameter area that is in front of the wheel. Then you could feed a 3+ wheel.

Or you could even go with a 6" diameter tube, for even more surface area.
 
zstroken said:
I imagine it is making a cover that is 4" long say 5" diamter, at the end of the 4" length is a 2.6 circle that the plug is checked. Then you put a .25 MWE behind the 2.6" opening in the 5" diameter area that is in front of the wheel. Then you could feed a 3+ wheel.

Or you could even go with a 6" diameter tube, for even more surface area.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the 1/8" Proustion into 2.6" bore already take care of that?
 
jones95runner said:
I understand what Weston's picture is showing. That's the harts and Columbus style covers, and most all protrusion turbos. Josh said those would be legal I was wondering what would be illegal.
Click to expand...

Got ya.
If that style does end up being legal then I don't understand What they are trying to get rid of.

I took it as them trying to say that the MWE groove must only allow air to access the clipped portion of the wheel, which would make those cover not legal? Dunno
from phone
 
Last edited:
ClamDigger4 said:
Got ya.
If that style does end up being legal then I don't understand What they are trying to get rid of.

I took it as them trying to say that the MWE groove must only allow air to access the clipped portion of the wheel, which would make those cover not legal? Dunno
from phone
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but I don't understand how a MWE groove would only feed the clipped part of the wheel. Would you have a air space in the middle of the cover that would take air from outside of the bore and feed the clipped portion?
 
Well, where the clipped portion meets the non clipped portion. I didn't mean half way up the clipped portion. The harts cover pretty much feeds the entire wheel face.

from phone
 
ClamDigger4 said:
Got ya.
If that style does end up being legal then I don't understand What they are trying to get rid of.

I took it as them trying to say that the MWE groove must only allow air to access the clipped portion of the wheel, which would make those cover not legal? Dunno
from phone
Click to expand...

I read it the same as you did I think. That's why I was asking Josh to maybe clear it up some for us since he was there and maybe had a better understanding of what was going on. Either way what they meant to do and or what is wrote above seems like everybody is little confused.
 
zstroken said:
I imagine it is making a cover that is 4" long say 5" diamter, at the end of the 4" length is a 2.6 circle that the plug is checked. Then you put a .25 MWE behind the 2.6" opening in the 5" diameter area that is in front of the wheel. Then you could feed a 3+ wheel.

Or you could even go with a 6" diameter tube, for even more surface area.
Click to expand...

Correct

jones95runner said:
Wouldn't the 1/8" Proustion into 2.6" bore already take care of that?
Click to expand...

Yes

Obviously there needs to be some clarification on the rule.
 
takedown95 said:
I e-mailed John Mears, head PPL Tech and here's what he said:

Some of the updates for 2014 -

I was hoping to have posted on the website, but no luck from last week.

2.6 Diesel Trucks

MWE groove must be inside neck area where intake cover is measured @2.6”

Maximum of one P-pump, with only one plunger per cylinder.

Front brakes only.

Dual rear wheels only permitted.



We used removed some wording from the rear suspension, concerning (must use one working shock absorber per wheel.)

Ink still in the book (No air bags and blocked suspension is permitted)

Everything makes sense but I'm confused about the MWE because it sounds like most everyone would need a new cover so I asked John for clarification and rationale. His response:

"No, it keeps people from stretching the mew (sic) groove out from the face of the wheel…..feeding the larger portion of the turbo…."

I feel like I'm missing something.....
Click to expand...

The wording in his email seems to be a little vague, but the part I highlighted in red is the intention of the rule. Exactly what Dan was talking about in his post.
 
Last edited:
I believe they are trying to say; The MWE groove must be perpendicular to the face of the compressor wheel, any MWE groove parallel to the face of the compressor wheel is prohibited.
 
zstroken said:
What if you had a really tall compressor wheel? :)
Click to expand...

I thought the way you described it was just like a floating 2.6 bore above the comp wheel, and nothing protruded into the bore at all. I know there was a crazy looking cover posted on here awhile back that I thought was something like you meant but I have yet to find it.
 
So...

Legal
Legal_zps16c36815.jpg


Not Legal
Smooth_zps9b70cfe6.jpg


Or am I missing something?
 
Map groove can not be forward of the compressor wheel, if you move it forward allowing the diameter to be bigger you to open up the area at the clip from .200 to say .400 it will draw more air past the .200 part this takes some pretty creative cover work but it can be done, you can feed the clipped part anyway you want, everything that ran last year is still legal
 
I don't understand why it has to be so phucking complicated. Make the damn things smooth bore and throw this stupid protrusion bs out the window with there cheater Map grooves. Makes no sense to make it this complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top