September 2011 Fastrack [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

erlrich

08-15-2011, 04:24 PM

Has been up since Friday - the sauce is weak around here this month...

Minutes are here (http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20August%20CRB%20Minutes%20September%2 0Fastrack%20v3.pdf)
Tech bulletin is here (http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20August%20Meeting%20September%20TB%20 Fastrack.pdf)

Of interest - under "What do you think?"

"Member input is requested on whether an allowance should be made to permit disabling power steering assistance on IT cars, including allowing the fluid lines to be looped if desired."
Yeah, sure, why not...I mean, they don't have power steering on real race cars, do they? :rolleyes:

Interesting non-IT item; T3 as we know it is going away next year, but then in '13 SSB and SSC will be combined and become the new T3. The majority of current T3 cars will be moving to T2 (they also have ST as an option). I'm sure the T3 drivers - all 10 of them (including Mr. Chairman) are thrilled....

rsportvolvo

08-15-2011, 05:41 PM

Yet another CRB letter response email notice with nothing in Fastrack. So much for the notifications being accurate...

red986s

08-15-2011, 05:47 PM

(Super Touring) You can put a VW engine in a 944? 924 makes sense, but a 944, interesting.

Greg Amy

08-15-2011, 05:59 PM

You can put a VW engine in a 944? (Super Touring)
He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU... :shrug:

GA

chuck baader

08-15-2011, 06:00 PM

I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck

red986s

08-15-2011, 06:07 PM

JeffYoung

08-15-2011, 06:49 PM

Your language is appreciated but it has issues. We've worked with other ACs to come up with something we think works. We want to try to get this one right.

I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck

JeffYoung

08-15-2011, 06:52 PM

My personal thinking on the power steering rule:

1. You can already depower the rack with a "trick" pulley that spins without turning the pump, so this can be done.

2. Arguably -- arguably -- you can depower the rack since the lines are "free" and ... use your imagination.

So this change is just to "mirror reality" that already exists under the rules.

But my feeling is that we all have some trepidation because it sure does look like rules creep.

Thoughts/discussion appreciated.

Has been up since Friday - the sauce is weak around here this month...

Minutes are here (http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20August%20CRB%20Minutes%20September%2 0Fastrack%20v3.pdf)
Tech bulletin is here (http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20August%20Meeting%20September%20TB%20 Fastrack.pdf)

Of interest - under "What do you think?"

"Member input is requested on whether an allowance should be made to permit disabling power steering assistance on IT cars, including allowing the fluid lines to be looped if desired."
Yeah, sure, why not...I mean, they don't have power steering on real race cars, do they? :rolleyes:

Interesting non-IT item; T3 as we know it is going away next year, but then in '13 SSB and SSC will be combined and become the new T3. The majority of current T3 cars will be moving to T2 (they also have ST as an option). I'm sure the T3 drivers - all 10 of them (including Mr. Chairman) are thrilled....

CRallo

08-15-2011, 07:11 PM

Didn't motor mounts get covered a while ago and the answer was no?

Disable to power steering? Someone trying another angle at those core IT sticking points?

So I can put a VW engine in my Porsche, but I can't put a Nissan engine in my Nissan. Some consistency on policy and interpretation would be nice... Or did the liberals take over?! :p how far does this apply? Can I put a Mazda rotary in my subaru and put that engine in my Pontiac and put that engine in my toyota? Can the toyota's engine go in the mazda? That last one is not as big of a stretch as it sounds based on the precedent that appears to have been set...

Greg Amy

08-15-2011, 07:22 PM

Someone trying another angle at those core IT sticking points?
...
So I can put a VW engine in my Porsche, but I can't put a Nissan engine in my Nissan.
Crissy-poo, focus: the engine mounts and power steering issue are Improved Touring, and the engine swap is Super Touring. "Improved" does not equal "super."

GA, thinking that Crissy-poo needs to put down those Monsters...s**t's bad for you...

Andy Bettencourt

08-15-2011, 07:23 PM

2. Arguably -- arguably -- you can depower the rack since the lines are "free" and ... use your imagination.

So this change is just to "mirror reality" that already exists under the rules.

But my feeling is that we all have some trepidation because it sure does look like rules creep.

Thoughts/discussion appreciated.

No, no, no. So much intorturtation there it's crazy Jeff.

Quote us the 'lines are free' rule.

JeffYoung

08-15-2011, 07:33 PM

I'll go look for it. Don't folks add power steering fluid coolers? that would suggest?

In the interim, deal with the point about the pulley that essentially spins on a bearing -- all legal since pulleys are legal -- and doesn't drive the pump. Since that is free, why make folks go through that effort?

No, no, no. So much intorturtation there it's crazy Jeff.

Quote us the 'lines are free' rule.

JeffYoung

08-15-2011, 07:37 PM

Greg Amy

08-15-2011, 07:46 PM

I'd call it intorturation. Clever, no doubt, and worthy of GA Intorturation Status Level 2, but intorturation nonetheless.

That said, I support a SM-equivalent power steering rule in IT (I requested many moons ago, both from a selfish and a SM-allowance perspective, shot down...)

GA

Matt93SE

08-15-2011, 07:55 PM

So I can put a VW engine in my Porsche, but I can't put a Nissan engine in my Nissan.

I was going to ask the same thing.. Really seems to me like the CRB hates those damn dorifto cars for some reason.... :shrug:

Andy Bettencourt

08-15-2011, 08:10 PM

Here it is:

Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses
may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip).

What if my metal braided hose has a restrictor that effectively reduces or eliminates the assist?

Yes, tortured for sure. The rule specifically allows a stock hose to be replaced with a metal braided one. TYPE not FUNCTIONALITY.

Maybe I will play along. How about custom 'mirrors' (free) that are thinly disguised aero winglets. These of course are wired into my 'data acq' system, and are programmed to electronically change position for maximum/minimum downforce by my design on a track by track and corner to corner basis.

Yes, yes. Excellent!

Andy Bettencourt

08-15-2011, 08:17 PM

In the interim, deal with the point about the pulley that essentially spins on a bearing -- all legal since pulleys are legal -- and doesn't drive the pump. Since that is free, why make folks go through that effort?

I disagree that pulleys are free also. It says you can change diameter and material. That's it. You can't change the way they 'work' or in your example, 'don't work'.

The rules in IT tell you what you are allowed to do, nothing more.

CRallo

08-15-2011, 08:58 PM

Crissy-poo, focus: the engine mounts and power steering issue are Improved Touring, and the engine swap is Super Touring. "Improved" does not equal "super."

GA, thinking that Crissy-poo needs to put down those Monsters...s**t's bad for you...

LOL I'm well aware of all of this! "My Nissan" is no more my Nissan than "My Porsche" is my Porsche(seeing as I don't have one) I was speaking in general, as it were...

What, am I not allowed to comment on ST matters?

See? Matt understands me :)

Gary L

08-15-2011, 09:32 PM

I disagree that pulleys are free also. It says you can change diameter and material. That's it. You can't change the way they 'work' or in your example, 'don't work'.

The rules in IT tell you what you are allowed to do, nothing more.

I agree. IMO, a free-wheeling pulley would be a perfect example of an allowed modification performing an illegal function... you've changed function from that of a drive pulley to an idler pulley, for which there is no allowance. I would argue the same logic applies to a "restricted" hose.

And one of my pet peeves - we really need to stop using the word "free" - it does not exist in the ITCS and so far as I can tell, never has.

Greg Amy

08-15-2011, 09:47 PM

What, am I not allowed to comment on ST matters? See? Matt understands me :)
Of course you can! But it's a lot like my driving down the road with my wife and she suddenly turns to me and says "I think we should paint it BLUE!" and I'm all like "WTF...?" and she replies "well, my GIRLFRIENDS know what I'm talking about!" and I'm all like "uuuh, huh...?"

Context matters.

GA, who - still - has NO CLUE what the two girlfriends are talking about...

Chip42

08-15-2011, 10:27 PM

I disagree that pulleys are free also. It says you can change diameter and material. That's it. You can't change the way they 'work' or in your example, 'don't work'.

The rules in IT tell you what you are allowed to do, nothing more.

I agree completely.

but I also tend toward agreeing with those that want to be rid of power steering. however, it is certainly creep, and it's got to have unbalancing effects somewhere along the line. important ones? I don't know. but someone, somewhere, stands to make far more than the expected modest power bump with a PS delete. I'm not sure if that's simply lost in the noise though.

tderonne

08-15-2011, 10:29 PM

Yes on the power steering. Pain in the butt on my wife's Escort GT. Spews fluid (on the track), pops the belt off. In need of some re-engineering. Or ditch it. I vote ditch it. Letter will be written.

Chip42

08-15-2011, 10:35 PM

He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU... :shrug:

GA

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.

Matt93SE

08-15-2011, 11:09 PM

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.

I'm pretty much in agreement with that. There's too much ambiguity in some of these things, and too much that's being disallowed that should be pretty simple and straightforward.

Toyota made the Pontiac Vibe. Toyota also made the early Geo Metro. Mitsubishi made/makes the engines in Dodge Caravans, eagle talons, and dodge stealth.

So does that mean I can put a 4G63 turbo in my Neon?
Or how about a 2JZ-GTE in my GTO or Grand Prix, which would allow either of them into STU?

At one time, Toyota built trannies for Chevy too. So how about a 2JZ in my Camaro?

Hell, almost all OEMs use Mahle pistons anymore.. maybe we should just say they're all the same damn thing since the parts come from the same factory..

you want tortured interpretations, I'll give you tortured!!

lateapex911

08-15-2011, 11:16 PM

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

If not, that's what he SHOULD have been saying, LOL.

On the surface, at first glance, I find the allowance surprising and seeming inconsistent. I'll think harder about it though.

Matt93SE

08-16-2011, 12:10 AM

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob! :D
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....

No, I'm not bitter..... :023:

lawtonglenn

08-16-2011, 01:26 AM

Z3_GoCar

08-16-2011, 01:44 AM

And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob! :D
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....

No, I'm not bitter..... :023:

You're forgetting the ultimate intorturation on motor swaps....

the Bugatti motor in a VW Golf :p

The VW/Audi/Porsche connection is best exemplified by the 924, which (btw isn't it too old to use in ST?) has a motor sourced from an Audi, and the 912/914 which uses the 1.7/2.0 type 4 motor which is also used in the later type 2 buses.

Z3_GoCar

08-16-2011, 01:47 AM

Knestis

08-16-2011, 06:43 AM

I too have a proposal in the files on motor mounts... but it's been tabled:(

I'm worried about PermaTable(r) coming back into vogue as a way of back-rooming the rules.

K

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 07:22 AM

...the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later.
It was a long topic of conversation, on both the private forum and on the concall. In the end, we could take one of two tacks: specifically list all the allowances (kludgy, subject to reasonable omissions, likely a long list, and likely not to be approved by the CRB ) or we could take a more open interpretation of allowance-and-see. We chose the latter. The primary basis for that choice was that the category is engine-centric to begin with anyway, as weight and restrictors are all based off of what engine you choose to use. Since any engine that can be installed into a chassis will have to have been allowed to begin with, what chassis you choose to install it into has much less effect on the engine's specific competitiveness in the class chosen. In other words, the engine you want to use has to be already approved for the class you want to run, it's not like we're suddenly allowing new engines in.

Once convinced of that, I took the primary position of "think of the very best engine you can, one with the highest power-to-displacement, and put it into the very best chassis you can think of". My standard for the chassis was the Mazda Miata, and I tried to think of the very best "family" engine you could install into it, even using FoMoCo products as an extreme potential intorturation. Granted, I can't think of all possibilities ("crowd sourcing" will take care of that soon enough) but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now.

Same goes for the 944. Sure, a VW normally-aspirated 2.0-16V Golf engine would put it into STL, but so what? Is that a better choice than an 2L MZR-equipped NB Miata? Would the 2L turbo in the 944 (with an appropriate TIR) make it a better STU car than if it used the 944T engine? I suggest not.

Bottom line, yes there's potential for "abuse" here. And I'd encourage anyone thinking out-of-the-box to send in a clarification request like this bloke did, as if you get too wacky you may very well lose a protest. But out-of-the-box thinking is one of the underlying ideals of this category and a purpose behind allowing alternate engines.

Remember it's an engine-centric category and other things tend to fall into place.

...Chris Rallo...was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?
Ah, he's chewing on the JDM bone again. Gotcha. I've not heard back the results of his letters to CRB and BoD members? S**t ain't gonna happen on its own, you know...and no one's gonna spoon-feed you on it. Just sayin'... :shrug:

GA

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 07:41 AM

BTW, while I consider Jeff's "p/s lines made out of air" to be intorturation, I consider his bearing-pulley to be legal. Rule states:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

We considered that many moons ago but did not pursue it on the NX, primarily because I did not want to fight against all the hydraulics. Which is why I requested de-powering and looping the stuff...and was rejected.... ;)

GA

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 08:27 AM

I think the bearing pulley is 100% legal. I think "alternate" pulleys means you can put a bearing inside the pulley if you want, and technically even that meets Andy's limitation on the "free" pulley rule to different diameter and material as you just say the bearing is different "material."

On the lines, I'm not saying they are can be like the "air" bushings on the rear suspension of an RX7, as i understand the "trick" it is to put a restrictor in the line that effectively renders the system useless.

Do people add coolers to the power steering lines? If so, I don't see how the restrictor is really any different.....

Still, this "feels" like creep and I'm only strongly advocating one side to hash this one out.

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 08:29 AM

The unexpected power bump is (in my mind) the best argument (other than avoid creep) against this.

Any others?

I agree completely.

but I also tend toward agreeing with those that want to be rid of power steering. however, it is certainly creep, and it's got to have unbalancing effects somewhere along the line. important ones? I don't know. but someone, somewhere, stands to make far more than the expected modest power bump with a PS delete. I'm not sure if that's simply lost in the noise though.

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 08:33 AM

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 08:34 AM

Any others?
Weight in the nose of a FWD car. The removal of the Integra P/S stuff with Honda's cast iron brackets helped us lose ~25# from the nose...

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 08:40 AM

Good point.

The rule as we hashed it out in committee required all power steering parts to stay on the car, but you could loop the lines.

Weight in the nose of a FWD car. The removal of the Integra P/S stuff with Honda's cast iron brackets helped us lose ~25# from the nose...

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 08:41 AM

I changed the pulley material. The pulley "material" is now a bearing in the center.

Still not buying it. It's not 'no further restrictions'. It's 'no further ALLOWANCES'. It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 08:43 AM

The rule as we hashed it out in committee required all power steering parts to stay on the car, but you could loop the lines.
That's lame. Do it or don't do it, but don't do it half-a**. Cars are subject to a minimum weight already, and moving 25# from the nose to the passenger floor will be functionally irrelevant.

Copy the SM rule; it's well-established and CRB-approved. Done.

GA

jhooten

08-16-2011, 09:01 AM

At one time, Toyota built trannies for Chevy too. So how about a 2JZ in my Camaro?

Not without moving the firewall back. 2JZ is too long for the engine bay in a Camaro.

itracer

08-16-2011, 09:06 AM

Copy the SM rule; it's well-established and CRB-approved. Done.

GA

Agreed. This looks well worded:
Page 605 Spec Miata:

9.1.8.h. Manual or power steering racks may be used. Power steering
racks may be converted to manual by removing all power
steering components.

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 09:10 AM

It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.
Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.

See "How To Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779)".

GA

pballance

08-16-2011, 09:41 AM

I have enjoyed the discussions about the PS issue. Looping lines work for hydraulic assisted steering, how about the RX8 that uses electric power (assisted) steering?

I think the RX8 steering is also proportional and adjusts steering effort based on speed etc. so you may have to go into the ECU to change parameters. Just to throw another wrench in the works, the ECU of the RX8 also "learns" and will trim the air/fuel settings based on "driving conditions."

I agree that it should be legal to eliminate power steering but it sure appears to be a rules creep. That said, maybe it is time to re-define IT racing in total :shrug:
<----------------- Runs and hides :) :)

Back to the regular rules debate :D

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 09:53 AM

...how about the RX8 that uses electric power (assisted) steering? ...you may have to go into the ECU to change parameters.
Then it's already legal to do.

CRallo

08-16-2011, 09:56 AM

I was emphasizing my point with my choice of words. My apology to anyone that didn't follow...

Thanks Jake! :D

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

If not, that's what he SHOULD have been saying, LOL.

On the surface, at first glance, I find the allowance surprising and seeming inconsistent. I'll think harder about it though.

Yup :D and sorry, I didn't get my letter written in time on that one... :( it was a very hectic time for me and I was busy writing my letter regarding the HNR mess as that issue was more important or atleast effected the club as a whole. If there is still a chance in hell to make that happen, I am more than happy to write a letter. I am not currently built to the extent of STU rules, but might someday and feel strongly about the class regardless... Oh and 'O' and 'L' as well! :p

Ah, he's chewing on the JDM bone again. Gotcha. I've not heard back the results of his letters to CRB and BoD members? S**t ain't gonna happen on its own, you know...and no one's gonna spoon-feed you on it. Just sayin'...

GA

CRallo

08-16-2011, 10:15 AM

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 10:32 AM

Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.

GA

Of course you can make it out of panties, it says you can. There is no reason to specify the parameters if it was meant to be open. Think it would have been easier to write "alternate PS pulleys are allowed" if they meant for them to be free?

You may change them, with those two allowances as your specific boundries. IIDSYCTYC.

chuck baader

08-16-2011, 10:32 AM

erlrich

08-16-2011, 10:34 AM

That's lame. Do it or don't do it, but don't do it half-a**. Cars are subject to a minimum weight already, and moving 25# from the nose to the passenger floor will be functionally irrelevant.

Copy the SM rule; it's well-established and CRB-approved. Done.

GA

Agree completely. Don't tell us we can disable the P/S, but we have to keep 10-20 lbs of shit hanging off the motor that does absolutely nothing.

I also think this is certainly rules creep, and am trying to think of a good reason why we NEED TO do this (even though I'm one of those who would certainly benefit). Maybe some of our ITAC/CRB members can help us understand the reasoning behind this request?

As far as the pulley question; I can see where you can twist the rules to allow the use of a non-functioning pulley, but I have no doubt that wasn't the intent of the rule when written. IMO attaching a non-functioning pulley to a required system is disabling the system, which is not specifically allowed under the rule. You know, "no permitted component/modification shall perform a prohibited function" and all that...

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 10:40 AM

Jeff, James:

"Engine and transmission mounts of non metallic alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

That should make a good inclusive rule. Chuck

Using this, my motor mounts will be carbon fiber with hardened rubber inserts. They will also run under the motor (N/S engine placement) and connect one another acting as a lower front chassis stiffener.

;)

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 10:44 AM

The pulley thing is interesting... I'd have to agree with Jeff and Greg here. The alternate pulleys rule, as it is written, does not specify design. And if that alternate design incorporates a bearing, so be it. This is not any random replacement part on the car, this a specific allowance, so the normal same purpose/function clause does not apply.

So my arguement is simple. It doesn't HAVE TO specify design, because it's supposed to be stock unless it tells you that design is open. It doesn't. All it tells you is that you can replace what you have with one of a different MATERIAL and a different SIZE. That's it. Saying that those two allowances open the door to ANY design is torture IMHO.

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 10:45 AM

You may change them, with those two allowances as your specific boundries. IIDSYCTYC.

All it tells you is that you can replace what you have with one of a different MATERIAL and a different SIZE.No, it says "diameter". Only. So, Andy, following your logic, every alternate pulley out there is illegal, because I assure none of them - not ONE of them - meet all dimensional specs of a stock pulley except for diameter and material. Not one.

Think it would have been easier to write "alternate PS pulleys are allowed" if they meant for them to be free? Ding! YAPWR ("yet another poorly written rule"). If the intent was to only allow only changing of diameter and material, then whoever wrote that rule needs to get hung from an overpass by their scrotal sac, 'cause that ain't what it says. See Greg's Rules for Writing...

On edit: even using your logic, Andy, you're reading it wrong. Following it logically:

Here's the rule verbatim:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used. Type of accessory drive (e.g., V-belt, toothed belt, etc.) shall remain as
stock."

So, absent that rule, Step One, IIDSYCTYC: you can't change the pulley.

Step Two, "alternate...pulleys [are allowed]". You can use an alternate pulley.

Step Three, subsequent restrictions, using words "must", "shall", "only", etc: "Type of accessory drive...shall remain as stock."

The words "...any diameter or material may be used..." is nothing more than superfluous fluff. Of course you can, because...you can. There's no verbiage in there restricting the change only to alternate diameter or material because if there were restricting you to only those changes from stock, then why specify that the type of drive has to remain stock?

As the rule reads today, bearing away. If that ain't the intent, see scrotal sac comment above... - GA

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 10:49 AM

Agreed. This looks well worded:
Page 605 Spec Miata:

9.1.8.h. Manual or power steering racks may be used. Power steering
racks may be converted to manual by removing all power
steering components.

And I also disagree that this rule is good for IT.

To me, if I saw this in the ITCS just as written, I would be able to source an aftermarket manual rack for my car, even if it was never sold with one.

Still not seeing a need.

chuck baader

08-16-2011, 10:54 AM

Andy, I do believe the rules say you can not use a allowed modification to perform a prohibited function. Where does it say you can add a chassis stiffener, other that between strut towers? Chuck

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 11:27 AM

Andy, I do believe the rules say you can not use a allowed modification to perform a prohibited function. Where does it say you can add a chassis stiffener, other that between strut towers? Chuck

Your rule, as written says 'engine mounts of alternate design'. That's my design. My engineering tests have shown that when you connect the two together, you get 'x'% less engine movement. ;)

And Greg, just not buying it. It's a poorly written rule, as with most, it tries to over-explain and does more harm than good. If it was open, it would have said so, like many other rules in the ITCS that are meant to be open.

IMHO.

R2 Racing

08-16-2011, 12:06 PM

I agree to either do nothing to the current rules regarding P/S, or allow full removal of the system. If I still had to have all of the crap in my engine bay, wether I disabled the system or not, I'd probably choose to keep it operational just for the niceness around the paddock and shop. On my ITA Integra, I've actually done dyno pulls with and without the P/S belt in place, and any perceived power gains are negligible. The reason I even bothered to do that though was because of the "replace the pulley with a bearing" idea. If I saw a possible gain there, I would've done it. I didn't, so I didn't go through the pain in the ass of doing it.

But, if I was legally allowed to remove the whole system, and loop the lines on the rack, you bet your ass I would. Less weight on the nose, less fluid leaks to worry about, less crap in the engine bay, less things to possibly break down - all good stuff.

Actually, as some of you may remember, my ITA car didn't have P/S in it when I first built it before the 2004 season. Back then the IT rulebook had something in it along the lines of "drive comfort whatever can be removed", so I removed it under that clause. Intorturation, I know. After the 2005 season, I completely re-fitted a stock P/S system back into the car out of a donor chassis I had, just because that clause was no longer in the IT rulebook, and I could no longer make any sort of a case for it to be legal to not have it. Point being, my car is a whole lot faster now than it was then, even with the P/S now installed, so any perceieved "OMG, removal of P/S will create huge performance increases and overdogs!" thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt. It had virtually no effect on that.

chuck baader

08-16-2011, 12:07 PM

Ok, Andy...let's simplify.

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

If you want to use carbon fiber...go head on. Chuck

chuck baader

08-16-2011, 12:23 PM

Kevin, every car is different. My old ITS E30 gained 7 wheel horsepower just by cutting the PS belt on back to back dyno runs. Have no idea what my current car does, but BMW uses a PS pump at about 1600psi. Not trivial. BTW, neither for or against, but I sure would like to remove 25# from the front of my car. Chuck

Chip42

08-16-2011, 01:23 PM

the power steering question is a result of a member letter written requesting same. the decision was made to put it out for member input, partly due to the percived ability amng some in the ITAC to "delete" the function of the system via the bearing-in-pulley.

personally, i'm hesitant to move on it. I [begrudgingly] allow that the bearing pulley is legal but only due to "APWR" and certianly not the intent of the rule. but I also see a lot of cars with the same drivetrains, rated at the same power, some with and some without PS depending on trim, body style, etc.. and we all know that removing PS on some cars will mean gains and some it will not. which means otherwise identical cars are at a disadvantage, and that some cars currently well balanced in their class could become unbalanced and that's really hard to predict with all of the classifications in the ITCS.

I want to see letters with evidence of the power change. I want member input from a gut level. I want to hear from the people who view it as superfluous and those who want it to stay as part of the limited modification philosophy of IT. then I thinkwe should vote on it. I need convincing, otherwise I vote to leave it as is.

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 01:33 PM

Great post -- glad you are on the committee.

lateapex911

08-16-2011, 02:57 PM

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

GA

Well, you're interpreting intent. :018:

The allowance states nothing along those line. Altering diameter could increase speeds as well.

It allows any material, not any materialS, so it COULD be argued that a bearing design would be illegal if it used more than one material.

We need a devils advocate smiley.

Knestis

08-16-2011, 03:20 PM

It strikes me that we could head off the power steering disable workaround by changing "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function" to reflect the IIDSYCYC assumption - "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a function not otherwise specifically allowed by these rules."

We are not specifically PROHIBITED from compromising the functionality of the PS system, so a pulley design can do so. This would close that loophole - and others, like the engine mount idea that Andy shared.

K

Greg Amy

08-16-2011, 03:28 PM

Well, you're interpreting intent. :018:
No, I'm not. I'm simply telling you what the rule says. It's the responsibility of the person(s) writing the rules to worry about the intent and convey those limitations correctly.

Jeff's pulley with the bearing in the center meets all allowances and limitations of the rule*. If that's not what was intended then shame on the rulesmakers...so don't wave your finger at me if you assumed something that wasn't there.... :shrug:

GA

tderonne

08-16-2011, 05:29 PM

The power steering rule would be a tricky one. The Miata rule doesn't work. Miatas came with or without power steering. The rule as written for IT could open it up to aftermarket racing racks, no thanks.

I see two cases that would need to be covered:

The first, where an alternate OEM rack is available, but never came on the exact model classed. Like the Escort GT. All Escort GT's (and LXE's) came with power steering. The base Escort had power steering as an option. The base manual rack will swap right in.

The second, where there isn't an easily swapped in OEM rack. Don't know an exact car, but easy to think about. There is no manual rack to swap in. Looping the hoses would suit here. Hate to loop the hoses for case 1 though, when a proper rack is available.

Maybe the best way to handle it is on a spec line basis? No rules creep. No open door for the Widget SUX to gain 1500 HP. But a way to deal with getting rid of the system is cases where it's asked for?

Hoof Hearted

08-16-2011, 05:46 PM

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU... :shrug:

GA
2.0L GTI turbo motor in my 1984 Scirocco... ...hmmmmm, interesting.

Ron Earp

08-16-2011, 06:20 PM

but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now.

Alright, let me try. What years from Ford can I use?

Hell, I think you should use whatever motor you like and forget the "from the same manufacturer" rule, but I'm sure I'm a minority.

JeffYoung

08-16-2011, 06:28 PM

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

Alright, let me try. What years from Ford can I use?

Hell, I think you should use whatever motor you like and forget the "from the same manufacturer" rule, but I'm sure I'm a minority.

Ron Earp

08-16-2011, 06:39 PM

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

No Slopars in the Rustang.

Andy Bettencourt

08-16-2011, 08:32 PM

lateapex911

08-16-2011, 09:06 PM

Just doing what we need to to write a rule that is less prone to unintended outcomes.

This one is much closer.

Why non metallic? Do we really care? Lots of mounts already have metal in them, so this would effectively make certain stock ones verboten?

I don't see the "use the engine as a stressed member" fears that I hear is an issue behind closed doors (phone lines)
Hey, if they want to break the engine, by all means, have at it...:)

mustanghammer

08-16-2011, 09:07 PM

Once convinced of that, I took the primary position of "think of the very best engine you can, one with the highest power-to-displacement, and put it into the very best chassis you can think of". My standard for the chassis was the Mazda Miata, and I tried to think of the very best "family" engine you could install into it, even using FoMoCo products as an extreme potential intorturation. Granted, I can't think of all possibilities ("crowd sourcing" will take care of that soon enough) but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now. GA

This reasoning seems to assume that a Ford engine will ever be as good as a Mazda engine so it would be "safe" to allow Ford-Mazda swaps because no one would every do that. That may very well be true but who in the SCCA is qulaified to predict the future?

The Porsche/VW relationship is interesting and I can see the logic behind why it was allowed based on corporate ownership, some shared plateforms and engines. But this does open the need for a rule that defines what a corporate family relationship is with respect to engine swaps.

One of the variables that will need to be addressed is what happens when a corporate relationship is ended? For example Ford used to own Jaguar and Volvo. It was a realtionship that is similar to the one that VW/Porsche has with shared engines, platforms, etc. But what about the fact that this relationship has ended? Would engine swaps only be allowed with chassis and engine combinations that existed when these three companies were together? What happens to swap allowances if VW sells off its interests to Porsche?

Another area of concern that can not be addressed by rule changes is Manufacturer involvement in the ST catagory. If the ST rule set further blurrs the lines between the various manufacturers how can we expect them to support us? Why would Mazda continue to offer me support for my RX7 when it has a Ford engine in it?

As I said I can see the logic but at this point I don't agree with the direction that this will take the ST catagory in.

titanium

08-16-2011, 11:54 PM

red986s

08-17-2011, 12:06 AM

Ferrari engine in a Fiat or Alfa!

JeffYoung

08-17-2011, 12:13 AM

Lambo V-12 in a Dodge Shadow!

Z3_GoCar

08-17-2011, 01:38 AM

You just want to put a real engine - Mopar -- in the Stripperstang. Admit it!

You know the proper motor to put in a Ford is a SB Chevy :D

Z3_GoCar

08-17-2011, 02:05 AM

Why non metallic? Do we really care? Lots of mounts already have metal in them, so this would effectively make certain stock ones verboten?

I don't see the "use the engine as a stressed member" fears that I hear is an issue behind closed doors (phone lines)
Hey, if they want to break the engine, by all means, have at it...:)

I decided to go with Vorshlag motor and transmission mounts, they're all through bolt design with some nonmetal in compression. The motor mounts are solid nylon with the hardness of a bolling ball and the transmission mounts are shore 95a.

My tabled letter didn't deal with metal or nonmetal, just replace the oem mounts and not change the location, position, or orentation. They should be confined to the oe position. I submitted it not to be accepted exactly on at face value, but to kick start the discussion, and get something close to it.

From my letter #4636:
I am writing to request that allow aftermarket motor, transmission, or transaxle mounts to replace fragile oem mounts be allowed in Improved Touring. These replacement mounts are to be located in the orginal location and shall not alter the location, position, or orientation of the motor, transmission, or transaxle.

Ron Earp

08-17-2011, 07:39 AM

With the Ford ownership of all the different brands from 1996-2006, you can come up with a whole lot of combinations.
Here are some I came up with:
STU:
Turbo Volvo 5 cylinder in a Miata.
STO:
Aston Martin Vanquish V8 in a Mustang.

And some of these were exactly where I was going once Greg let me know the year range. And there are engines within Ford itself that can be extremely potent. MM&FF covered a nice aluminum DOHC V8 swap into a Focus some years back....

Unlike IT this class is for "RACE CARS". Since they are RACE CARS, and the class has displacement/compression/cam/induction rules then it seems that it'd be great to allow one to put whatever engine that met the rules into the car without worrying about who made it.

Matt93SE

08-17-2011, 08:17 AM

Since they are RACE CARS, and the class has displacement/compression/cam/induction rules then it seems that it'd be great to allow one to put whatever engine that met the rules into the car without worrying about who made it or what country they were sold in.

fixed. :dead_horse:

Greg Amy

08-17-2011, 08:30 AM

Ron, STx are 1985 or later.

STU: Turbo Volvo 5 cylinder in a Miata.
STO: Aston Martin Vanquish V8 in a Mustang.
Ferrari engine in a Fiat or Alfa!
Lambo V-12 in a Dodge Shadow!See, I LOVE THESE!!! Hey, if someone really wants to race a 3100-pound Miata with a 38mm TIR, or a 3300-pound Fiat, Alfa, or - God forbid - Dodge Shadow against the Vipers, Corvettes, supercharged Acura NSXs, and Ferraris, I say bring it on!!!! That's what this class is all about! 'Cause when it comes down to it, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find a better combo than the factory provided...

But if you're turned on by the above combos...do it!

GA

tderonne

08-17-2011, 08:53 AM

I worked on the modular Focus. Drove it a lot. It was a 3700 pound car. Just like a Mustang that we took the driveline from. It worked better in a Mustang.

On the other hand, an LS powered Solstice.....

Greg Amy

08-17-2011, 10:55 AM

On the other hand, an LS powered Solstice.....
We'd classify that in STO in a "heartbeat"...har-de-har...

Matt93SE

08-17-2011, 10:57 AM

On the other hand, an LS powered Solstice.....

How much tire can you stick under a Solstice? that sounds like fun. for about 5 laps.

Andy Bettencourt

08-17-2011, 11:00 AM

How much tire can you stick under a Solstice? that sounds like fun. for about 5 laps.

A LOT of tire.

lawtonglenn

08-17-2011, 12:46 PM

would this be STU or STO?

mossaidis

08-17-2011, 01:20 PM

2.0L GTI turbo motor in my 1984 Scirocco... ...hmmmmm, interesting.

Already done! :) Talk to Tom Hansen...

Chip42

08-17-2011, 02:11 PM

would this be STU or STO?

STO. gonna be hell with that little TIR though...:p

rcc85

08-17-2011, 04:14 PM

How about a Buick V8 in a Triumph? :D

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

Andy Bettencourt

08-17-2011, 06:29 PM

How about a Buick V8 in a Triumph? :D

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

That's a dumb as a Ford V8 in a Sunbeam.

Rud

08-17-2011, 06:55 PM

The power steering rule would be a tricky one. The Miata rule doesn't work. Miatas came with or without power steering.

The advantage for Miatas (NAs, at least) is that the PS rack is quicker than the stock manual rack. By depowering the PS rack, you lose the parasitic drag and weight of the PS components and get to keep the faster steering.

JeffYoung

08-17-2011, 07:07 PM

That was sold in the US by Chrysler....

That's a dumb as a Ford V8 in a Sunbeam.

Andy Bettencourt

08-17-2011, 07:18 PM

That was sold in the US by Chrysler....

...and had lighting by Lucas... OYE!

tderonne

08-17-2011, 08:01 PM

...and had lighting by Lucas... OYE!

"lighting"?

The dim, flicker, and off punchline comes to mind.

quadzjr

08-17-2011, 09:03 PM

all these crazy combinations and yet still no non-USDM motor allowed...

Greg Amy

08-17-2011, 09:08 PM

all these crazy combinations and yet still no non-USDM motor allowed...
What response did you get when you wrote to the CRB and to your BoD rep to express your displeasure with that ruling? Could you send me a copy of that response?

Greg

Z3_GoCar

08-17-2011, 10:02 PM

...and had lighting by Lucas... OYE!

Ah yes, that would be:

Lucus, [Devil voice] the prince of darkness.... [/Devil voice]

Chip42

08-17-2011, 10:38 PM

The advantage for Miatas (NAs, at least) is that the PS rack is quicker than the stock manual rack. By depowering the PS rack, you lose the parasitic drag and weight of the PS components and get to keep the faster steering.

While that is true of most power steering racks vs. their manual counterparts, the question I have is "so?"

really - does it matter? is there REALLY an inherent advantage to faster steering? I'm sure some manual racks have so much mechanical advantage as to be a chore to use on the track, but I've never heard anyone complain about it on a miata or otherwise. hell, some people see power steering as having an advantage over manual in the first place, and would argue that removing it does nothing but slow you down from fatigue.

Chip42

08-17-2011, 10:41 PM

What response did you get when you wrote to the CRB and to your BoD rep to express your displeasure with that ruling? Could you send me a copy of that response?

Greg

Steve and I have the same BoD rep, Robin Langlotz, who seemed to think it was a CRB issue but was supportive of per-engine allowance when we discussed it with him. he also voted against all this SFI HNR nonsense. we're happy with him :happy204:

Matt93SE

08-17-2011, 10:47 PM

What response did you get when you wrote to the CRB and to your BoD rep to express your displeasure with that ruling? Could you send me a copy of that response?

Greg

I bet it said:
"Thank you for your input."
:rolleyes:

JLawton

08-18-2011, 07:16 AM

really - does it matter? is there REALLY an inherent advantage to faster steering? I'm sure some manual racks have so much mechanical advantage as to be a chore to use on the track, but I've never heard anyone complain about it on a miata or otherwise. hell, some people see power steering as having an advantage over manual in the first place, and would argue that removing it does nothing but slow you down from fatigue.

I have tried power and manual, quicker and slower racks and would take quick powersteering rack ANY day!! I felt I could react faster when the back end stepped out. Although I have found that with the manual rack I use less multiple steering inputs (less sawing). My problem was I was blowing up powersteering pumps and throwing the accessory belt.

but that's just me. :)

Chip42

08-18-2011, 10:03 AM

I have tried power and manual, quicker and slower racks and would take quick powersteering rack ANY day!!
thanks Jeff, that's the kind of feedback I'm looking for!

Knestis

08-18-2011, 10:12 AM

I kind of chuckle at the whole power steering thing. I ultimately believe that for most racers it's about "what race cars are supposed to be." Kind of like those that go to the trouble to replace the stock key with a push-button starter.

I do *NOT* think that the benefit/risk math makes an additional allowance a good idea but I'm trying hard to stay on the wagon re: my anti-creep campaigning.

Frankly, I hope that when - not if, since it's only a matter of time until this next tree falls - people can disable their power steering, a lot of them will so I'll continue to have the advantage of keeping it.

K

JeffYoung

08-18-2011, 10:16 AM

I am ambivalent about this one.

To me, it's a bit like coil overs. When we didn't allow threaded body shocks, we all went to the trouble of the trick perches, etc. to get "around" the rule the "hard" way.

Here, there are at least two "hard ways" to get around the 'no looping racks' rule.

A lot of fast guys on this thread have acknowledged looking at the bearing idea and concluding it is legal.

It's also interesting to me that most have left the power steering on, which also confirm something I had thought and that is it may actually be an advantage from a comfort/not wear the driver out standpoint.

Bottom line for me is I think the tree is already down, so not a big deal other than I just hate adding more rules to the rulebook.

Greg Amy

08-18-2011, 10:24 AM

I removed the P/S on the Integra (STL) because I needed to lose 25-30# and I wanted the space on that side of the engine to route oil cooler lines. Engine output difference is minimal. But I certainly enjoyed my power steering...you need some good arms to drive it without. For enduros I'd prefer p/s. One additional benefit is that I, like Jeff, tended to over-turn into corners. Removal of the p/s helped with that, as I can better feel what the front tires are doing.

Given the option in IT I'd consider removal, but I didn't find a significant performance advantage to it.

Ron Earp

08-18-2011, 10:39 AM

On some cars there isn't much weight in the PS system.

For point of reference the entire pump, lines, and pulley on the Rustang weigh in at 8.1 lbs. The pulley is plastic, the pump is cast aluminum with plastic reservoirs, and the lines are around one foot long for each one. The mount for the pulley is cast in with the alternator mount, so nothing I can do there, but that entire assembly is aluminum too and only 4.5 lbs.

At best I could see only ditching about 9.5 lbs - the pump/lines, plus 1/2 the bracket. Rustangs had no manual rack options so I have no savings in rack weight.

Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?

Greg Amy

08-18-2011, 10:42 AM

Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?
For some reason, Honda - the paragon of automotive engineering - uses huge cast-iron brackets for all external accessories. It's silly. Of the ~25-30# lost fully half of that was brackets, the rest being pump and hoses.

Still using the p/s rack, looped.

GA

chuck baader

08-18-2011, 11:18 AM

If I looped the hoses on my car and removed the PS pump, I might loose 5#....however, I would loose the PS pump being 3/4" away from the radiator and a certain wash down of the track if the motor mounts fail. Chuck

Robbie

08-18-2011, 12:35 PM

I drive a 924S with a depowered rack. I've never had any issues with fatigue. The effort is light at racing speeds. Plus I don't have to put as much input into the wheel to make the car do what I want. I've also never had a problem catching a rotating car without power steering.

GTIspirit

08-18-2011, 12:38 PM

Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?

On my VW Golf 2, I would estimate the power steering pump and pulley is a good 10lbs, plus the lines that run all the way from the right side of the engine across the front of the car and around the left side of the engine bay to the power steering rack. For sure it would be a significant weight savings to help get the car down to min weight. But the functional tradeoff, more steering effort=more fatigue, is questionable. To me it's less of a functional issue and more of a weight savings, simplification opportunity. One less moving part (no rotating pulley and P/S shaft bearing), one less set of lines that could potentially rupture and spew oil on the track, more space/less clutter in the engine compartment. I will submit a letter on this issue as I appreciate the request for member feedback and submitting a letter is a good way to say thanks for asking for member feedback, even if it doesn't go the way I want it, I appreciate the consideration.

Chip42

08-18-2011, 01:06 PM

I kind of chuckle at the whole power steering thing. I ultimately believe that for most racers it's about "what race cars are supposed to be." Kind of like those that go to the trouble to replace the stock key with a push-button starter.
K
I tend to agree - but F1 has power steering, ACO/FIA/ALMS and grandam too. ACO/ALMS has air conditioning. those are real racecars, no doubt.

I think people just want a system that's not "necessary" and a potential power sap (minimal, and further able to be minimized using the pulley rule even without the bearings) to be out of the car, simplifying and cleaning up the engine bay.

and layoff the pushbutton startes, and sometimes ignition switches break ;)

joeg

08-18-2011, 02:03 PM

Don't forget the PS Fluid in the weight loss calculation.

Can be significant.

tderonne

08-18-2011, 02:05 PM

The Escort came to us with the lines looped. I went to the trouble to find all the right pieces and put it all back on. It's been nothing but trouble. I put a lot of effort to get it to where it's at, as Ford/Mazda designed it, but it's still not quite up to track use. Where to go from here? Reservoir probably needs to be bigger, more cooling, belt alignment rechecked, perhaps a smaller pulley custom made. Cheaper (and easier) to grab a rack from a regular Escort, or loop the lines again.

But, given all the comments above, I'm leaning to a spec line allowance. "Manual rack from Escort (1.9 engine) allowed."

Ron Earp

08-18-2011, 02:16 PM

My impressions from this thread:

Lots of people loop lines and render the PS system ineffective.
Others put a roller bearing in the pulley and don't turn the pump thus rendering the PS system ineffective.
Seems most folks don't care to have the PS system functional.

Why don't we allow PS system removal? Admittedly, I'm going to try and keep mine and see how it works out, but I'd like the option to legally toss it if it is a pain in the ass.

JoshS

08-18-2011, 02:37 PM

Ron Earp

08-18-2011, 02:41 PM

Knestis

08-18-2011, 03:05 PM

On the other hand, we have inequity in the class now. Folks driving cars that have power and non-power rack options get to choose which one they feel is more advantageous. This is not a parameter that is figured in the IT classification process but in some instances can have an impact on performance. At least having a "deactivation" allowance would somewhat level the field.

But it's arguably a factor that one might - should? - consider when choosing a car. It's a slippery slope to start thinking we should "level" all aspects of the cars, not accounted for in the Process, by rules allowances.

Transmission ratios aren't considered in the specification process, and some cars (e.g., my Golf) have alternate sets available because of the vagaries of manufacturers' practices. Should we allow alternate ratios for all...?

Seems like "no," and PS is different only by a matter of degree.

And safety, service, and costs arguments gain zero traction with me. They can be invoked for ANY desired new allowance.

K

DavidM

08-18-2011, 03:10 PM

Ron Earp

08-18-2011, 03:58 PM

But it's arguably a factor that one might - should? - consider when choosing a car. It's a slippery slope to start thinking we should "level" all aspects of the cars, not accounted for in the Process, by rules allowances.

Transmission ratios aren't considered in the specification process, and some cars (e.g., my Golf) have alternate sets available because of the vagaries of manufacturers' practices. Should we allow alternate ratios for all...?

Seems like "no," and PS is different only by a matter of degree.

And safety, service, and costs arguments gain zero traction with me. They can be invoked for ANY desired new allowance.

K

I can't fault your line of thinking at all. The only thought I might add is that PS is certainly much less of a performance factor than gear ratios.

If folks are comfortable with the work around solutions for those that don't want to use PS then I'm okay with them too. There are so many innovative and interesting ways to deactivate the PS pump.

Matt93SE

08-18-2011, 06:17 PM

I like my power steering. What I don't like is all the damn leaks and crappy pumps that come with a Nissan power steering system. I'd probably try looping the rack to see how it felt just to make my engine bay and garage floor look better.

Just to piss you off, I looped the lines on my S14 and have been a happy camper since. the PS system broke on my twice in two track days. I finally gave up, looped the lines, and found a shorter belt at the parts store that went directly from the crank to water pump. done. steering blew up on lap 1 on a DE day at 9am. I was back up and running by 11:30.

Good thing it's legal for STU. :)

oh.. ummm, I have a larger aluminum pulley for a KA-E if you need one. a Prod racer friend gave me a couple of them. they're for a V belt instead of a grooved one, so I couldn't use them on my car. if you want to try one to slow the pump down and hopefully not blow them to bits so often, I can shoot one your way.

jumbojimbo

08-18-2011, 06:42 PM

Register me as against the idea, I submitted my letter.

1) It would make people test multiple configurations that most don't have to test right now -- expensive
2) It's clearly rules creep
3) People exploiting a gray area (alternate fake pulleys) is not excuse for creep. Close down the gray area instead.

Not true. Does not MAKE anyone test. I could argue that it is much more expensive to build an entire car (see car choice arguement) than it is to test ps.

What? No one would do tht? I would say the same about ps. People are already testing should they do a workaround if thhey care. So far even in this overinvolved group the most you are getting is half hearted anecdotal 'testing'

This is an example of writing the rules to suit/control an imaginary 1% of people who build to 10/10th witnin the rules. Unintended consequences cuts both ways.
U

Knestis

08-18-2011, 07:57 PM

...but something we learned very quickly spending any time on the ITAC - all rules have to be written understanding that SOMEONE will be that 10/10ths person, and that establishes the most extreme potential application of any given rule.

Too many of the problems we've run into in the past 10 years in IT have been grounded in assumptions about what "sensible people" will do. That isn't what pushes the state of the art.

K

jjjanos

08-19-2011, 09:50 AM

Too many of the problems we've run into in the past 10 years in IT have been grounded in assumptions about what "sensible people" will do. That isn't what pushes the state of the art.

What he said. Nobody will do it and then think logarithmic growth from that point until everyone does it.

pfcs

08-19-2011, 10:38 AM

says rules creep will kill the soul of a class.

More and more, classified cars will only come with power steering.
If it's a hydraulic system, under-drive the pump (w/allowed pulley) and enjoy! This is an entry-level class with limited modifications.
(if it's a VW w/electric, you can change the assist by going into data blocks w/VAG)
Power steering is a good thing.
What's simplest works best.
Be aware of your breathing.
Feel the weight of your body on the chair.
Relax. Find your center.
Now....... let's go racing and forget these foolish distractions.

Charlie Broring

08-19-2011, 12:11 PM

says rules creep will kill the soul of a class.

But Phil, rule creep is the natural way of things. We've been doing it that way for years. You can't stop it. Look at Production, GT, and SS. Even the Miata's are catching on.

Give in. Let it go. You'll feel better...with some new rules.

Russ Myers

08-19-2011, 01:26 PM

Yeah, look at the National Association for STOCK CAR Auto Racing. Stock, right?

Russ

lateapex911

08-20-2011, 02:51 AM

Cars change. We have things now that didn't exist in the days when IT was thought up. Rules have to adapt.

I get that we need to make allowances for changing technology.

In this case, I'm not sure we need a significant change. IT has always been a class of warts and all. Rabbits break hubs, but everyone doesn't get free hubs. Nissans break dist drive gears, but again, we don't allow the entire class to change to different dist drive gears. Some cars puke PS fluids, but it seems like the vast majority can resolve the issue within the current ruleset.

Andy Bettencourt

08-20-2011, 06:51 PM

Greg Amy

08-22-2011, 02:47 PM

Final:

September 2011 Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-sept.pdf)

Bill Miller

08-25-2011, 09:26 AM

Agreed 100 %. And I still think #3 is illegal.

That's pretty ironic Andy.

shwah

08-25-2011, 09:47 AM

Sounds like there are some different opinions on the PS disabling proposal.

If you have an opinion, share it with the ITAC via the CRB letter submission link at scca.com.

I sent mine in opposing the disabling of PS systems. I see this as more creep than anything, especially since allowances to slow (not stop - that is illegal) the PS pump and change the lines should address most issues with running a PS system.

Andy Bettencourt

08-25-2011, 12:28 PM

That's pretty ironic Andy.

It's actually not Bill. Changing the the functional design of two items there is no allowance for is simply NOT the same as adding a rubber hose to a 'free' part to make it work. One IS the Roffe rule and one isn't.

But there seems to be enough people who think that pulleys are 'free' to clarify the rule.

CRallo

08-25-2011, 02:52 PM

fixed. :dead_horse:

LOL :happy204:

What response did you get when you wrote to the CRB and to your BoD rep to express your displeasure with that ruling? Could you send me a copy of that response?

Greg

smart ass

On the other hand, we have inequity in the class now. Folks driving cars that have power and non-power rack options get to choose which one they feel is more advantageous. This is not a parameter that is figured in the IT classification process but in some instances can have an impact on performance. At least having a "deactivation" allowance would somewhat level the field.

I bet the factory hp number comes from a car that didn't have the optional P/S.

I like my power steering. What I don't like is all the damn leaks and crappy pumps that come with a Nissan power steering system. I'd probably try looping the rack to see how it felt just to make my engine bay and garage floor look better.

seriously

Bill Miller

08-26-2011, 12:08 AM

It's actually not Bill. Changing the the functional design of two items there is no allowance for is simply NOT the same as adding a rubber hose to a 'free' part to make it work. One IS the Roffe rule and one isn't.

But there seems to be enough people who think that pulleys are 'free' to clarify the rule.

We will continue to agree to disagree on that one Andy. There was never anything that said you could add a vacuum line to an ECU. That's pretty much the Roffe rule.

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 07:19 AM

There was never anything that said you could add a vacuum line to an ECU. That's pretty much the Roffe rule.

Exactly. ECU's are open. If the one you choose has an on-board MAP sensor, you can connect it. (Past rules without sensor limitations). But not sure why you feel the need to rehash. Pulleys are NOT free.

JeffYoung

08-26-2011, 07:46 AM

That's just wrong.

ANY pulley.

ANY.

Pulleys are NOT free.

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 08:06 AM

That's just wrong.

ANY pulley.

ANY.

LOL. Doesn't say that bro.

AND, I was thinking about this the other day...IF you freewheel your pulley based on this interpretation, what rule allows you to disconnect and loop the lines?

JeffYoung

08-26-2011, 08:08 AM

YOu don't need to loop the lines if you freewheel the pulley is my understanding.

Oh yeah, it doesn't say any. It says alternate. Which means the same thing. Forgot about that....

LOL. Doesn't say that bro.

AND, I was thinking about this the other day...IF you freewheel your pulley based on this interpretation, what rule allows you to disconnect and loop the lines?

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 08:21 AM

YOu don't need to loop the lines if you freewheel the pulley is my understanding.

Oh yeah, it doesn't say any. It says alternate. Which means the same thing. Forgot about that....

What would happen if the PS belt broke? In my experience, cars don't turn because the fluid is still trying to go through the rack and the PS pump but since the pump isn't working, you have no smooth flow. Right? In order to have this work, you actually have to bypass the pump, no?

Alternate DOES mean the same thing, except when it's suceeded with 2 clarifications. 'An alternate pulley of different material and diameter'. Nothing else. :) You don't add 2 qualifications if you meant for it to be anything more.

Greg Amy

08-26-2011, 08:51 AM

Recommended rewording for the power steering pulley rule:

Manual or power steering racks may be used. Power steering racks may be converted to manual by removing all power steering components.

GA

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 08:59 AM

Recommended rewording for the power steering pulley rule:

GA

The reason I don't like this Greg is that to me, it opens it up to ANY rack. Then I get a custom manual rack made with custom ratios.

Greg Amy

08-26-2011, 08:59 AM

The reason I don't like this Greg is that to me, it opens it up to ANY rack. Then I get a custom manual rack made with custom ratios.
So what?

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 09:18 AM

So what?

If we are talking IT, no freaking way. If we are talking ST, do whatever you want!

Greg Amy

08-26-2011, 09:37 AM

If we are talking IT, no freaking way. If we are talking ST, do whatever you want!
That's the SM rule, where "tech shed legal" reigns. Has it ever happened?

But, yer missin' the point: whether you agree about the PS pulley rule or not, change the whole basis around it and all the belly-achin' goes away. Wasting time trying to close a loophole on a pretty-much-insignificant part (there are SO many other ways to get around it for less effort) is just pissin' in the wind.

Andy, you're in more dire need of a good sprint race than any white man in history... ;) Go snag a Flatout Miata and have some fun at NHMS in a couple weeks!

GA

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 09:41 AM

That's the SM rule, where "tech shed legal" reigns. Has it ever happened?

But, yer missin' the point: whether you agree about the PS pulley rule or not, change the whole basis around it and all the belly-achin' goes away. Wasting time trying to close a loophole on a pretty-much-insignificant part (there are SO many other ways to get around it for less effort) is just pissin' in the wind.

Andy, you're in more dire need of a good sprint race than any white man in history... ;) Go snag a Flatout Miata and have some fun at NHMS in a couple weeks!

GA

So you would rather open up steering racks to 'free' than de-gray a pulley rule? You are spending too much time on ST con-calls! :D

And yes, a race would be nice. Just not into spending the money anymore. Sept 10-11 at NHMS in the S2000 is a soft 'maybe'.

Greg Amy

08-26-2011, 09:54 AM

So you would rather open up steering racks to 'free' than de-gray a pulley rule?
Nooooooo....you remember YOU were the one that intorturated that Spec Miata rule, not me. I hadn't even thought of it (or would even consider doing it. Absolutely NO advantage in it, especially given you can't change the tie rods or steering column to do it. Thus the "so what?") I want to get rid of the whole P/S issue entirely, and easily.

Go race.

StephenB

08-26-2011, 10:20 AM

And yes, a race would be nice. Just not into spending the money anymore. Sept 10-11 at NHMS in the S2000 is a soft 'maybe'.

Do IT! I am all alone right now :(

Stephen

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 10:52 AM

Nooooooo....you remember YOU were the one that intorturated that Spec Miata rule, not me. I hadn't even thought of it (or would even consider doing it. Absolutely NO advantage in it, especially given you can't change the tie rods or steering column to do it. Thus the "so what?") I want to get rid of the whole P/S issue entirely, and easily.

Go race.

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about on a Spec Miata rule. I think you are getting me confused with someone else. I don't even know what you meant in your post about 'tech-shed' legal and what it pertained to?

Greg Amy

08-26-2011, 12:12 PM

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about on a Spec Miata rule.
The power steering rule above that you didn't like, the one that you said opened it up to "any" rack, is a copy-paste, verbatim from the Spec Miata regs... - GA

Eagle7

08-26-2011, 12:45 PM

Exactly. ECU's are open. If the one you choose has an on-board MAP sensor, you can connect it. (Past rules without sensor limitations). But not sure why you feel the need to rehash. Pulleys are NOT free.
I think Bill was referring to the era when ECUs were only free within the confines of the OEM ECU enclosure. You could connect to any sensor on that ECU that you want, as long as you did it wholly within the enclosure.

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 12:48 PM

I think Bill was referring to the era when ECUs were only free within the confines of the OEM ECU enclosure. You could connect to any sensor on that ECU that you want, as long as you did it wholly within the enclosure.

So do you see a difference between a vacuum line and an electrical connection provided the case was not modified? I didn't. Hence the debate.

Andy Bettencourt

08-26-2011, 12:52 PM

The power steering rule above that you didn't like, the one that you said opened it up to "any" rack, is a copy-paste, verbatim from the Spec Miata regs... - GA

It opened it up - in Improved Touring - if you used those words exactly. The words have obvious meaning when sitting inside the SM ruleset given the rules and published intent of that class.

My point was that you CAN'T use those words because they mean something different when you use them in IT. I never applied the rule to SM in this thread.

Eagle7

08-26-2011, 10:13 PM

So do you see a difference between a vacuum line and an electrical connection provided the case was not modified? I didn't. Hence the debate.
Nope. Don't think you could bring extra wires inside the case either. But I'm not interested in debating. It's ancient history now.

jumbojimbo

08-27-2011, 12:24 AM

"ITC
1. #5398 (Jeff Janoska) Please reweight 84-86 CRX in accordance with The Process
We will be evaluating ITC as a whole in the near future."

Oh fudge.

Knestis

08-27-2011, 08:06 AM

"ITC
1. #5398 (Jeff Janoska) Please reweight 84-86 CRX in accordance with The Process
We will be evaluating ITC as a whole in the near future."

Oh fudge.

It's in line right after ITB, I hope.

K

CRallo

08-27-2011, 04:23 PM

What would happen if the PS belt broke? In my experience, cars don't turn because the fluid is still trying to go through the rack and the PS pump but since the pump isn't working, you have no smooth flow. Right? In order to have this work, you actually have to bypass the pump, no?

Alternate DOES mean the same thing, except when it's suceeded with 2 clarifications. 'An alternate pulley of different material and diameter'. Nothing else. :) You don't add 2 qualifications if you meant for it to be anything more.

You are paraphrasing...

If we are talking IT, no freaking way. If we are talking ST, do whatever you want! Only if the allow JDM engines Yo! :dead_horse:

Andy Bettencourt

08-28-2011, 11:53 AM

You are paraphrasing...

Not THAT much...:)

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crank-shaft pulleys of any diameter and material may be used".

CRallo

08-28-2011, 12:53 PM

I just read the ITCS again... My bad, I thought that line was two sentences :/

I also compared the wording of that rule to others regarding things that are "open" such as exhaust, differential, FD gear, radiator, etc. The wording of these other rules is very different. I'm going to have to side with Andy on this one.

unless the pulley is made of air... :D However, it appears as though you'd have to figure out a way to still use the stock length accessory belt. LOL

speaking of accessory belt lengths... I didn't see a rule regarding removing the A/C system. What if your car wasn't offered w/o A/C?

JS154

08-28-2011, 02:23 PM

Of interest - under "What do you think?"

"Member input is requested on whether an allowance should be made to permit disabling power steering assistance on IT cars, including allowing the fluid lines to be looped if desired."

This makes sense to me. Having had a power steering belt go on the track, and in the process take out the alt/water pump belt at the same time, this is worthwhile for reliability. (E30 BMW) Also ditching the power steering is one less thing to leak fluids on the track.

Ron Earp

08-28-2011, 08:23 PM

Who do we write with respect to the IT-poll on Power Steering? I'm on the SCCA site looking at the committees but I swear I could remember a letter tracking system, I just can't find it.

CRallo

08-28-2011, 09:06 PM

http://www.crbscca.com

I believe that covers all issues and that letters are forwarded as needed by the system.

jjjanos

08-29-2011, 12:55 AM

It's in line right after ITB, I hope.

K

One would hope that rather than bringing ITC in line with The Process, The Process will be brought in line with ITC.

If it's fixing the formula, then there is a reason to wait. If it's not that, then no weight.

lateapex911

08-29-2011, 01:18 AM

speaking of accessory belt lengths... I didn't see a rule regarding removing the A/C system. What if your car wasn't offered w/o A/C?
9.1.3.D.3.e

Took me 38 seconds Rallo!
:shrug::)

JLawton

08-29-2011, 07:27 AM

When I look at debates like the PS pulley and there is a question of doing something funky (like a pulley that free wheels on the pump) I look at the "intent" of the rule. I don't think the intent of the rules is to come up with a way around the situation. I agree with Andy. Not legal.

Not that I would give a sh*t if I had seen someone do it............

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 08:36 AM

Thanks, letter 6008 sent. Basically in support of deactivation of the PS system or removal of the pump and lines.

Ooops, looks like I sent 6007 too, the same letter. My browser came back with a 404 so I figured the letter didn't make it and re-sent it.

Andy Bettencourt

08-29-2011, 08:38 AM

Thanks, letter 6008 sent. Basically in support of deactivation of the PS system or removal of the pump and lines.

6006 sent. No support for rule creep. ;)

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 08:43 AM

6006 sent. No support for rule creep. ;)

Boy, I sure hope I get the IT I want....:)

Knestis

08-29-2011, 09:12 AM

Boy, I sure hope I get the IT I want....:)

You may get the IT that the masses want.

:blink:

K

CRallo

08-29-2011, 09:13 AM

9.1.3.D.3.e

Took me 38 seconds Rallo!
:shrug::)

oh... Silly me for thinking that wouldn't be under engine cooling! Still... no allowance for using a shorter accessory drive belt. If we are going to strictly interpret the rules, than we need to at least be consistant!

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 09:30 AM

You may get the IT that the masses want.

:blink:

K

Is that the unwashed masses or just masses?

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 09:51 AM

What about me? I was fairly unwashed yesterday. Washed today.

Andy Bettencourt

08-29-2011, 09:59 AM

Still... no allowance for using a shorter accessory drive belt.

So, TO ME, this falls under the 'if it says you can, then you bloody well can' theory. If it is specifically allowed to use a pully of alternate diameter, then you can OBVIOUSLY use (out of neccessity) a different belt.

Greg Amy

08-29-2011, 10:03 AM

...If it is specifically allowed to use a pully of alternate diameter, then you can OBVIOUSLY use (out of neccessity) a different belt.
...but, are you REQUIRED to? "Can" I run a smaller pulley, then not change the belt...?

;)

CRallo

08-29-2011, 10:07 AM

...but, are you REQUIRED to? "Can" I run a smaller pulley, then not change the belt...?

;)

I like it! :D and I could do it on my car... two drive belts!

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 10:17 AM

How about a 12 month moratorium on any rules changes?

I'm about 50% serious. Would allow the rules to settle some, and would also allow us to focus on the ITB and ITC "issues."

tom91ita

08-29-2011, 11:06 AM

...but, are you REQUIRED to? "Can" I run a smaller pulley, then not change the belt...?

;)

we can use alternate size belts since it is implied because we can use larger pulleys.

i was envisioning using a very tiny pulley and having the belt not contact it. would not always work but for some cars, you could "miss" the pulley.....

Knestis

08-29-2011, 12:21 PM

How about a 12 month moratorium on any rules changes?

I'm about 50% serious. Would allow the rules to settle some, and would also allow us to focus on the ITB and ITC "issues."

Whether to recommend a change is up to the ITAC. A moratorium on changes makes as much sense as artificial budget caps and deficit ceilings when spending can be controlled in the first place by the decisions made by the body charged with doing so.

The ITAC should have deliberated the PS issue, come to a decision, and given this an "up or down" recommendation to the CRB, rather than putting it out for comment. Deferring this to the membership will get a (uneven) view of individuals' interests that may or may not be in line with the greater interest of the category. And if it's too evenly split among ITAC members - change or don't change - that's a powerful argument for leaving it alone. There should ALWAYS be a truly compelling reason to mess with the ITCS knowing the power of unintended consequences and creep.

If we wanted an initiative vote process for rule changes, I figure we'd have one. And kicking the decision on this down the road is *not* going to make it a less time-consuming deal for the Committee - quite the opposite, in fact.

K

Knestis

08-29-2011, 12:26 PM

we can use alternate size belts since it is implied because we can use larger pulleys.

i was envisioning using a very tiny pulley and having the belt not contact it. would not always work but for some cars, you could "miss" the pulley.....

Sorry, but crap like this is really tiresome.

Paddock lawyer (sorry, Jeff) wordplay games are not good for the collective health of the category. There is no provision in the rules to render the functionality of the PS pump ineffective.

And caving to those word games by throwing up our arms and letting in new allowances is equally detrimental.

K

chuck baader

08-29-2011, 12:37 PM

In my life, when all the facts are known as they are now, procrastination has not been a reasonable method of decision making. Chuck

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 02:02 PM

Disagree (respectfully). Beating a dead horse, but to me this is a non-core IT issue. Member asked for it, we debated it, and wanted to know what membership thought about it. I am very comfortable with this side of things and do think member input (even as flawed as it may be) is better than no member input at all.

Whether to recommend a change is up to the ITAC. A moratorium on changes makes as much sense as artificial budget caps and deficit ceilings when spending can be controlled in the first place by the decisions made by the body charged with doing so.

The ITAC should have deliberated the PS issue, come to a decision, and given this an "up or down" recommendation to the CRB, rather than putting it out for comment. Deferring this to the membership will get a (uneven) view of individuals' interests that may or may not be in line with the greater interest of the category. And if it's too evenly split among ITAC members - change or don't change - that's a powerful argument for leaving it alone. There should ALWAYS be a truly compelling reason to mess with the ITCS knowing the power of unintended consequences and creep.

If we wanted an initiative vote process for rule changes, I figure we'd have one. And kicking the decision on this down the road is *not* going to make it a less time-consuming deal for the Committee - quite the opposite, in fact.

K

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 02:03 PM

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

Sorry, but crap like this is really tiresome.

Paddock lawyer (sorry, Jeff) wordplay games are not good for the collective health of the category. There is no provision in the rules to render the functionality of the PS pump ineffective.

And caving to those word games by throwing up our arms and letting in new allowances is equally detrimental.

K

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 02:49 PM

How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.

For sure I'll be looping lines or just taking the damn thing off completely if that happens. There are no rules allowing coolers or larger reservoirs, so either I cheat by adding those items, or cheat by taking the PS system off. Either way I'm cheating.

Maybe I'll see no issues whatsoever and my discussion is mote.

Andy Bettencourt

08-29-2011, 02:56 PM

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

First, no you don't. Focus on the category and the rule you want for it and move forward.

Second, 'free-wheeling pulley' believer or not, there is NO provision to render that unit non-functional. NONE.

Knestis

08-29-2011, 04:41 PM

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

1. Come to consensus within the ITAC about what course of action - absent any monkeying around by racers - is best for the category. Don't do what you think you have to do to accommodate clever cheaters, or what you (or the squeaky wheels) individually want; do what you think is right for EVERYONE.

2. Look carefully at the pertinent rule and see if it can be fine-tuned - hopefully by saying LESS rather than MORE - to make the words more consistent with your intent. Apply such changes judiciously, knowing that you are as likely to make it worse as you are to make it better.

3. Don't be shy about sharing your intent, in public forums like this and elsewhere - perhaps including amicus briefs re: current interpretations of intent should a protest be filed...? It would be a powerful statement if the ITAC issued the opinion that freewheeling pulleys, while admittedly clever, render an otherwise stock functionality NONFUNCTIONAL, so are therefor not legal.

4. Let the protest and appeals process do its job.

5. Move on to addressing ITB and ITC class balance and structure issues.

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.

K

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 04:59 PM

I agree with a lot of that, other than I think this clever idea is legal.

And from this thread people are doing it.

I personally am torn. I see this as no different than splitters, or the old "fix" for coil overs or the ECU rule. Yes, it results in creep, but we got to this point because of a poorly worded rule before AND closing the loophole just punishes the clever.

Maybe we do that, I don't know. Need to think about it.

But I remain very strongly in favor of member input on things like this.

1. Come to consensus within the ITAC about what course of action - absent any monkeying around by racers - is best for the category. Don't do what you think you have to do to accommodate clever cheaters, or what you (or the squeaky wheels) individually want; do what you think is right for EVERYONE.

2. Look carefully at the pertinent rule and see if it can be fine-tuned - hopefully by saying LESS rather than MORE - to make the words more consistent with your intent. Apply such changes judiciously, knowing that you are as likely to make it worse as you are to make it better.

3. Don't be shy about sharing your intent, in public forums like this and elsewhere - perhaps including amicus briefs re: current interpretations of intent should a protest be filed...? It would be a powerful statement if the ITAC issued the opinion that freewheeling pulleys, while admittedly clever, render an otherwise stock functionality NONFUNCTIONAL, so are therefor not legal.

4. Let the protest and appeals process do its job.

5. Move on to addressing ITB and ITC class balance and structure issues.

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.

K

lateapex911

08-29-2011, 04:59 PM

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

Whoa! Hold it right there, pardner!

The rules allow it in YOUR opinion... but that's far from the he same thing as being legal.
As to the people doing it? Heck, we don't even know if THEY think it's legal! They might be saying that's what they think, but who knows what they really think...

The ONLY way we will know if it's legal is to have somebody with a set of balls protest it, and run it up the appeals process flagpole. THEN we have an answer.*

But, until that time, you can't base your argument, counselor, on the untrue cornerstone of 'It's already legal and we are just making it easier"...

Reminds me of the Ginsberg cold air protest on the Moser CRX.

lateapex911

08-29-2011, 05:09 PM

I see this as no different than splitters, Well, splitters are just a different shaped airdam. The rule has always allowed you to form a surface that doesn't extend in front of the outline of the car, and you've always been free to do that in any way you see fit. Roffes Corallary.

or the ECU rule.
ECUs have evolved over time and the rule needed to eveolve with them. It was not ANYwhere in my mind, when I proposed the latest ECU rule, that "It's legal and people are doing it anyway". I thought that the current rule allowing anything in the box was stupid, if we were going to allow "anything" we should allow "ANYTHING, LOL.

Yes, it results in creep, but we got to this point because of a poorly worded rule before AND closing the loophole just punishes the clever.
It only punishes them if what they are doing is illegal. The people doing it by the rules aren't punished. You've assumed the rules "line" is here, at the 30 yard mark, but others feel it's at the 20. Until we really know, I don't think your arguments can hold water.

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 05:12 PM

Sure, it would be possible to lose that protest. But I think the real intorturation is on the anti-side. Rule says "alternate pulley" of "any material or diameter." These things fit that definition.

The only reason I'm pushing that interpretation is because in my opinion if you don't accept it, you are throwing the "if it says you can, you can" language out the window just because you don't like this particular use of that rule.

Which is way I can just flatly state in 'deciding' what to do with Mark's request that this is illegal. I really don't think it is and I really think the clear language of the rule supports that position.

Whoa! Hold it right there, pardner!

The rules allow it in YOUR opinion... but that's far from the he same thing as being legal.
As to the people doing it? Heck, we don't even know if THEY think it's legal! They might be saying that's what they think, but who knows what they really think...

The ONLY way we will know if it's legal is to have somebody with a set of balls protest it, and run it up the appeals process flagpole. THEN we have an answer.*

But, until that time, you can't base your argument, counselor, on the untrue cornerstone of 'It's already legal and we are just making it easier"...

Reminds me of the Ginsberg cold air protest on the Moser CRX.

Matt Rowe

08-29-2011, 05:12 PM

I look at this from a simplistic point of view. What if you walked through the paddock and saw someone snipping the lines with bolt cutters and unbolting the pump and bracket on tossing it on the ground. Would you consider this illegal?

That answer satisfies the question of intent, everything else is just arguing over the language and how clever someone has to be either cheat or effect a legal change.

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 05:16 PM

Fixxored

Well, the bearing pulley is just a different shaped pulley. The rule has always allowed you to use different shaped pulleys, and you've always been free to use "alternate pulleys" Roffes Corallary.

Pulleys have evolved over time and the rule needed to eveolve with them.I thought that the current rule allowing alternate pulleys but strictly limiting changes to material and diamter was stupid, if we were going to allow "anything" we should allow "ANYTHING, LOL.

Greg Amy

08-29-2011, 05:16 PM

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.K

I agree with a lot of that, other than I think this clever idea is legal.

+1.

"People like me" are your own worst enemy - and you'll never win the battle - if you try and stop me from a letter-of-the-rules standpoint. Yet I'm completely impotent if you reject me from a philosophy and cultural standpoint.

GA

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 05:21 PM

Like I said, there is (to me) a philosophical problem in saying this is not legal. Intent? I agree that these types of pulleys are not part of the intent of the rule. Creep? Absolutley. Good for the class? Depends on your perspective.

The problem for me is that saying this is illegal rather than (a) deciding the downside of allowng it is small and allowing it or (b) taking the dangerous path of trying to outlaw means you are (in my opinion) rejecting the "it says you can" part of our rule set that allows innovation and creative thinking.

lateapex911

08-29-2011, 05:37 PM

Sure, it would be possible to lose that protest. But I think the real intorturation is on the anti-side. Rule says "alternate pulley" of "any material or diameter." These things fit that definition.
In your opinion. In MY opinion they most certainly do NOT.
(Because it allows a PULLEY, not tensioner, and it allows that pulley to be made of the material of your choice, not the materials and other parts of your choice. The WORD material has limits. It is not plural. Roffes corollary doesn't apply here.)

So, you are basing your case on the fact that is' legal. Reasonable men (I think you and I are reasonable!) differ.
Therefor your argument needs vetting before it can be accepted.

The only reason I'm pushing that interpretation is because in my opinion if you don't accept it, you are throwing the "if it says you can, you can" language out the window just because you don't like this particular use of that rule. Nope, I'm not. See above. The rule clearly has very specific limits. They are words and tenses and they have specific meaning. I really don't give two craps about this particular rule. I'm just reading the WORDS. Sometimes words give a lot, sometimes they don't.

Hey, I see the big picture, but, I don't think the premise of making changes based in incorrect* suppositions is proper.

It's incorrect not because it's illegal, it's incorrect because we don't KNOW what's legal and whats not...

Matt93SE

08-29-2011, 06:04 PM

My personal interpretation of the pulley rule means that you can replace a steel pulley for a different diameter aluminum pulley that slows (or speeds, if you prefer) the rotation of the pump.
I do not consider it to be a pulley that includes a bearing so it basically freewheels.

Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

JeffYoung

08-29-2011, 06:16 PM

Probably legal. Fluid is free.

And the line restrictor -- I don't see anyway that is not legal.

My personal interpretation of the pulley rule means that you can replace a steel pulley for a different diameter aluminum pulley that slows (or speeds, if you prefer) the rotation of the pump.
I do not consider it to be a pulley that includes a bearing so it basically freewheels.

Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 06:18 PM

Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

A large amount of interest in disabling these things.

I asked this earlier because I am seeking practical and real-world advice on how to deal with PS problems if I have them:

How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.
Are PS systems really a problem or not? If they are, then why don't we do something to alleviate the issues?

Knestis

08-29-2011, 06:28 PM

... Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

Let me use this as a "teachable moment" to model how we might operate.

No, Matt. Per 9.1.3.B INTENT, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed" (emphasis added).

The action of not filling the power steering system with fluid, per the manufacturers original design and specifications, disables the system as a whole and alters its functionality. Absent any specific allowance to realize that outcome, your proposed action is not in compliance with the INTENT described in the ITCS.

Done.

If someone wants to change the pulley, they can change the pulley - right up to the point where it disables a "component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle."

Again, I do think that a tweak to the AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS statement would give us another useful tool to prevent creep. I'd suggest that it might be more useful if it said something like...

"Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function or result in a change not otherwise specifically allowed by these rules."

K

Knestis

08-29-2011, 06:33 PM

A large amount of interest in disabling these things.

I asked this earlier because I am seeking practical and real-world advice on how to deal with PS problems if I have them:

How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.
Are PS systems really a problem or not? If they are, then why don't we do something to alleviate the issues?

I personally believe that anyone who can't (a) maintain a power steering system well enough, and/or (b) use the existing allowance, as it was intended, to mitigate overspeeding the pump, probably shouldn't be allowed to work on their own car and put it on the track with the rest of us.

I firmly believe that this, like a lot of other allowances that people ask for, is rooted in a cultural sense of "what a race car should be."

The only problem I have ever had with my PS is when the belt slips in wet conditions. That's including thousands of enduro miles.

K

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 07:02 PM

I personally believe that anyone who can't (a) maintain a power steering system well enough, and/or (b) use the existing allowance, as it was intended, to mitigate overspeeding the pump, probably shouldn't be allowed to work on their own car and put it on the track with the rest of us.

Oh noz! Have I now joined The Others and won't be let on track with The Rest of Us?

Matt93SE

08-29-2011, 07:05 PM

Let me use this as a "teachable moment" to model how we might operate.

No, Matt. Per 9.1.3.B INTENT, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed" (emphasis added).

The action of not filling the power steering system with fluid, per the manufacturers original design and specifications, disables the system as a whole and alters its functionality. Absent any specific allowance to realize that outcome, your proposed action is not in compliance with the INTENT described in the ITCS.

Done.

If someone wants to change the pulley, they can change the pulley - right up to the point where it disables a "component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle."

Again, I do think that a tweak to the AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS statement would give us another useful tool to prevent creep. I'd suggest that it might be more useful if it said something like...

"Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function or result in a change not otherwise specifically allowed by these rules."

K

This is exactly why I asked this question... I'm considering the "PS fluid is free" part to include air as my fluid of choice. Air is a fluid, correct? The PS pump is horribly inefficient at pumping air, but it's still trying to pump it.... now there's a tortured interpretation for you.

It's a different matter for me since I'm in STU and allowed to de-power the rack. But I was asking since that was my first thought when this thread came up and I'm sure someone will try to pull exactly that. Air as a fluid is no less strained than a bearing pressed into a pulley, IMO.

Ron.. I'm in STU so it's legal, mind you.. But I de-powered my rack by simply dumping the fluid, looping the lines, and removing the PS pump.

I did this for a couple reasons:

1. Nissans are famous for leaking power steering systems. not necessarily cooling issues, but the lines ALWAYS weep and the reservoirs almost always leak through the cap vent under racing conditions slosh fluid around. This isn't necessarily a reliability issue, but more of a less maintenance + clean engine bay + lower risk of fire issue. (The PS system on a 240SX is directly in front of the exhaust mani/header and the hoses terminate directly below the header. you blow a hose on this sucker and you're in for a world of hurt)

2. after popping a line on track at a DE (flying rocks hit the alu cooling loop along the crossmember during an off-course excursion), it caught my left front wheel well on fire when the PS fluid hit a hot brake rotor.

To replace the ruptured factory loop, I installed a small oil cooler in front of the radiator (below both pump and reservoir so no air pockets).. then I bled the system and fired up the car. Everything was fine for ONE lap on track before the system crapped out.

To finish the track day, I de-powered the rack trackside and finished the day.
I replaced the rack PS pump, lines, and OE cooling loop from a donor car when I got home.
next track day it crapped out on me again.

so I de-powered the rack again, got a larger diameter steering wheel, and never looked back.

tyler raatz

08-29-2011, 07:10 PM

letter 6014 sent in favor of p/s removal.

Andy Bettencourt

08-29-2011, 08:20 PM

Probably legal. Fluid is free.

And the line restrictor -- I don't see anyway that is not legal.

Show me where not having a functioning PS pump, alternator, water pump, etc, is legal.

You can not use a legal mod (debatable here) to facilitate an illegal one. See my original 'mirror' modification idea.

The Roffe rule is most commonly used for specicially legal items, not items that are leaps from grey area interpretations. It doesn't really SAY you can do what you are saying you can, so the foundation is VERY shaky to start building on.

And I don't hesitate to say people are NOT doing this in droves. They are totally bypassing the pump and looping lines. ILLEGAL - and they know it. Even if you have a pulley like is being decribed, you can't modify the line routing. So in reality, I think this is a knee jerk reaction to one letter and a bunch of people who don't care about the rules too much. I still fail to see how a rack attached through legal routing of the lines that is being fed by a NON-functioning, non-modified PS pump would work as people think. Looping the lines would be a must...and clearly illegal.

But in the end, we decide and write our letters based on what is best for the category, weighing pros and cons with unitended concequenses.

Knestis

08-29-2011, 08:37 PM

Oh noz! Have I now joined The Others and won't be let on track with The Rest of Us?

The irony is that you are probably among the most capable of making the system work under race conditions of anyone who takes care of their own hooptie.

You don't NEED to remove it; you just WANT to remove it. But I guess that's totally OK as long as you are honest about it.

:shrug:

K

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 08:56 PM

You don't NEED to remove it; you just WANT to remove it. But I guess that's totally OK as long as you are honest about it.

:shrug:

K

Oh, no doubt there, I want to remove it. The simpler my race car is the happier I am with it.

But, I also play legally. So if I can't remove it I want to know how to make it work. I was thinking:

1. Best highest boiling fluid one can buy
2. Underdrive crank pulley
3. Cooling fan integrated into the back side of an alternative PS pulley that is appropriately sized with the underdrive crank pulley to create a system that generates little pressure

I've never had a car with PS and don't know what to expect. The AS guy I talked with about the Ford system complained mightily. But, I don't know what lengths he went to make it work. He had a sock around the reservoir, which I suspect was there to insulate it. If that is all he was doing to make it work, well, you get what you put in.

Knestis

08-29-2011, 09:23 PM

Matt93SE

08-29-2011, 09:53 PM

Ron Earp

08-29-2011, 09:53 PM

LOL - we used to put socks (or wrist sweat bands) around the reservoirs on our Girling and AP independent MC's on our formula cars and sports racers, because the vibration buzzed them so bad they spewed fluid out of the vent holes in the caps - just to preemptively soak up the spills.

K

All this PS talk prompted me to go see what I had on the stang. I spent the entire weekend stripping the interior but haven't ever spent much time in the engine bay.

Turns out there is a loop from the PS box that goes out in front of the radiator. Probably about six feet of tubing all told and clearly the function is to make a crude cooling loop. I'm sure there is *just enough* of a loop there to keep the system working in 120F temps under normal driving conditions but I doubt it'd survive enduro duty. However, it gives me something to work with. Lines are free, I can make 20 feet of a S-shaped structure in front of the radiator that should perform some extra cooling.

Picture is worth a 1000 words. Mine doesn't look like either of these but it is close. Apparently on some SN95 Mustangs there was a rudimentary cooler. Have to find out if those were on 1998 Mustangs or on the series that is on my line in the ITCS.

http://www.driftmustang.com/files/ps_cooler.jpg

jjjanos

08-29-2011, 10:19 PM

pul·ley (phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oobreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. pl. pul·leys 1. A simple machine consisting essentially of a wheel with a grooved rim in which a pulled rope or chain can run to change the direction of the pull and thereby lift a load.
2. A wheel turned by or driving a belt.

Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft
pulleys of any diameter or material may be used.

Is it a wheel? Does it have a grooved rim in which a pulled rope or chain can run to change the direction of the pull? Is it any diameter or material?

I think that Jeff is correct. Need photo of exactly he means though.

Flyinglizard

08-29-2011, 10:25 PM

Allow looping the hoses and removing the pump.(per Greg)
Some cars had the "option" of no PS. But most cars were deliverd with PS. The non pS parts get scarce. Looping the system removes the problem. evens up the cars. If you like the PS , keep it.

Andy Bettencourt

08-29-2011, 10:34 PM

pul·ley (phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oobreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. pl. pul·leys 1. A simple machine consisting essentially of a wheel with a grooved rim in which a pulled rope or chain can run to change the direction of the pull and thereby lift a load.
2. A wheel turned by or driving a belt.

Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft
pulleys of any diameter or material may be used.
Is it a wheel? Does it have a grooved rim in which a pulled rope or chain can run to change the direction of the pull? Is it any diameter or material?

I think that Jeff is correct. Need photo of exactly he means though.

LMAO. Try this:

Pulley - A rotational attachment for a drive belt

StephenB

08-29-2011, 10:36 PM

warts and all sorry folks...

Letter submitted NOT in favor of changing the intent of IT.

Per 9.1.3.B INTENT, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed"

Stephen

jjjanos

08-29-2011, 10:48 PM

LMAO. Try this:

Pulley - A rotational attachment for a drive belt

Fine... add that non-standard definition of a pulley to the GCR and close the loophole, but make certain it doesn't screw up any other section of the GCR.

Knestis

08-29-2011, 10:50 PM

phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oobreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif

Wasn't that a Led Zeppelin album...?

EDIT - No, I'm wrong. That was Prince's new name.

K

Chip42

08-29-2011, 11:35 PM

Lines are free, I can make 20 feet of a S-shaped structure in front of the radiator that should perform some extra cooling.
where does it say that?

Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses
may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip). A
pressure accumulator/”Accusump” may be fitted. The location
of the filter and accumulator are unrestricted, but they shall
be securely mounted within the bodywork. All oil lines that
pass into or through the driver/passenger compartment shall
be metal or metal braided hose. Dry sump systems are prohibited
unless fitted as standard equipment. Engine oil and oil additives are unrestricted.
This is the only rule I can find re: power steering lines. in fact, this and the pulley rule are the only mentions of power steering in the ITCS.

I don't see anywhere that allows the addition of a cooler, nor the replacement of the OEM type PS fluid. I'd agree that PS fluid is an "oil" but the use of "power steering" and "engine oil" in the above and other rules leads me to believe that there is a distinction intentional to the rules.

there's a fair bit of poor wording (at least wording constructed by those not predicting the imagination of racers or overestimating the racer's adherence to class philosophy) in the ITCS, so it could be that PS coolers are intended to be allowed, but I certainly don't see where that is made clear.

I have said it before - I begrudgingly accept the bearing pulley is legal under the wording of 9.1.3.D.1.n but I still think that using it to disable PS is unintended, and illegal due to the lack of specific allowance to disable power steering. so I guess if you run an allowed manual rack and a power steering accessory setup with a bearing pulley, I'm OK with that.

however: I do not think that allowing the removal of PS is necessarily outside of the category philosophy - there's a lot of things I'd allow the removal of if I were to rewrite IT. my issue is with the parity that may or may not be broken and the potential for unintended consequences. I'm not a creative rules reader - I have a hard time predicting good "cheats" allowed in the rules. so I'm inclined to leave the rule alone unless I get some really good reasons ("I support..." is not one) or overwhelming membership input in favor if the delete.

and to Andy B: you can disable the pump (cut the belt, bearing pulley, whatever) and the rack will behave fine. it has to, as a safety feature. the side of the assist under pressure will be directly connected to the return, and the "pressure" side will be open through the pump and bypass so any vacuum alleviates itself. the time between the spool valve connecting one side to press/vent and being open to the return for both LH and RH circuits is minimal, anyhow. the only thing you might find on a depowered rack is some initial slop and a slight lack of feel due to the necessary torsional displacement of the pinion to the steering column on rack systems.

JoshS

08-30-2011, 01:00 AM

Turns out there is a loop from the PS box that goes out in front of the radiator. Probably about six feet of tubing all told and clearly the function is to make a crude cooling loop.

That's exactly what my BMW has.

I use an underdrive pulley. No problems. You'll probably say that Ford is not BMW. I say give it a go, THEN try to make changes if you really need to. I think you'll be fine.

Ron Earp

08-30-2011, 07:10 AM

where does it say that?

This is the only rule I can find re: power steering lines. in fact, this and the pulley rule are the only mentions of power steering in the ITCS.

Says the lines can be replaced with metal braided hose. That might be 20 feet of metal braided hose. And it might end up being the aircraft metal braided hose with built in heat sinks provided I can find some of what I saw about ten years ago.

I use an underdrive pulley. No problems. You'll probably say that Ford is not BMW. .

You're right there. The Ford doesn't have life time fluids, plastic water pumps, and a propensity to need $$$$ repairs before 100k is up.

Yes, I'm going to give it a go and see how it does.

Knestis

08-30-2011, 08:16 AM

This would be another opportunity for me to chime in about how interested I am to see how Ron's effort pans out. It could be a real boon in the class.

K

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 08:16 AM

Fine... add that non-standard definition of a pulley to the GCR and close the loophole, but make certain it doesn't screw up any other section of the GCR.

That's FROM the GCR.

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 09:11 AM

That's FROM the GCR.

Damn, it is. And the definition of drive belt shuts the door on the bearing 'cause the drive belt is defined as providing the driving force for engine accessories.

Chip42

08-30-2011, 09:15 AM

This would be another opportunity for me to chime in about how interested I am to see how Ron's effort pans out. It could be a real boon in the class.

K

+1

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 10:08 AM

Damn, it is. And the definition of drive belt shuts the door on the bearing 'cause the drive belt is defined as providing the driving force for engine accessories.

Quoted for ITAC to consider when expressly saying things are legal now, and people are doing it.

The ITCS isn't the only thing we have to look at to determine legality.

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 10:13 AM

and to Andy B: you can disable the pump (cut the belt, bearing pulley, whatever) and the rack will behave fine. it has to, as a safety feature. the side of the assist under pressure will be directly connected to the return, and the "pressure" side will be open through the pump and bypass so any vacuum alleviates itself. the time between the spool valve connecting one side to press/vent and being open to the return for both LH and RH circuits is minimal, anyhow. the only thing you might find on a depowered rack is some initial slop and a slight lack of feel due to the necessary torsional displacement of the pinion to the steering column on rack systems.

While I love the technicality of the response, what I am going on is the stories of how hard it is to turn when a car loses it's PS belt on track. My impression is that it is NOT like a depowered and looped rack. Maybe those drivers are so spoiled they just need some gym time. :)

Greg Amy

08-30-2011, 10:19 AM

Damn, it is. And the definition of drive belt shuts the door on the bearing 'cause the drive belt is defined as providing the driving force for engine accessories.
Defines that the belt provides the force. Doesn't require that the accessories accept it.

You cannot win this battle with more words.

GA

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 10:27 AM

Defines that the belt provides the force. Doesn't require that the accessories accept it.

You cannot win this battle with more words.

GA

Greg, there is no rule allowing the disabling of the accessories.

Greg Amy

08-30-2011, 10:41 AM

Greg, there is no rule allowing the disabling of the accessories.
...and you certainly can't win this battle by repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and...

We get it, Andy. We hear you. Your words are being heard.

But you're missing the point: we agree with you philosophically, we disagree with you technically.

GA

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 11:01 AM

Defines that the belt provides the force. Doesn't require that the accessories accept it.

Please cite the section of the IT Category rules that allow you to alter the accessory so that it does not accept it.

You cannot win this battle with more words.

Correct because the words already there shut the door on this.

Def 1: Pully - A rotational attachment for a drive belt.
Def 2: Drive belt - A continuous flexible reinforced elastomer band which provides the driving force for engine accessories, when attached by pulley to a rotating part of the engine, such as the crankshaft.
Def 1 + Def 2 prevent the bearing modification. The drive belt provides the driving force for engine accessories. PS is an engine accessory. The drive belt must provide the driving force for that accessory unless there is a specific allowance to modify it.

Z3_GoCar

08-30-2011, 11:07 AM

Says the lines can be replaced with metal braided hose. That might be 20 feet of metal braided hose. And it might end up being the aircraft metal braided hose with built in heat sinks provided I can find some of what I saw about ten years ago.

You're right there. The Ford doesn't have life time fluids, plastic water pumps, and a propensity to need $$$$ repairs before 100k is up.

Yes, I'm going to give it a go and see how it does.

Might I suggest that you try a little experiment. Take the car to the track and at the end of the session, get the car going to 60mph or so, push the cluch in and cut the ignition (being carful not to lock the steering.) How does it steer with the motor off, then imagine how it'll be to drive like that for 30 minutes in a sprint race.

Greg Amy

08-30-2011, 11:07 AM

Please cite the section of the IT Category rules that allow you to alter the accessory so that it does not accept it.
You've not been paying attention.

I'm out. This is a circular conversation with which I'm getting very dizzy. Have fun!

JeffYoung

08-30-2011, 11:29 AM

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 11:34 AM

...and you certainly can't win this battle by repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and...

We get it, Andy. We hear you. Your words are being heard.

But you're missing the point: we agree with you philosophically, we disagree with you technically.

GA

I am not missing the point, I am just asking someone to quote a rule that allows the RESULT of your interpretation because there are rules that actually disallow it IMHO.

Andy Bettencourt

08-30-2011, 11:36 AM

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 11:53 AM

You've not been paying attention.

I'm out. This is a circular conversation with which I'm getting very dizzy. Have fun!

I have been paying attention. The bearing interpretation works with a non-GCR definition of pulley. The definitions in the GCR, in combination, require that the drive belt power the accessory and defines the pulley as the rotational attachment of the drive belt.. i.e. an integral part of the drive belt which powers the accessory.

Ignoring the glossary to the GCR (which I did) makes Jeff's solution "legal".

Altering the pulley so that the drive belt barely powers the accessory seems legit too as long as the drive belt which powers the accessory gets some power to the accessory.

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 11:58 AM

Even if you accept JJ's position that it has to drive the accessory, you certainly can "build" the pulley so that it just *barely* drives the shaft on the pump and then you are legal even under that theory.

I would say legal. Mounting an identical diameter but greater mass pulley must reduce the power driving the accessory (more power used to turn the pulley, right?). The greater mass pulley is legal, correct? Therefore, changing the amount of force going into the accessory must be legal upto to the point that the drive belt no longer powers the accessory.

And for those who say the above is overly complicated.... if y'all want to play the rules lawyer game, you need to be a Philadelphia lawyer.

GTIspirit

08-30-2011, 12:00 PM

Might I suggest that you try a little experiment. Take the car to the track and at the end of the session, get the car going to 60mph or so, push the cluch in and cut the ignition (being carful not to lock the steering.) How does it steer with the motor off, then imagine how it'll be to drive like that for 30 minutes in a sprint race.

Shouldn't be a problem because the steering lock must be disabled on all IT cars, right?

GTIspirit

08-30-2011, 12:04 PM

I've never had a car with PS and don't know what to expect. The AS guy I talked with about the Ford system complained mightily.

My friend and I broke the power steering on his SVT Focus when we co-drove it at an autocross one day. I don't know if it was a weak design or a weak part, but clearly some power steering systems are not up to snuff for racing......

Ron Earp

08-30-2011, 12:22 PM

I would say legal. Mounting an identical diameter but greater mass pulley must reduce the power driving the accessory (more power used to turn the pulley, right?). The greater mass pulley is legal, correct? Therefore, changing the amount of force going into the accessory must be legal upto to the point that the drive belt no longer powers the accessory.

No, it doesn't work that way. Your greater mass pulley will simply add mass that the engine will have to rotate and accelerate via the drive belt system. If the engine is turning 6000 RPM and the pulley ratio is 2:1, the power steering pump with a 50 lb Tungsten pulley is going to turn 3000 RPM. The engine might not like it, and for sure you'll notice a drop in rear wheel horsepower, but the pump is going to be turned 3000 RPM and still do the work it would normally do provided the belt can handle the load.

Knestis

08-30-2011, 12:44 PM

I am not missing the point, I am just asking someone to quote a rule that allows the RESULT of your interpretation because there are rules that actually disallow it IMHO.

I feel like I'm shouting into the same vacuum, Andy. We're so busy parsing out words, some of us aren't reading the pertinent paragraphs.

** No allowance exists to DISABLE the pump

** The INTENT statements makes it clear that this means it must not be disabled

** Pulley cleverness disables the pump

Ergo, while the PULLEY might - or might not - be legal, disabling the pump is clearly not in compliance with the intent regulation. Look over here guys! Here's your problem...!!

K

Chip42

08-30-2011, 12:45 PM

Now this I can chew on. Tell me more about this design.

static, slippy clutch or centifugally controlled, slipping clutch come to mind. so long as drive is never lost then you're within the very tight confines of the rules. good work by JJJ bringing that all together.

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 01:00 PM

static, slippy clutch or centifugally controlled, slipping clutch come to mind. so long as drive is never lost then you're within the very tight confines of the rules. good work by JJJ bringing that all together.

I'd love to take credit, but it was Andy's work and Jeff found the work around.

jhooten

08-30-2011, 02:38 PM

1. Nissans are famous for leaking power steering systems. not necessarily cooling issues, but the lines ALWAYS weep and the reservoirs almost always leak through the cap vent under racing conditions slosh fluid around. This isn't necessarily a reliability issue, but more of a less maintenance + clean engine bay + lower risk of fire issue. (The PS system on a 240SX is directly in front of the exhaust mani/header and the hoses terminate directly below the header. you blow a hose on this sucker and you're in for a world of hurt)

But is it mounted right in front of the exhaust manifold and directly over the alternator? If I'm lucky I can make it through the year without having to replace the alternator that is over lubricated by leaking PS fluid from the Toyota pump. Half of a quart bottle per weekend is normal.

callard

08-30-2011, 04:43 PM

How about slippy belt as in loose? Greasy too?

Chip42

08-30-2011, 05:41 PM

doe sanyone have data for the usefulness, hp loss, or reliability change of a significantly underdrive PS pump? I mean significant, like 1/4 or less of the pump RPM of the OEM pulley ratio, using a normal, no gimmik pulley. I'm thinking that outide of vibration, sloshing, and external heating, running the pump at the OEM equivalent of idle RPM should make it useful, minimally parasitic, and keep the internal heat manageable.

what are the general thaughts on making it known (not new rules) that pulleys are to be 1:1 with shaft RPM at all operating speeds, allowing aftermarket PS coolers specifically, and keeping the rest as is? would this not solve the majority of the problems?

Knestis

08-30-2011, 06:03 PM

Oh for freak's sake. I SO want to file a protest on one of these now.

:blink:

K

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 06:09 PM

Oh for freak's sake. I SO want to file a protest on one of these now.

:blink:

K

[Kirk ON]It's up to us to police the class. We allow the IT that we are willing to allow[/kirk off]

:D

Ron Earp

08-30-2011, 06:26 PM

I thought:

[KIRK ON]We get the IT that we want[/KIRK OFF]

I'm still trying to get that IT! :)

Knestis

08-30-2011, 10:22 PM

Is this the point where someone calls me a "homo?"

K

Chip42

08-30-2011, 10:56 PM

Oh for freak's sake. I SO want to file a protest on one of these now.

:blink:

K

I'll pay the fee. I'd really like to see a COA ruling on this as the rules stand today.

Matt93SE

08-30-2011, 11:10 PM

I thought:
[KIRK ON]We get the IT that we want[/KIRK OFF]
I'm still trying to get that IT! :)

Ron, come to the dark side and run STU...... ;)

Chip, a Nissan power steering system will NOT function properly when you stop driving the pulley. I've lost a pump on track and I've lost a belt on track on two different Nissans (and pushed/towed a lot of non-running ones). It would be absolutely impossible to run at race speed with a disabled pump on a Nissan. Can you physically turn the wheel? YES. but you'd better not be trying to do it quickly.

jjjanos

08-30-2011, 11:21 PM

Is this the point where someone calls me a "homo?"

K

No, but aren't you the one who says that if a person thinks something is illegal and knows of someone doing the illegal thing, then it is that person's duty to self-police the class?

Greg Amy

08-31-2011, 07:15 AM

Allow me - admittedly, after having been a factor in stirring up this hornet's next - to remind participants of a quote:

"Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it. " - Colin Powell (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/colinpowel138121.html)

When the argument becomes less about my position on a matter, and more about trying to save face, then maybe it's time for me to sit back and let things peter out. Getting emotional about a debate is probably a good indication that I'm approaching that point. "Winning an argument on the Internet" is not all that it's cracked up to be (I don't even think you get an ashtray for it).

Food for thought.

GA, sitting this one out.

Andy Bettencourt

08-31-2011, 07:38 AM

I now these deabtes seem trivial to some but in the end, it's great for people to see how people read rules, how they disect them and some even use this as a reminder that some rules don't say what they thought they said all along (see emissions thread).

Greg, it's not about winning or losing. It's about learning for us all. Kirk and I are trying to see if anyone can cite a rule that we are missing that allows the result of this free-wheeling pulley. No ego issues, just trying to come to a solution.

For me, I sense a 'it's legal, people are doing it, so lets make it specifically legal in the ITCS' undertone...and I want to dispell the fact that the RESULT is legal hense the premise for that type of rule change is bad.

Besides I think it's creep in it's most natural form.

Chip42

08-31-2011, 07:38 AM

Chip, a Nissan power steering system will NOT function properly when you stop driving the pulley. I've lost a pump on track and I've lost a belt on track on two different Nissans (and pushed/towed a lot of non-running ones). It would be absolutely impossible to run at race speed with a disabled pump on a Nissan. Can you physically turn the wheel? YES. but you'd better not be trying to do it quickly.

ok - that's good info, and corrects my earlier statements. What I really want to know is about your success with underdriving as a means to reduce shaft RPM and power loss, and to improve reliability. have you? to what degree? and fwiw I know hondas and at least some mazdas work just fine with the PS belt cut.