Power steering and switches!!

The IT board will get,( or has) the request to allow the power steering to be deleated on the IT cars. Like the SM class. Unhook the stuff, connect the hoses, etc.
I see this as an equalizer and a true reflection of the cars, as raced. Washer bottles and horns might be addressed next... As it should be.
It only took 10 years to fix the Vin rule.
Also the request to allow backup switches to power the main running gear. This needs to be clarified, as the rule is currently written. All good. IMHO. Mike Ogren FL.

Mike, I've requested PS removal in the recent past, and it's been rejected. I did it because I had a dickens of a time with overheating/boiling PS fluid and melting lines.

And, in hindsight, I agree with not removing those parts. engine performance is measured with it connected, and removal will mess with our "process" (such as it is...)

Your response to that request, as well as to the other requests mentioned, will be a "not within the philosophy of the class".

GA

?Coolers are allowed aren't they?

My last request to the CRB was to make heater cores, washer bottles, etc. optional...removal is ok or not. We certainly don't need a heater core in the south, but up north it may be a good thing. PS option certainly falls into that category also. Chuck

It can't hurt at all to make requests - reviewing and recommending on them is what the ITAC is supposed to be doing, after all.

However, make your case in your proposal. We need a pretty compelling reason to recommend any particular change (a la potentially disastrous egress issues in cars with small windows, for the vent window deletion allowance). I sure be a buzz-kill on anyone's ideas but "we don't need it" isn't likely to gain enough traction to go through.

K

Kirk, I'll probably post over at SM.com and ask, but do you know what the reason was for allowing the "switching off" of a power steering rack in SM, but just the swapping in of a manual rack in IT?

I'm with Greg on the idea that allowing the "switching off" of the power rack may distort the stock hp number for purposes of the process. But the flip side is that we already have that distortion I suppose. There are presently cars that are run through the process at a stock hp number that can "gain" horsepower by switching to a manual rack used on earlier cars on the same spec line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Kirk, I'll probably post over at SM.com and ask, but do you know what the reason was for allowing the "switching off" of a power steering rack in SM, but just the swapping in of a manual rack in IT?

I'm with Greg on the idea that allowing the "switching off" of the power rack may distort the stock hp number for purposes of the process. But the flip side is that we already have that distortion I suppose. There are presently cars that are run through the process at a stock hp number that can "gain" horsepower by switching to a manual rack used on earlier cars on the same spec line.

---

It sounds like the RX7 that you're referring to. However, the HP rating is the same for both PS and non-PS cars, so how do you reconcile that in the process when the car came in both versions? Do you look at the PS cars as losing HP or the non-PS cars as gaining HP?

Chris, I wasn't specifically referring to the RX7, but that is an example.

I think you are right though, the "distortion" in the process could go either depending on how the manufacturer decided to rate stock net horsepower. If the manufacturer did it with a non-P/S motor, then the stock net horsepower rating is "correct" for non P/S cars and P/S cars run at a disadvantage. If vicey versey, then non-P/S cars get an advantage since they had their weight set using the "lower" P/S net hp rating.

Either way, there is a "distortion" in the process for this already, and I'm not sure that is a compelling "anti" argument for allowing the blocking off of P/S steering pumps, etc.

Taht said, I'm also not sure I've heard a compelling reason why this should be allowed.

I don't see how anyone can equate power steering allowances to switches, washer bottles, etc. The usual argument in favor of those other things is one of convenience of the build. But with power steering, the argument appears to be about performance.

I don't personally the whole performance argument, as every car I've raced in the last several years was built with (and only available with) power steering. When it failed on my SSC Mazda3 (due to a wreck which took out the electric pump), my arms were so tired after the race that I couldn't lift them in impound. I don't think it would be an advantage to remove it. Are you all saying that it saps so much power that the additional power would make up with the lack of ability to drive the car well for the last few laps of the race? Or would we all have to become star athletes to take advantage of the allowance?

I'll also point out that as far as I know, on most cars that were available both with and without PS, the PS rack had a quicker ratio, which would be a performance advantage over the slower manual rack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshS

I'll also point out that as far as I know, on most cars that were available both with and without PS, the PS rack had a quicker ratio, which would be a performance advantage over the slower manual rack.

---

And that's another reason for the request, one which I don't this is honestly ever mentioned. People trying to have it both ways...he he he!

Personally, I think we might be ascribing too much complexity to the process that got us where we are re: power steering. Any substantive change like that is going to retroactively diddle with whatever accuracy got imparted on the process but I don't *think* there's been an active resistance to that allowance for that reason.

It's simpler than that: There's been no compelling reason made for the allowance, that would balance out the incremental issues associated with rules creep. ITAC members, like the membership at large, differ on lots of things but that's one aspect of the IT rule set that seems to have consistent, consensus support from the committee - leave stuff alone unless there's a REALLY good reason to make a change.

The within-line update/backdate opportunity for some IT cars is an accident of history. And if there was a compelling case made for the SM allowance, I don't know what it was. I tend to think it was probably more like, "real race cars don't have power steering..."

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyinglizard

The IT board will get,( or has) the request to allow the power steering to be deleated on the IT cars. Like the SM class. Unhook the stuff, connect the hoses, etc.
I see this as an equalizer and a true reflection of the cars, as raced. Washer bottles and horns might be addressed next... As it should be.
It only took 10 years to fix the Vin rule.
Also the request to allow backup switches to power the main running gear. This needs to be clarified, as the rule is currently written. All good. IMHO. Mike Ogren FL.

---

No. Leave it alone the rules work, I have really enjoyed my IT build so far since none of these things are allowed to be removed it has made it great! just pull the A/C and Cruise Control and off ya go. Everything else having to stay is was one of my favorite things about IT. I know people argue that we don't need it but it seems allot easier to me to leave it in then remove it. This applies to heater, power steering, yes even the washer bottle.

<---Mike enjoying his IT build and not having to rip out and rewire/plumb a bunch of stuff.

I have a Spec Miata that I'm converting to run ITA. The car has the power steering removed and the lines capped off on the rack, to run ITA will I have to replace the power steering pump, belts, lines, etc. or swap to a factory manual rack to be legal?

Right now, you have two options. Either replace the pump/belts/lines, or swap back to the factory rack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnW8

I have a Spec Miata that I'm converting to run ITA. The car has the power steering removed and the lines capped off on the rack, to run ITA will I have to replace the power steering pump, belts, lines, etc. or swap to a factory manual rack to be legal?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

...if there was a compelling case made for the SM allowance, I don't know what it was.

---

Easy: some Spec Miatas came with power steering, some did not. In order the assist in parity, it was easier to let the Miatas with power steering disable theirs instead of encouraging/making them replace their racks with manual ones. - GA

P.S. In all honesty, my reasoning for requesting removal of power steering had a lot more to do with wanting 1-2 more ponies and minimizing failure points than it ever did with "overheating" or "safety" (oil on the track from burst lines!!) or anything else I threw in there. A small PS cooler worked fine...hey, it's all about the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

P.S. In all honesty, my reasoning for requesting removal of power steering had a lot more to do with wanting 1-2 more ponies and minimizing failure points than it ever did with "overheating" or "safety" (oil on the track from burst lines!!) or anything else I threw in there. A small PS cooler worked fine...hey, it's all about the game...

---

And there you have it. The classic use of "the safety card". We get letters like that pretty regularly on the ITAC, and there is never a mention of extra horsepower, but there's often a nod to "the safety of the other poor racers who will die in flaming wrecks behind me when my line bursts from the gazillion pounds of pressure the racing environment places on these poor under designed stock components"...

or something to that effect. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

"the safety of the other poor racers who will die in flaming wrecks behind me . ;)

---

Shouldn't they all have SFI approved suits? :shrug:

ORA: "What-sa behind me (breaks off rearview mirror) - does not matter!" ;)

Yea but.. who is going take the time to write in on something when they don’t personally gain? I think if you(the ITAC)automatically dismiss any proposal where you detect personal gain, you won’t have any! Doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. My car never came with power steering so this doesn’t affect me but I can definitely see the benefits. One thing I do care about is car counts, and it seems like just being able to disconnect PS (if they want to)would make building and maintaining the car easier. Easier to work on, get motor out, etc… without having to convert the rack. I believe maintenance issues and rules that make sense do eventually make a difference in car counts. But would I write in on it? Probably not.

Actually, we DO get a lot of letters from people with nothing to gain. Well, maybe they gain if the sport gains, but we've seen plenty of letters form guys who stand to personally lose as well.

And no, of course, a suggestion isn't rejected solely because the writer has something to gain from the request.

But, any request is certainly gone over with the big picture in mind. What one guy thinks is a gain, others will think is a "cost". Take the battery relocation request that comes in once every 18 months. It always plays the safety card. And most often it's from a guy in a FWD car that want's the weight off the front wheels. Understandable. But....

If we say "yes", now nearly EVERYone has to go out and relocate the battery. That's a lot of "cost", both in time, materials, and even risk. And for what? The bar just got raised for everyone, so mostly nothings different. We didn't really get anywhere. But it cost time and money to get nowhere..... or go backwards, actually, in terms of performance parity.

See..... there is a greater cost. The cars are classed based on lots of factors. Mid engine cars, for example, get weight added to them in the process. FWD cars get weight subtracted. Moving the battery in a FWD car will result in a favorable gain in balance. Not so much in a mid engine car. So there's a shift in the relative competition potential. That's bad.

What's good for the goose needs to be good for the gander. Changes need to affect everyone as equally as possible.

Finally, there's the old saw, "Choose what you run, carefully, then shut up and drive".

As an example of a request that came in that could be considered a "personal gain", we got a letter requesting Spec Miatas running "ITA" be allowed an exception: To remove their vent windows, as it is allowed in SM. Well, that was a bad idea. But, the idea of allowing removal of the vent wndows to increase the egress real estate was a good one, so it got applied to all cars in IT with vent windows. The cost is that some will need to do more work on their car, but the benefit is greater ease of egress after a shunt. It's optional, so the cost is mitigated. The ITAC felt the cost vs benefit ratio was good and made the change.

VW Golfs, and Jetts, came both ways. The issue, is that the steering joint connector is not available. The rack is only cash , about 200$ for the manual, $300 for the PS rack.
The manual steering shaft is very rare. And 20 years old.
It just makes a lot more sense to allow the PS disconnect. IMHO. I am tired of the PS cars with "tossed belts".
" It wont keep a belt on at 9000rpm"etc. Just take it off.
Take a good look at the Miatas, and most of the IT cars, in the paddock.
The owners are afraid to post here, fearing a Protest?.
MM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyinglizard

I am tired of the PS cars with "tossed belts".
" It wont keep a belt on at 9000rpm"etc. Just take it off.
Take a good look at the Miatas, and most of the IT cars, in the paddock.
The owners are afraid to post here, fearing a Protest?.
MM

---

Could be they are fearing a protest, because they'd lose. Same thing with a tossed belt. An SSC Neon was finished in the top 3 at the Runoffs in 2005, but the belt was no longer on the pump at impound. DQ.

We weigh cars after the race, not during the race, and the same is true with measuring any other compliance. You have to be compliant in impound, plain and simple. If the belt isn't on the engine when you get to impound, it doesn't matter whether it was there when you started the race. It's illegal.

My opinion, harsh as it may be, is that if you can't find the equipment you want on the market, and your car can't stay compliant for the duration of a 30 minute race, it's time to get another car, or move to another class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyinglizard

VW Golfs, and Jetts, came both ways. The issue, is that the steering joint connector is not available. The rack is only cash , about 200$ for the manual, $300 for the PS rack.
The manual steering shaft is very rare. And 20 years old.
It just makes a lot more sense to allow the PS disconnect. IMHO. I am tired of the PS cars with "tossed belts".
" It wont keep a belt on at 9000rpm"etc. Just take it off.
Take a good look at the Miatas, and most of the IT cars, in the paddock.
The owners are afraid to post here, fearing a Protest?.
MM

---

The US MkIII Golf never came without PS. If you have documentation showing otherwise, by all means send it to me. I don't know about the earlier ones, honestly.

I know of one that is currently running illegally (pointed out to me at the 'festival). It would be the lowest of low-hanging fruit for a protest - no teardown bond!

:026:

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Finally, there's the old saw, "Choose what you run, carefully, then shut up and drive".

.

---

:happy204:

Exactly!

BTW Canadian A3 Golfs non-PS rack part # 191 419 329 A; USA PS rack # 1HM 422 055D

DZ

(A3 Golf with working PS)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

The US MkIII Golf never came without PS. If you have documentation showing otherwise, by all means send it to me. I don't know about the earlier ones, honestly.

I know of one that is currently running illegally (pointed out to me at the 'festival). It would be the lowest of low-hanging fruit for a protest - no teardown bond!

:026:

K

---

Kirk, that driver is aware of the lack of consensus on the legality, and brings said documentation with him. I have not looked at it myself, but did have discussions about it long before the fest. I'm sure it was that way at the RA tech shed last month as well.

What someone should do because that driver now does not want to share said information with anyone else is to look for sales documents stating that a canadian car was sold as "NEW" at a dealership in a small quantity. Never titled outside of the U.S., direct from the factory bare bones, very RARE and obscure U.S. car... :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabbidmk1

...because that driver now does not want to share said information with anyone else...

---

You can buy that documentation by submitting a standardized form along with $25 (fees refundable after submission)...

Let me know next time he's at a track with me; I'll get it for you and you can reimburse me. - GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Yo

Let me know next time he's at a track with me; I'll get it for you and you can reimburse me. - GA

---

"these are the most powerful panties in the world, do you feel lucky punk?---well do ya'??":cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabbidmk1

What someone should do because that driver now does not want to share said information with anyone else is to look for sales documents stating that a canadian car was sold as "NEW" at a dealership in a small quantity. Never titled outside of the U.S., direct from the factory bare bones, very RARE and obscure U.S. car... :blink:

---

LOL. You know I'm a fan, Aaron and I love your spunk but I'm glad I'm not counting on that line of defense. I'm afraid that the only thing keeping you safe right now is that nobody has filed the paperwork but I'm not The Decider on that one.

K

Well first off I am not the person posting on the internet that they "were given a tip about someone with an illegal part". If you had an issue with it, you should have talked to me in person and we could have gone through my paperwork together, in person. This internet BS is a cheap, poor sportsman-like stab at someone and is how false reputations are created.

Keeping me safe? I have nothing to be afraid of and have nothing to hide, I was the one to tell you about the rack... Everyone knows that I have a manual steering rack in my car just like everyone knew you had an illegal cam and idler pulley on you engine. The only difference is that I have proof that my parts are legal. Do more research and find the stats and then make your claim.


Really none of this matters to me though, the car is already being converted to Production.

Sorry, Aaron - I didn't mean to piss you off.

I was serious about being an Aaron Stehly fan, and about being impressed that you have the stones to take the position that a Canadian Golf sold in the US qualifies its parts as legal. I don't buy it, and I think it's an eventual loser in the protest/appeal process, but you are TOTALLY within your right to try it.

Let's clear up the fact that the only conversation I had at the 'fest about manual racks was with Beran, when he told me about yours and asked if I thought it was legal. I told him "no," not knowing anything about your rationale until today. I'm getting old and senile but I'm pretty sure we didn't talk about it because I would have asked, and you would have shared what you knew. And while I should probably have taken the initiative to talk with you about it after Beran brought it up, I was preoccupied with my own issues, not least being that I was being an off-the-pace wanker.

And on the pulley issue - I totally deserve whatever abuse you and the rest of the community want to dish out about my dumb-assedness. You will NEVER get close to being as nasty about it as I've been with myself so go for it.

FINALLY, I am HONESTLY sorry that you're leaving ITB, for a lot of reasons - not the least being that you were going to be my likely pick for next year's ARRC win. (I think I was the only one to tab Deuce this year, so I'm on a roll.) You done a hell of a job in a short time but you haven't accomplished everything you should have in this category. As we DID talk about at Mid-O, I *personally* think Production isn't the right move for you - or anyone with your youth, talent, and drive, for that matter. I worry that you have unrealistic expectations - that it's somehow "moving up" in the game - but equally, I sincerely hope that it helps you achieve your goals.

Regardless, I'm sorry to see you leave IT. You brought a lot to the class that I try hard to help make a good place to race.

Best,

K

Thank you for the kind words. I may have gone off the handle just a bit, sorry if it pissed anyone off. I would totally stay in IT next year and go for the ARRC and IT fest but my regional series is almost dead. Chris is working on a new shell, Mike is putting his car together but I have no idea if he will be out, and because of the Runoffs, one of our double regionals has been converted to a National.


Aaron