Power steering and switches!!

[Knestis]

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

[Greg Amy]

...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...

[lateapex911]

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.

[Ed Funk]

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

Shouldn't they all have SFI approved suits?

[924Guy]

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

[AjG]

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.

[lateapex911]

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.