Power steering and switches!!

[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.

[Greg Amy]

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

[Ed Funk]

?Coolers are allowed aren't they?

[chuck baader]

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

[Knestis]

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

[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.

[Chris Wire]

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?

[JeffYoung]

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.

[JoshS]

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.

[Chris Wire]

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!

[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

[ekim952522000]

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.

[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?

[JeffYoung]

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

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?

[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.