September 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

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]

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...

[Greg Amy]

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

[itracer]

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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]

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.

[erlrich]

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...