September 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

You've not been paying attention.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

...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]

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.

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

[jjjanos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How about slippy belt as in loose? Greasy too?

[Chip42]

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?