September 2011 Fastrack

[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.

[Greg Amy]

It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.

Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.

See "How To Write a Rule".

GA

[pballance]

I have enjoyed the discussions about the PS issue. Looping lines work for hydraulic assisted steering, how about the RX8 that uses electric power (assisted) steering?

I think the RX8 steering is also proportional and adjusts steering effort based on speed etc. so you may have to go into the ECU to change parameters. Just to throw another wrench in the works, the ECU of the RX8 also "learns" and will trim the air/fuel settings based on "driving conditions."

I agree that it should be legal to eliminate power steering but it sure appears to be a rules creep. That said, maybe it is time to re-define IT racing in total
<----------------- Runs and hides

Back to the regular rules debate

[Greg Amy]

...how about the RX8 that uses electric power (assisted) steering? ...you may have to go into the ECU to change parameters.

Then it's already legal to do.

[CRallo]

I was emphasizing my point with my choice of words. My apology to anyone that didn't follow...

Thanks Jake!

Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

If not, that's what he SHOULD have been saying, LOL.

On the surface, at first glance, I find the allowance surprising and seeming inconsistent. I'll think harder about it though.

Yup and sorry, I didn't get my letter written in time on that one... it was a very hectic time for me and I was busy writing my letter regarding the HNR mess as that issue was more important or atleast effected the club as a whole. If there is still a chance in hell to make that happen, I am more than happy to write a letter. I am not currently built to the extent of STU rules, but might someday and feel strongly about the class regardless... Oh and 'O' and 'L' as well!

Ah, he's chewing on the JDM bone again. Gotcha. I've not heard back the results of his letters to CRB and BoD members? S**t ain't gonna happen on its own, you know...and no one's gonna spoon-feed you on it. Just sayin'...

GA

[CRallo]

The pulley thing is interesting... I'd have to agree with Jeff and Greg here. The alternate pulleys rule, as it is written, does not specify design. And if that alternate design incorporates a bearing, so be it. This is not any random replacement part on the car, this a specific allowance, so the normal same purpose/function clause does not apply.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nope. Once something is allowed "it's bloody well allowed" subject *only* to subsequent restrictions.

The word "only" in regard to subsequent restrictions in that rule does not appear (i.e., "Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys identical to stock except for only any diameter or material" or similar). Ergo, the Roffe Corollary applies. I can make the thing out of frilly pink panties if I want to.


GA

Of course you can make it out of panties, it says you can. There is no reason to specify the parameters if it was meant to be open. Think it would have been easier to write "alternate PS pulleys are allowed" if they meant for them to be free?

You may change them, with those two allowances as your specific boundries. IIDSYCTYC.

[chuck baader]

Jeff, James:

"Engine and transmission mounts of non metallic alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

That should make a good inclusive rule. Chuck

[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...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, James:

"Engine and transmission mounts of non metallic alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

That should make a good inclusive rule. Chuck

Using this, my motor mounts will be carbon fiber with hardened rubber inserts. They will also run under the motor (N/S engine placement) and connect one another acting as a lower front chassis stiffener.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The pulley thing is interesting... I'd have to agree with Jeff and Greg here. The alternate pulleys rule, as it is written, does not specify design. And if that alternate design incorporates a bearing, so be it. This is not any random replacement part on the car, this a specific allowance, so the normal same purpose/function clause does not apply.

So my arguement is simple. It doesn't HAVE TO specify design, because it's supposed to be stock unless it tells you that design is open. It doesn't. All it tells you is that you can replace what you have with one of a different MATERIAL and a different SIZE. That's it. Saying that those two allowances open the door to ANY design is torture IMHO.

[Greg Amy]

You may change them, with those two allowances as your specific boundries. IIDSYCTYC.

All it tells you is that you can replace what you have with one of a different MATERIAL and a different SIZE.

No, it says "diameter". Only. So, Andy, following your logic, every alternate pulley out there is illegal, because I assure none of them - not ONE of them - meet all dimensional specs of a stock pulley except for diameter and material. Not one.

Think it would have been easier to write "alternate PS pulleys are allowed" if they meant for them to be free?

Ding! YAPWR ("yet another poorly written rule"). If the intent was to only allow only changing of diameter and material, then whoever wrote that rule needs to get hung from an overpass by their scrotal sac, 'cause that ain't what it says. See Greg's Rules for Writing...

On edit: even using your logic, Andy, you're reading it wrong. Following it logically:

Here's the rule verbatim:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used. Type of accessory drive (e.g., V-belt, toothed belt, etc.) shall remain as
stock."

So, absent that rule, Step One, IIDSYCTYC: you can't change the pulley.

Step Two, "alternate...pulleys [are allowed]". You can use an alternate pulley.

Step Three, subsequent restrictions, using words "must", "shall", "only", etc: "Type of accessory drive...shall remain as stock."

The words "...any diameter or material may be used..." is nothing more than superfluous fluff. Of course you can, because...you can. There's no verbiage in there restricting the change only to alternate diameter or material because if there were restricting you to only those changes from stock, then why specify that the type of drive has to remain stock?

As the rule reads today, bearing away. If that ain't the intent, see scrotal sac comment above... - GA

[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.

[R2 Racing]

I agree to either do nothing to the current rules regarding P/S, or allow full removal of the system. If I still had to have all of the crap in my engine bay, wether I disabled the system or not, I'd probably choose to keep it operational just for the niceness around the paddock and shop. On my ITA Integra, I've actually done dyno pulls with and without the P/S belt in place, and any perceived power gains are negligible. The reason I even bothered to do that though was because of the "replace the pulley with a bearing" idea. If I saw a possible gain there, I would've done it. I didn't, so I didn't go through the pain in the ass of doing it.

But, if I was legally allowed to remove the whole system, and loop the lines on the rack, you bet your ass I would. Less weight on the nose, less fluid leaks to worry about, less crap in the engine bay, less things to possibly break down - all good stuff.

Actually, as some of you may remember, my ITA car didn't have P/S in it when I first built it before the 2004 season. Back then the IT rulebook had something in it along the lines of "drive comfort whatever can be removed", so I removed it under that clause. Intorturation, I know. After the 2005 season, I completely re-fitted a stock P/S system back into the car out of a donor chassis I had, just because that clause was no longer in the IT rulebook, and I could no longer make any sort of a case for it to be legal to not have it. Point being, my car is a whole lot faster now than it was then, even with the P/S now installed, so any perceieved "OMG, removal of P/S will create huge performance increases and overdogs!" thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt. It had virtually no effect on that.

[chuck baader]

Ok, Andy...let's simplify.

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

If you want to use carbon fiber...go head on. Chuck

[chuck baader]

Kevin, every car is different. My old ITS E30 gained 7 wheel horsepower just by cutting the PS belt on back to back dyno runs. Have no idea what my current car does, but BMW uses a PS pump at about 1600psi. Not trivial. BTW, neither for or against, but I sure would like to remove 25# from the front of my car. Chuck

[Chip42]

the power steering question is a result of a member letter written requesting same. the decision was made to put it out for member input, partly due to the percived ability amng some in the ITAC to "delete" the function of the system via the bearing-in-pulley.

personally, i'm hesitant to move on it. I [begrudgingly] allow that the bearing pulley is legal but only due to "APWR" and certianly not the intent of the rule. but I also see a lot of cars with the same drivetrains, rated at the same power, some with and some without PS depending on trim, body style, etc.. and we all know that removing PS on some cars will mean gains and some it will not. which means otherwise identical cars are at a disadvantage, and that some cars currently well balanced in their class could become unbalanced and that's really hard to predict with all of the classifications in the ITCS.

I want to see letters with evidence of the power change. I want member input from a gut level. I want to hear from the people who view it as superfluous and those who want it to stay as part of the limited modification philosophy of IT. then I thinkwe should vote on it. I need convincing, otherwise I vote to leave it as is.

[JeffYoung]

Great post -- glad you are on the committee.