Prep Differences Between SM and ITx

[Dano77]

The IT7 cars get beat by SM's all the time. It dosent bother us to the point of writting paper. Its a faster car,period.

The hard part is when the crash into us, another story for another day. Leave it alone.

The RX3 and RX7 had there days in the sun, its over now in ITA. Thankfully there are enough of us that still have these old raspy, wheezy, smokey, noisey cars that we can race against each other and not care what other car has what done to it.

Its all about the beer and the lies we tell each other at the end of the day.

Dan, 77 IT7

[awegrzyn]

I have a simple solution that is going to solve all power steering problems and it should make everyone happy with no additional cost, no required work, and most importantly; no reclassification.

Solution
What Chip42 wrote in post 81 is the first thing I read that kind of makes sense regarding power steering in IT. If he is correct, and IT cars without power steering or with PS as an option were given no benefit in the published numbers, then all we have to do is allow only these cars to depower their racks.

The rest of the cars that came with PS (no manual option) should do nothing as they were given the break during initial classification.

This solution will accomplish the following:
1. Legalize cars with power steering issues in IT without giving them any benefit.

2. Will not require changing anything for cars that are already legal in IT. Some will gain the right to depower their racks if they want to.
3. No reclassification required.

4. Current points will not be affected.

5. Some SM cars will become eligible for IT and that will boost SCCA entries.

6. It will make IT drivers comfortable running along double dipping cars.

7. SM cars will not have to buy the expensive manual steering.

8. Other cars that are already in IT, or are being build for IT will not have to purchase manual steering racks.

9. It will equalize the field as right now some guys maybe running power steering, because they could not find a manual rack for their year and model, or they did not know they could change it.

Long story short, zero cost, no work required, more entries, no doubt, everyone happy.

Notes and Points of Concern:
1. We need to verify what Chip42 said, and make sure the classification went down the way he described it.

2. What to do with the pump/pipes/radiator? Should we remove the pump once we depower the rack, or the pump and accessories stay?

3. SMs with Torsen and other IT illegal modifications will still be illegal and it’s their problem.

The only better solution than this is to depower everyone, but that requires reclassification and it affects a lot of things. I have a feeling it will never happen.

Now on the Miata’s steering rack:
Someone posted wrong information above. The difference in the manual rack and the depowered rack is tiny. To be exact it is 4 degrees. For example, if you have a depowered PS you let’s say crank the wheel 25 degrees for a turn. For the same corner you would have to turn 29 degrees with a manual rack. Matter of personal preference. Current SM National champion is running, you guessed it… a manual rack.

Manufactures build PS and manual racks to be identical or almost identical in order for the customers to have the same feel of the car no matter what the option.

*In case Chip42 was wrong on the PS classification, then we can do what I propose and completely forget about it, as it would mean there is no classification when it comes to PS and it’s all random. Maybe that’s why the intent of IT does not guarantee competition.

Just trying to help.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The issue with allowing PS-only cars to depower (non-Miata comment here) is that it affects classification. With just 3whp meaning 55lbs of minimum weight, if you change the 'power potential' of cars that have been classed by using dyno numbers (ITA has fair amount) then you could really upset the apple cart.

If the ITAC can prove that eliminating the PS system and it's drag on most cars will result in an additional 2whp, then that would = 35lbs of minimum weight.

I see no reason to change the rule to accommodate another classes cross over potential. Deal with it locally.

Your above solution works - FOR NOW...until a rare bird comes along that nobody knows about where there IS a difference in the performance potential or desirability of the de-powered over the manual rack. Unintended consequences are not desirable.

[Chip42]

The biggest problem with "what we know" is what we don't know.

SAE net rules require the ENGINE to be tested with the accessories its delivered with. But we don't know what actual configuration ANY engine is tested with, or if it was ever tested at all. as most engines were made available in multiple models or multiple trim levels, there's often some combination that doesn't have PS. but the issues don't stop there.

the ITCS includes cars from 4 decades and at least 7 countries on 3 continents. those care were often tested to local standards and the numbers converted to US hp using a "standard" equation. but there's little verification available and the test standards were all out of sync. there's a lot of disagreement in the source materials for the older cars. from 1971, US market, domestic manufacturer and many import cars are tested to SAE net - so theoretically WITH the offending PS pump. BUT there was no requirement to post the hp figure accurately (many cars were actually UNDERRATED, largely for insurance or to protect the image of a halo car, among other reasons) and there were loopholes. 2005 on, US market cars should be tested to SAE certified hp and that clears up a LOT of confusion, and puts the engine in the configuration as delivered in a specific make, model, and trim. remember when a bunch of toyotas and hondas were suddenly derated in or around 2006? yeah. they were testing engines with non production ECU calibrations, lighter weight fluids, etc... i.e. "loopholes". GM went from calculated hp (they didn't even test to SAE net, apparently) and FOUND hp when they tested. in some cases, they found a bunch of it.

so there are 8 model years of cars where the HP numbers are no suspect, though many OEMs only went to SAE certified for models released DURING that time (nissan comes to mind). IT rules require the car to be 5 model years old, reducing that window to 3 years, and reducing the new model count substantially. I don't have a count of the number of cars that use SAE certified HP in the ITCS, but it's not a big number.

Yes, we KNOW that the info we work from is suspect to a degree. so we consider things like "known to be..." and if we have a good reason to worry, can suggest a higher or lower multiplier than the standard 25% over stock assumption.

the system is imperfect, but works pretty well regardless. the assumptions about a hp number being tested in accordance with the same standard across the board and in the configuration we are interested in are founded on real standards although they can, at times, be a bit optimistic. Maybe luckily, they do seem to have worked well. like so many other things, the active cars in IT follow the pareto principle, so the front running models are pretty well understood and we know we have their numbers very close to ACTUAL power output in "maxed" IT trim. but most cars in the ITCS are not very well known, still at their initial process classification, and could be grossly over or under their ideal weight once someone puts the effort in to finding out. throwing in another variable is not desired.

as for allowing de-powered steering on those spec lines where a manual rack is also allowed, I understand where you are coming from and agree that it seems like a simple solution, but there's always the possibility that it IS NOT, and unintended consequences have already created more allowances than we might actually want.

[lateapex911]

Chip sounds like a guy who might happen to be in the midst of studying a class of cars that, oh, I dunno, covers like 5 decades, like, hmmm, maybe ITB??