IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[Ron Earp]

Are there gains to be had by having a de-powered rack vs non-powered?

Most certainly but the absolute value will depend on a variety of factors. I tend to believe it is minimal and won't affect your lap times at all. Some have done some testing and will quote numbers, but when you examine the testing I've found it far from conclusive and decisive.

[gran racing]

a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class

I don't even want to begin going down that road. Might as well allow cams in cars to more easily attain HP / Tq numbers that could be achieved through a expensive and time consuming build. Same general concept and not a part of the IT philosophy, at least now.

I liked having power steering in my Honda. Sure is a workout to drive my Miata at times. With an injured shoulder, big bend at LRP is tough on it.

[lawtonglenn]

....

I liked having power steering in my Honda. Sure is a workout to drive my Miata at times. With an injured shoulder, big bend at LRP is tough on it.

Again, I know this is completely irrelevant to the current discussion, but in the ITS RX7, where you
have a choice between a stock manual rack and a stock power steering rack, there is a major difference
in the effort needed because of the difference in ratios:

Steering Specifications (Manual Steering)

Type: rack and pinion
Overall Ratio: 20.3:1
Turns (lock to lock): 3.5
Turning Circle: 32.2 feet

Steering Specifications (Power Steering)

Type: rack and pinion
Overall Ratio: 15.2:1
Turns (lock to lock): 2.7
Turning Circle: 32.2 feet

So, allowing depowered racks would allow a "difference" for the RX7, but it
could be argued whether it is a desirable difference or not... I say not



.

[Flyinglizard]

Deleting the The alt circuit wire adds over 1mph . Ihave no idea how much the PS drive slows the car.
Maybe it is time for common sense to prevail, avoiding the extra loose PS belts etc. loop thos e hoses and be done with it. .

[Chip42]

the allowances in SM which are beyond IT are offset by the allowances in IT that are not in SM. a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class - but you never know what allowances might be made in the future that COULD. so it's a no go. as has been pointed out, there's plenty of other options with and without changes to the cars.

I don't even want to begin going down that road.

Neither do I - thus the rest of the quote.

[Dano77]

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").


GA

Rear Subframe braces attached to body allowed on early model cars as well. 90-93 may upgrade to 94-97 rear subframe braces. Different spec lines. Drivers floor pan can be modified to accept a seat. Tunnel may be modified to accept a seat.


Yes these are nitpickey items, but they are Non-Compliant to the IT specs and specifically allowed in SM specs.

There are more but I need to repair a rocker panel today and cant look at the list yet.

[seckerich]

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.

If this is true then you have already given the power steering equiped cars an advantage. The tricks that can be used to negate the PS drag free up this lost HP and are not factored in the process. See how this is all just noise in the overall picture. So who do we need to pressure on the CRB to get this done??

[Chip42]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.

FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors, and a fair bit of luck on the classing of cars that "go well together". it's not because of the process. I like the concept, but in execution it's not getting the job done. in the end, we could have just clumped the cars togetehr, pooma'ed some weights, made a few adjustments in time and arrived at the same place. I'm not advocating change, at least SOEMTHIGN objective and repeatable is at play, but it's not the roseta stone to car classing magic as has been touted in the past. it's just a symple math formula that puts out a number that is just one of many variables at play.

[Ron Earp]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.

The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

240,240,260,280Z – all manual
RX7 – manual and power available
TR8 – power only
Mustang – power only
300ZX – power only
Miata – power only I think for ITS years
240SX – power only?
E36 BMW 325 – power only?

FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors

The process greatly underestimates gains for a variety of reasons:

*The level of R&D that would be done on IT cars that encompasses many, many facets of the engine development program.
*No distinction between two valve and four valve motors.
*Ignores what modern EFI can do for engine output compared to carbs, or even compared to early EFI.
*Largely ignores displacement and factors only peak power, although there is a "torque adder" that we know when to use when we see it.

With respect to the last point, earlier this week I got interested in area under the horsepower curve and performed some calculations based on my own dyno data. Back in the day, a version of my 260Z engine and a version of the Mustang engine were making the exact same peak power, 169 rwhp. However, the area under the horsepower curve in the best 2000 RPM wide power band for each motor was considerably different with the Mustang having a 16% advantage. Both of these engines exceed their IT process power. The 260Z was rated at 138hp from the factory and went on to make as much as 176-180hp at the wheel when everything was perfect. Parity with these two cars or engines was, as you say, by blind luck. The Z can make its 2480 lb process weight, the Mustang can't and races at about 13% heavier than the Z which is within spitting distance of the 16% horsepower area under the curve advantage.

As stated, most cars are above their 25% process power, but given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.

. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.

Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

[Flyinglizard]

The 1.6 SM has been legislated to the middle of the pack or less. The resulting values are now around$5K . Many are running Chump due to this. keep them from going chump would be a good start. IMHO.

Ask for member input regarding PS depower.

Please ask the people that pay the bills.
I doubt that 1 in 100 want to keep it as it is. The rack is the easy part, the lower column pieces are not and get expensive.

[gran racing]

Again, what's wrong with running them in SM2? Nothing on the cars needs to be changed, IT doesn't need to modify it's ruleset. Everything is already in place and done. Seems simple to me.

[Chip42]

The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

exactly my point. cars sold with both will have a single output number. my hunch is that would be the no PS number but we simply don't know. in some cases this is combined on one specline (ITA: NA miatas, from your example) and in others it's on different lines (ITB: civic DX 3dr, no PS. LX 4dr, only PS. same published hp, same engine designation, same weight, different speclines.) theres almost no reasonable or even nearly reaosnable way to "process" this.

...given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.

I, and I'm sure most of us, have no interest in making a new process. it's objective for the most part as it is, and an objective imperfect system is better than a completely subjective imperfect system.

Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

head prep allowances in SM are HUGE compared to IT (even grey area IT). read the SMCS, you'll love it. there are some other swaps that cross IT speclines the cars that share platforms (NA, NB ) like bracing and brakes aside from the rear center section on the NAs.

[lawtonglenn]

I vote we just change the rule and let people loop the damn PS if they want

[Ron Earp]

Again, what's wrong with running them in SM2? Nothing on the cars needs to be changed, IT doesn't need to modify it's ruleset. Everything is already in place and done. Seems simple to me.

Since when is more classes the answer to a problem? Doh, SCCA. Carry on. Off to find out what SM2 is.....

Ask for member input regarding PS depower.
Please ask the people that pay the bills.

Yes, more of this please.

I vote we just change the rule and let people loop the damn PS if they want

Probably the best course of action is to create an initiative proposed by drivers that everyone in the region agrees to. I haven't spoken to a driver who doesn't want to see this change, but Chip indicates the ITAC and CRB won't be on board with it. For such a proposal the simplest form would be requiring that the PS pump remain and not be removed.

[gran racing]

Since when is more classes the answer to a problem?

Normally I'd totally agree and thought the idea was silly. Then I saw more of it and thus far like it. Thought it was more used in other areas too; guess not.

[Terry Hanushek]

Ron

Off to find out what SM2 is.....

These are NA Miatas (1990-1997) prepared to the current SM specifications. SM2 is a Northeast Division class and part of the NEDiv Road Racing Championship (division series).

Terry

[JLawton]

Realistically, at our level, the gains from power to non power steering isnt going to make a shit bit of difference........

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that is not really the point. 3 whp is a 50lb addition to an ITA front driver. And add into it the now-available 'better' ratio steering boxes. Winning is about adding up the little things.

Not sure anything is broken right now.

[gran racing]

25 cars registered in SM2 for Lime Rock. Just sayin'.

[Ron Earp]

Or they could be running in IT.