I agree. IMO, a free-wheeling pulley would be a perfect example of an allowed modification performing an illegal function... you've changed function from that of a drive pulley to an idler pulley, for which there is no allowance. I would argue the same logic applies to a "restricted" hose.
And one of my pet peeves - we really need to stop using the word "free" - it does not exist in the ITCS and so far as I can tell, never has.
I agree completely.
but I also tend toward agreeing with those that want to be rid of power steering. however, it is certainly creep, and it's got to have unbalancing effects somewhere along the line. important ones? I don't know. but someone, somewhere, stands to make far more than the expected modest power bump with a PS delete. I'm not sure if that's simply lost in the noise though.
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.Originally Posted by Greg Amy
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...
Earl R.
240SX
ITA/ST5
Bookmarks