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

[Ron Earp]

The cars are competitive in ITA/ITS now. I don't know if these competitive cars have depowered PS racks or not, but I don't think anything is going to give you grief over it. It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

However with a bit of work you can de-power the rack: pulley on the PS pump that is an idler around a bearing pressed on the PS shaft, remove the innards of the rack (i.e., my rack is busted), remove the vanes in the PS pump (i.e., my pump is busted). That said, I love the PS on the Mustang and feel it is a contributing factor to it being a very tossable and easy car to drive.

[Greg Amy]

It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

Being able to de-power the rack would make my potential decision to prep the STL Integra to ITR a lot easier. Right now, finding, buying, and re-installing all the PS parts and bits and pieces is the biggest PITA of all the items I have to do to get there...

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").

I opposed inclusion of SM-spec cars into ITx a few years ago when it was first proposed. "Because Improved Touring" I'm still leaning that direction. However, if we could address the power steering issue as a category change, and the final drive issue as a line-item change, and simply accept that we cannot enforce the head prep issue, then that would alleviate having to allow the entire category.

GA

[gran racing]

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

[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.