Prep Differences Between SM and ITx

[Chip42]

I gave up on the topic, but then I read this:



So let's follow the logic here. ITAC assumes every car has power steering, but they know some don't. ITAC classifies all cars based on the assumption they have it.

Most Miatas have power steering, but some don't. ITAC classifies both types of Miatas on the same assumption that they have it, and they did not penalize the Miatas with the manual steering rack. Neither did they penalize other type of cars with manual steering.

You say above, it takes power to run power steering. I agree. Mazda Miata with power steering is going to be slower than one with a manual. ITAC is already OK with such a big difference, therefore, there is no reason to complain about de-powered racks.

the ITAC assumes the car makes the HP the OEM said it does, and generally assume a 25% gain over that number in IT trim. when a car came with PS ONLY, then the pump is supposed to be included in the test that derived the published HP numbers (SAE NET rules from some 30 years ago). cars without PS or with PS as an option likely DON'T have the pumps losses included in the published number.

the logic behind the rule has nothing to do with the Miata. but since you CAN replace a PS rack with a manual one, the Miata classification is correct on a single line. few other cars with any level of popularity have this option. when they do, their classification also allows them to change to the factory non-powered steering.

cars that come with PS are not at a disadvantage because the pump losses are included in the stock power numbers from the OEM, and the pump may be under driven in IT, in effect lessening a power parasite. the manual steering only (i.e. PS was not an option) cars don't have a PS pump to under drive and didn't have the associated losses reported in their OEM hp figures either (theoretically). so they are actually expected to make MORE power gain from the motor than the PS cars, if you think about it.

in either case, unless you upset an IT championship battle or piss someone off, running a de-powered steering but otherwise complaint miata in IT is not going to get you protested 99% of the time.

[Wreckerboy]

Chip, I'm not sure how relevant this is, but one of the reasons people run a dowered rack in a Miata is because the P/S rack has a quicker ratio than the manual one. My '90 SSM car (a 1.6) currently has a depowered rack in it for just that reason. It started life as a manual steering car until I converted it over. The change in the way the car drives is very big.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, but it seems to me that stating that there is no performance benefit isn't true then.
Otherwise people wouldn't do it.
(Based on the base assumption that Kirk can explain better than I, that more reliability, better feel, etc etc are all performance benefits)

The statement that there is no performance benefit is comparing a manual rack to a de-powered rack. Nobody runs a powered rack in a Miata.

So the point is that it's just easier to de-power than it is to go out and source the manual one and install it.

And I think we are parsing words from about 3 different discussions to make a 9not sure what) point.

[ner88]

Chip I agree except now we are arming Tech inspectors with a list that says it's not OK.
So, you can kiss it being overlooked goodbye!
Can't wait until we get to LRP next weekend....7 ITA Miatas!

[Chip42]

Chip I agree except now we are arming Tech inspectors with a list that says it's not OK.
So, you can kiss it being overlooked goodbye!
Can't wait until we get to LRP next weekend....7 ITA Miatas!

it's NOT OK... it's a violation of the rules. just because most people will overlook it doesn't make it legal.

to Rob - yes I understand the ratio issue, but IT doesn't take that into account - it's power or not, so long as it's as delivered.

[ner88]

Chip
I think you miss read my post, I never said it was OK...
I was referencing the last line of your post!
"in either case, unless you upset an IT championship battle or piss someone off, running a de-powered steering but otherwise complaint miata in IT is not going to get you protested 99% of the time."

[Greg Amy]

Jerry, no one is excluding Spec Miatas from STL; in fact, we explicitly welcome them, de-powered rack or not. You have a de-powered rack? Run as a Spec Miata, exactly as we state -- with restrictor plate. What we don't welcome is someone trying to mix-and-match the regs to suit their tastes, just because they want to be faster.

Improved Touring is a whole 'nother matter. There's just no way that a de-powered-rack Spec Miata can be compliant to the regs. Welcoming those cars into IT can be resolved in one of two ways:

- Allow de-powered racks, which history has shown is unlikely; or
- Explicitly allow Spec Miatas into ITA/ITS in SM prep -- with restrictor plates.

Someone tried the latter several years ago; I personally opposed the measure. As I recall, my primary concern was less about performance potential and more about 'sanctity of the regs', with a significant dose of concerns about mix-and-match on the regs. My experience with allowing SMs into STL (a much bigger potential performance gap), coupled to the whole initial point of this topic, has not necessarily dampened those concerns. However, if the SMs could learn to behave when playing in someone else's sandbox then it's potentially something the club could revisit.

But what's the chances of that happening? We're already hearing clear and openly-delivered (with braggadocio) illustrations that SM drivers are perfectly willing to cheat when dipping their toes into other sandboxes; is this something we really want to do? Food for thought.

- GA

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it is a good idea to allow SMs to run legally in IT in SM prep.

The decision to not recommend depowering of racks was a close one. It's possible we would revisit that.

[Greg Amy]

The decision to not recommend depowering of racks was a close one. It's possible we would revisit that.

I think that's a reasonable consideration, even outside the SM discussion; I suggest it's OK for the class regardless of performance concerns (IMO, not as significant as feared).

Of course, that would only address the obvious part of the SM non-compliance: the power steering rack. It does not address the litany of other SM allowances that are non-compliant to the ITCS...but it is the most in-your-face.

- GA

[ner88]

My final comment on this!
I have never suggested it was ok to run a SM in any class if it's not rules compliant.
I would not want to compete against a car that is not prepped legally.
My issue is, now, many years later, we are going to enforce a rule that we knowing
ignored.
Yes, the use of a de-powered SR is a stupid rule but it is a rule!
You can love or hate Miatas but we all let it happen too long, time to change the rule!

[Greg Amy]

My issue is, now, many years later, we are going to enforce a rule that we knowing ignored.

There's no statute of limitations on the GCR...but I hear you. I know you're not condoning regs violations.

What I'm inferring is you believe is that we've developed a culture of overlooking these specific regs, and competitors have become complacent (and expecting it, and even taking advantage of it). But that's is how certain regions/divisions developed a reputation of "fast and loose" on the regs (and I experienced that with IT in Texas in the 80s and during the 'bad old days' of Showroom Stock 80s/90s.)

But I counter that this 'overlooking' culture was wrong to begin with, and the "sudden" enforcement of the regs is not the baddie here. Everyone should know that any time someone plays fast and loose with the regs then they go into the party knowing there's a hammer that can come down on their heads at any time. It's a bit disingenuous to get annoyed when that actually happens...

I'm OK with discussing the idea of allowing SM into ITA/ITS with their prep; it doesn't hurt to discuss it. If, in the end, it can be demonstrated that SM-level prep cannot exceed the performance envelope of a comparable ITS/ITS-prepped Miata, then I have no issue with supporting it. But along with that will should come serious regs enforcement... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And lets also remember that the real 'enforcement' of this type of non-compliance is up the the entrants. If they don't care, so be it. The rules are the rules. 1.6 SM's have been illegal for ITA since they allowed the 1.8 chassis bracing way-back-when.

If the natives want to enforce the rules, they can.

[mossaidis]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.

2 things would be evident.

- If you have a hair across your rear about the steering rack, don't limit yourself to the 1.6 in ITA. The 94-97 car is in the same boat
- Given the nature of the illegality and it's non-performance benefit, some would consider that 'chicken-shit'. We could all roll through the paddock and find nit-picky items illegal on most cars. The reason nobody cares is because they have no benefit. Builders pass on them because they are lazy, blame cost or availability or whatever. If this was a car that was required to have an active power steering setup, then you have a tangible bitch IMHO

Maybe it's time to have the SM group together and let them know that because their ruleset is dynamic - and constantly encroaching into the IT space, they may need to think about STL as the first double dip spot to remain outside the core of the performance envelop - or they may start to see protests from entrants that are not cool with the illegalities/speed/position in class issue.

[ner88]

I would like to and hope you all could agree.....give everyone at this event fair warning!
Get it corrected by next event or be prepared to pay the price!

[Gregg]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way.

[mossaidis]

I would like to and hope you all could agree.....give everyone at this event fair warning!
Get it corrected by next event or be prepared to pay the price!

Why not just have them exclude themselves from points? (I am such a whiner)

[ner88]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way.

Hey Gregg, you can always run HP or STL

[dickita15]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way.

The difference is in the case of many cars such as the Integra it only came with the power steering so depowering it is a performance advantage, with the Miata it came with either rack however the manual racks are pretty rare and very expensive.
So allowing a depowered rack on a Integra allows improved performance, allowing one on a Miata just saves the owner money.
Given that I am not willing to bitch (well at least not much).

[Dano77]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.

AHEMMMMMM Ummm dont forget to ask if the 1.6 Miata also has the later model Diff, housing, axles and driveshaft from the 99 1.8 car. Is this also not a preformance ADVANTAGE??????.

How about a 1.6 car with the 95-97 subframe braces under the chassis. Preformance ADVANTAGE????

What about approved SM Cylinder head prep. 1.6 and 1.8 cars.

This issue is way farther down the road than a de-powered rack. Although we seem to be stuck on that one issue.

Im purley talking about SM cars DD in IT. ST can fend for itself.

Sorry to sound like an ass, and yes I drive an IT7 car, not ITA. That ship sailedd when the ECU rules came about rendering the RX7 to the back of the bus.