September 2011 Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

First, no you don't. Focus on the category and the rule you want for it and move forward.

Second, 'free-wheeling pulley' believer or not, there is NO provision to render that unit non-functional. NONE.

[Knestis]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

1. Come to consensus within the ITAC about what course of action - absent any monkeying around by racers - is best for the category. Don't do what you think you have to do to accommodate clever cheaters, or what you (or the squeaky wheels) individually want; do what you think is right for EVERYONE.

2. Look carefully at the pertinent rule and see if it can be fine-tuned - hopefully by saying LESS rather than MORE - to make the words more consistent with your intent. Apply such changes judiciously, knowing that you are as likely to make it worse as you are to make it better.

3. Don't be shy about sharing your intent, in public forums like this and elsewhere - perhaps including amicus briefs re: current interpretations of intent should a protest be filed...? It would be a powerful statement if the ITAC issued the opinion that freewheeling pulleys, while admittedly clever, render an otherwise stock functionality NONFUNCTIONAL, so are therefor not legal.

4. Let the protest and appeals process do its job.

5. Move on to addressing ITB and ITC class balance and structure issues.

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.

K

[JeffYoung]

I agree with a lot of that, other than I think this clever idea is legal.

And from this thread people are doing it.

I personally am torn. I see this as no different than splitters, or the old "fix" for coil overs or the ECU rule. Yes, it results in creep, but we got to this point because of a poorly worded rule before AND closing the loophole just punishes the clever.

Maybe we do that, I don't know. Need to think about it.

But I remain very strongly in favor of member input on things like this.

1. Come to consensus within the ITAC about what course of action - absent any monkeying around by racers - is best for the category. Don't do what you think you have to do to accommodate clever cheaters, or what you (or the squeaky wheels) individually want; do what you think is right for EVERYONE.

2. Look carefully at the pertinent rule and see if it can be fine-tuned - hopefully by saying LESS rather than MORE - to make the words more consistent with your intent. Apply such changes judiciously, knowing that you are as likely to make it worse as you are to make it better.

3. Don't be shy about sharing your intent, in public forums like this and elsewhere - perhaps including amicus briefs re: current interpretations of intent should a protest be filed...? It would be a powerful statement if the ITAC issued the opinion that freewheeling pulleys, while admittedly clever, render an otherwise stock functionality NONFUNCTIONAL, so are therefor not legal.

4. Let the protest and appeals process do its job.

5. Move on to addressing ITB and ITC class balance and structure issues.

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.

K

[lateapex911]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?

Whoa! Hold it right there, pardner!

The rules allow it in YOUR opinion... but that's far from the he same thing as being legal.
As to the people doing it? Heck, we don't even know if THEY think it's legal! They might be saying that's what they think, but who knows what they really think...

The ONLY way we will know if it's legal is to have somebody with a set of balls protest it, and run it up the appeals process flagpole. THEN we have an answer.*

But, until that time, you can't base your argument, counselor, on the untrue cornerstone of 'It's already legal and we are just making it easier"...

Reminds me of the Ginsberg cold air protest on the Moser CRX.

[lateapex911]

I see this as no different than splitters,

Well, splitters are just a different shaped airdam. The rule has always allowed you to form a surface that doesn't extend in front of the outline of the car, and you've always been free to do that in any way you see fit. Roffes Corallary.

or the ECU rule.

ECUs have evolved over time and the rule needed to eveolve with them. It was not ANYwhere in my mind, when I proposed the latest ECU rule, that "It's legal and people are doing it anyway". I thought that the current rule allowing anything in the box was stupid, if we were going to allow "anything" we should allow "ANYTHING, LOL.

Yes, it results in creep, but we got to this point because of a poorly worded rule before AND closing the loophole just punishes the clever.

It only punishes them if what they are doing is illegal. The people doing it by the rules aren't punished. You've assumed the rules "line" is here, at the 30 yard mark, but others feel it's at the 20. Until we really know, I don't think your arguments can hold water.

[JeffYoung]

Sure, it would be possible to lose that protest. But I think the real intorturation is on the anti-side. Rule says "alternate pulley" of "any material or diameter." These things fit that definition.

The only reason I'm pushing that interpretation is because in my opinion if you don't accept it, you are throwing the "if it says you can, you can" language out the window just because you don't like this particular use of that rule.

Which is way I can just flatly state in 'deciding' what to do with Mark's request that this is illegal. I really don't think it is and I really think the clear language of the rule supports that position.

Whoa! Hold it right there, pardner!

The rules allow it in YOUR opinion... but that's far from the he same thing as being legal.
As to the people doing it? Heck, we don't even know if THEY think it's legal! They might be saying that's what they think, but who knows what they really think...

The ONLY way we will know if it's legal is to have somebody with a set of balls protest it, and run it up the appeals process flagpole. THEN we have an answer.*

But, until that time, you can't base your argument, counselor, on the untrue cornerstone of 'It's already legal and we are just making it easier"...

Reminds me of the Ginsberg cold air protest on the Moser CRX.

[Matt Rowe]

I look at this from a simplistic point of view. What if you walked through the paddock and saw someone snipping the lines with bolt cutters and unbolting the pump and bracket on tossing it on the ground. Would you consider this illegal?

That answer satisfies the question of intent, everything else is just arguing over the language and how clever someone has to be either cheat or effect a legal change.

[JeffYoung]

Fixxored

Well, the bearing pulley is just a different shaped pulley. The rule has always allowed you to use different shaped pulleys, and you've always been free to use "alternate pulleys" Roffes Corallary.

Pulleys have evolved over time and the rule needed to eveolve with them.I thought that the current rule allowing alternate pulleys but strictly limiting changes to material and diamter was stupid, if we were going to allow "anything" we should allow "ANYTHING, LOL.

[Greg Amy]

STOP TRYING TO WRITE CHEAT-PROOF RULES, either by clarificationism or by capitulation to the creepers.K

I agree with a lot of that, other than I think this clever idea is legal.

+1.

"People like me" are your own worst enemy - and you'll never win the battle - if you try and stop me from a letter-of-the-rules standpoint. Yet I'm completely impotent if you reject me from a philosophy and cultural standpoint.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Like I said, there is (to me) a philosophical problem in saying this is not legal. Intent? I agree that these types of pulleys are not part of the intent of the rule. Creep? Absolutley. Good for the class? Depends on your perspective.

The problem for me is that saying this is illegal rather than (a) deciding the downside of allowng it is small and allowing it or (b) taking the dangerous path of trying to outlaw means you are (in my opinion) rejecting the "it says you can" part of our rule set that allows innovation and creative thinking.

[lateapex911]

Sure, it would be possible to lose that protest. But I think the real intorturation is on the anti-side. Rule says "alternate pulley" of "any material or diameter." These things fit that definition.

In your opinion. In MY opinion they most certainly do NOT.
(Because it allows a PULLEY, not tensioner, and it allows that pulley to be made of the material of your choice, not the materials and other parts of your choice. The WORD material has limits. It is not plural. Roffes corollary doesn't apply here.)

So, you are basing your case on the fact that is' legal. Reasonable men (I think you and I are reasonable!) differ.
Therefor your argument needs vetting before it can be accepted.

The only reason I'm pushing that interpretation is because in my opinion if you don't accept it, you are throwing the "if it says you can, you can" language out the window just because you don't like this particular use of that rule.

Nope, I'm not. See above. The rule clearly has very specific limits. They are words and tenses and they have specific meaning. I really don't give two craps about this particular rule. I'm just reading the WORDS. Sometimes words give a lot, sometimes they don't.

Hey, I see the big picture, but, I don't think the premise of making changes based in incorrect* suppositions is proper.

It's incorrect not because it's illegal, it's incorrect because we don't KNOW what's legal and whats not...

[Matt93SE]

My personal interpretation of the pulley rule means that you can replace a steel pulley for a different diameter aluminum pulley that slows (or speeds, if you prefer) the rotation of the pump.
I do not consider it to be a pulley that includes a bearing so it basically freewheels.


Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

[JeffYoung]

Probably legal. Fluid is free.

And the line restrictor -- I don't see anyway that is not legal.

My personal interpretation of the pulley rule means that you can replace a steel pulley for a different diameter aluminum pulley that slows (or speeds, if you prefer) the rotation of the pump.
I do not consider it to be a pulley that includes a bearing so it basically freewheels.


Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

[Ron Earp]

Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

A large amount of interest in disabling these things.

I asked this earlier because I am seeking practical and real-world advice on how to deal with PS problems if I have them:

How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.

Are PS systems really a problem or not? If they are, then why don't we do something to alleviate the issues?

[Knestis]

... Here's a stupid thought.. would it be legal to simply dump the PS fluid out and let the pump grind its innards to bits (or remove the vanes in the pump which removes the internal friction), and thus de-power the rack without modifying the lines?

just a thought.

Let me use this as a "teachable moment" to model how we might operate.

No, Matt. Per 9.1.3.B INTENT, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed" (emphasis added).

The action of not filling the power steering system with fluid, per the manufacturers original design and specifications, disables the system as a whole and alters its functionality. Absent any specific allowance to realize that outcome, your proposed action is not in compliance with the INTENT described in the ITCS.

Done.

If someone wants to change the pulley, they can change the pulley - right up to the point where it disables a "component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle."

Again, I do think that a tweak to the AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS statement would give us another useful tool to prevent creep. I'd suggest that it might be more useful if it said something like...

"Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function or result in a change not otherwise specifically allowed by these rules."

K

[Knestis]

A large amount of interest in disabling these things.

I asked this earlier because I am seeking practical and real-world advice on how to deal with PS problems if I have them:

How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.

Are PS systems really a problem or not? If they are, then why don't we do something to alleviate the issues?

I personally believe that anyone who can't (a) maintain a power steering system well enough, and/or (b) use the existing allowance, as it was intended, to mitigate overspeeding the pump, probably shouldn't be allowed to work on their own car and put it on the track with the rest of us.

I firmly believe that this, like a lot of other allowances that people ask for, is rooted in a cultural sense of "what a race car should be."

The only problem I have ever had with my PS is when the belt slips in wet conditions. That's including thousands of enduro miles.

K

[Ron Earp]

I personally believe that anyone who can't (a) maintain a power steering system well enough, and/or (b) use the existing allowance, as it was intended, to mitigate overspeeding the pump, probably shouldn't be allowed to work on their own car and put it on the track with the rest of us.

Oh noz! Have I now joined The Others and won't be let on track with The Rest of Us?

[Matt93SE]

Let me use this as a "teachable moment" to model how we might operate.

No, Matt. Per 9.1.3.B INTENT, "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed" (emphasis added).

The action of not filling the power steering system with fluid, per the manufacturers original design and specifications, disables the system as a whole and alters its functionality. Absent any specific allowance to realize that outcome, your proposed action is not in compliance with the INTENT described in the ITCS.

Done.

If someone wants to change the pulley, they can change the pulley - right up to the point where it disables a "component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle."

Again, I do think that a tweak to the AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS statement would give us another useful tool to prevent creep. I'd suggest that it might be more useful if it said something like...

"Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function or result in a change not otherwise specifically allowed by these rules."

K

This is exactly why I asked this question... I'm considering the "PS fluid is free" part to include air as my fluid of choice. Air is a fluid, correct? The PS pump is horribly inefficient at pumping air, but it's still trying to pump it.... now there's a tortured interpretation for you.

It's a different matter for me since I'm in STU and allowed to de-power the rack. But I was asking since that was my first thought when this thread came up and I'm sure someone will try to pull exactly that. Air as a fluid is no less strained than a bearing pressed into a pulley, IMO.

Ron.. I'm in STU so it's legal, mind you.. But I de-powered my rack by simply dumping the fluid, looping the lines, and removing the PS pump.

I did this for a couple reasons:

1. Nissans are famous for leaking power steering systems. not necessarily cooling issues, but the lines ALWAYS weep and the reservoirs almost always leak through the cap vent under racing conditions slosh fluid around. This isn't necessarily a reliability issue, but more of a less maintenance + clean engine bay + lower risk of fire issue. (The PS system on a 240SX is directly in front of the exhaust mani/header and the hoses terminate directly below the header. you blow a hose on this sucker and you're in for a world of hurt)

2. after popping a line on track at a DE (flying rocks hit the alu cooling loop along the crossmember during an off-course excursion), it caught my left front wheel well on fire when the PS fluid hit a hot brake rotor.

To replace the ruptured factory loop, I installed a small oil cooler in front of the radiator (below both pump and reservoir so no air pockets).. then I bled the system and fired up the car. Everything was fine for ONE lap on track before the system crapped out.

To finish the track day, I de-powered the rack trackside and finished the day.
I replaced the rack PS pump, lines, and OE cooling loop from a donor car when I got home.
next track day it crapped out on me again.

so I de-powered the rack again, got a larger diameter steering wheel, and never looked back.

[tyler raatz]

letter 6014 sent in favor of p/s removal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Probably legal. Fluid is free.

And the line restrictor -- I don't see anyway that is not legal.

Show me where not having a functioning PS pump, alternator, water pump, etc, is legal.

You can not use a legal mod (debatable here) to facilitate an illegal one. See my original 'mirror' modification idea.

The Roffe rule is most commonly used for specicially legal items, not items that are leaps from grey area interpretations. It doesn't really SAY you can do what you are saying you can, so the foundation is VERY shaky to start building on.

And I don't hesitate to say people are NOT doing this in droves. They are totally bypassing the pump and looping lines. ILLEGAL - and they know it. Even if you have a pulley like is being decribed, you can't modify the line routing. So in reality, I think this is a knee jerk reaction to one letter and a bunch of people who don't care about the rules too much. I still fail to see how a rack attached through legal routing of the lines that is being fed by a NON-functioning, non-modified PS pump would work as people think. Looping the lines would be a must...and clearly illegal.

But in the end, we decide and write our letters based on what is best for the category, weighing pros and cons with unitended concequenses.