Right, which is why you need a Rube Goldberg-like pulley that still spins, but which hardly turns the shaft. Power steering would still be enabled. It would be functional. It would still pump fluid. It just wouldn't be pumping very hard.
September 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter erlrich
- Start date
Right, which is why you need a Rube Goldberg-like pulley that still spins, but which hardly turns the shaft. Power steering would still be enabled. It would be functional. It would still pump fluid. It just wouldn't be pumping very hard.
erlrich
Super Moderator
Knestis said:
I was always under the impression that "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein", aka IIDSYCYC, implicitly prohibits any function/modification not explicitly allowed? Even if you were to eliminate every instance of a specific prohibition, wouldn't that phrase still make the "No permitted component..." applicable?
JeffYoung
New member
But in practice not as big as it seems.
If it says you can build a spoiler, that means you can extend it as a splitter within the confines of the spoiler rule. If it says you can modify struts, then you can move a suspension pickup point that is on the strut. And so on.
Something has to be expressly prohibited to limit the "it says you can" rule. I.e. you can't use the "exhaust is free" rule to build a turbocharger.
If it says you can build a spoiler, that means you can extend it as a splitter within the confines of the spoiler rule. If it says you can modify struts, then you can move a suspension pickup point that is on the strut. And so on.
Something has to be expressly prohibited to limit the "it says you can" rule. I.e. you can't use the "exhaust is free" rule to build a turbocharger.
a thrown belt is not the same as a removed pump in all cases I guess. I thought there was a common safe operational fail mode but I guess "safe" is relative, and racing speeds aren't part of the equation.
most likely the pump mechanism is the culprit. if the free-flow of fluid through the "pressure" side of the pump is blocked by the pump mechanism (positive displacement type, commonly sliding vane) then there will be significant resistance to moving the rack as you'd pull a vacuum on the fixed volume. the safety will be some sort of vacuum relief valve, probobly integrated with the pressure relief valve assembly, and the characteristics of that will change from car to car.
Andy, I think this answers your question, too. a "power rack" is a "power assisted rack" and vice versa. it's just a hydraulic piston mounted to the rack and pressurized/vented via a spool valve connected to the pinion gear take away flow restrictions and they are simply manual racks with extra gubbins and less mechancial adnvatage. (and sometimes a "dead spot" at immediate input due to a torsional shaft between the coumn and pinion gear)
power steering boxes are a slightly different animal in construction but behave basiclaly in the same way.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Back then Bill I didn't NEED anyone to tell me I was allowed to. The innards of the unmodifed ECU housing were 100% free. I connected my electronics through the original connectors and ran the vacuum line in an existing hole in the housing. No modifications to the box whatsoever. If you want to ding me on using the exisiting hole, so be it. Felt it was legal then, still do even though it is moot. But we get that you disagree.
The issue here is that this arguement is not on a 'free' item and the Roffe rule doesn't apply, I think we agree on that.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Where are we on motor mounts? More letters needed?
shwah
New member
IMO we are just fine on the motor mounts as is. Thanks for the reminder to send a letter.
JeffYoung
New member
While I never saw it as a big issue, I thought the legality problem with the MAP sensor was not putting it in the box (legal) it was the connection to the intake or plenum for which there is no provision in the rules. Still, I generally buy the idea that if the rules allowed something, that means you could do things (unless specifically prohibited) to make that "something" work.
We had a snafu with the conference call this month and I need to check on the mount rule. I had drafted some language with the held of the committee, input from some of the other advisory committees and input from you all. I think we are close to making a recommendation. Sorry again for the delay on this.
We had a snafu with the conference call this month and I need to check on the mount rule. I had drafted some language with the held of the committee, input from some of the other advisory committees and input from you all. I think we are close to making a recommendation. Sorry again for the delay on this.
not everyone
someopne else covered this, but we are allowed to modify it from the manufacturer by underdriving it. we are not allowed to disable it or underdrive to zero, which accomplishes the same thing.
1 - I think you are reading too much into it. there's some people here, myself included, wheo are bandying about silly ideas for overcomplicated devices that meet the actual rules as bearing pulleys seem to have been pretty well debunked. I don't think anyone has stated outright that they think such a device is within the intent of the current rule. you should be happy, by the way, that anyone, particularly ad hoc members, are "caught up" in this discussion, as it will lead to a better vetting of what the rule as written could be interpereted to mean by the cleverest among us. there's no indication that I've seen that anyone on any comittee is encouraging these, though some do believe them to be legal. if you know a way to write rules to be water tight, let me know. my gut says clarify the intent section and cut the extrapolation and restrictions where possible.
2- I doubt you would get that reply. I can't and won't speak for the itac at large, but I know that I am not looking to change the rule, but am willing to hear a good argument to do so. I haven't seen one yet. larger than that are the implications on classifications and the process, so the inertia of it all will tend to try and keep things as-is.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
For what it is worth, at least for me, Chip is right. I think this is an unintended consequence of the alternate pulley rule, which was intended to allow underdriving (or overdriving).
BUT, it sure is a fine line isn't it? Between JUST turning that pump shaft and not at all......
BUT, it sure is a fine line isn't it? Between JUST turning that pump shaft and not at all......
Matt93SE
New member
erlrich said:
If that guy reinstalled the pump and lines and still "didn't have power steering", then he either had an upper body like The Hulk, or he wasn't putting fluid back in the system so the pump freewheeled with no fluid to pump.
The pump itself is indeed a sliding vane type.
that said, I really wasn't opposed to how the factory power steering system felt when it worked. It was a matter of reliability and weight for me. I've stripped just about everything I can out of the car according to the rules, running 13lb wheels with nearly bald tires, empty fuel tank, and I'm STILL 50lb over... but I digress..
I've run an underdrive crank pulley on my 240 and Maxima for years. The Max would run out of power assist even pulling into a parking lot or during a slalom autoX. It would work fine the first direction, but the second you'd turn the wheel the opposite direction, you'd have about 1/2 second of *ohsh!t* with no steering, then it'd work again. So for a slalom you had to be very gentle with the steering.Chip42 said:
on the road course, the car was fine though since steering inputs are smaller, slower, and engine rpm was almost always above 4500.
As for the 240, I don't ever recall having issues with it running out of power assist mid-maneuver, or with a lack of steering feel like my current G35 daily. (I took it to the track once and OMG the steering is numb on that thing compared to either the Maxima or the 240!) I run/ran an underdrive crank pulley but stock power steering and water pump pulley--the S14 chassis shares the belt for water pump and power steering, not sure about the S13.
I noticed a pretty obvious difference in acceleration due to one less chunk of parasitic drag and rotating mass. Probably not a ton of horsepower gained, but throttle response was dramatically increased by the pulley change and by removing the power steering.
Pulling that pump also allows much less tension on the belt since it's only driving the water pump. I can run the belt about 1/4 of the previous required tension, and have even seen something as simple as belt tension show on a dyno plot before so the additional parasitic loss can be fairly dramatic if you're enthusiastic about cranking belts down until they almost snap.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
No, if you mean that will answer the previous legality issues. it won't.
Only way to know is through the appeals process.
And the Appeals board shouldn't ask the ITAC what they think the 'intent' is, because THIS ITAC didn't write that rule, and I guarantee you there is no documentation, other than what we all read that will hint at intent. The Appeals board should read the words, as written, and make the call.
I contend that there is no provision in the rules to remove all power from the pump, only a provision to underdrive it.
JeffYoung
New member
Which is an extraordinarily fine line (although I think I agree with you), and one that has no real practical effect since so long as my "bearing pulley" just slightly turns the pump shaft, then I'm legal.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bill Miller
New member
Like I said Andy, we will agree to disagree. I think you exploited a poorly written rule, as the people the wrote it probably didn't envision anything other than electrical connections going to the ECU. I personally think you got lucky, as it never went through the protest process before the rule got changed. I don't think it would have passed muster.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So be it. If I didn't think I could have won a protest, I wouldn't have done it obviously. Still hold the same opinion.
Howdy,
I'm the guy that wrote in the request. My cultural sense of "what a race car should be" for this is grounded entirely in "what does the rule book allow".
My real sense of what a race car should be doesn't involve production made cars with steel bodywork.
I do think looping a PS rack is "consistent" with my pretty novice view of what an IT car is.
When I wrote the request, I'd never considered other ways to disable the PS system. Personally, I think the bearing pulley is illegal (and that's more concerning to me regarding stuff like the alternator than the PS system). The restrictor in the line seems legal however.
I wrote the request because my car (1st gen Neon) has a history of PS belt throwing issues / its another component that can fail, its more crap in my way, and its more weight on the front end. My car has a manual rack option, which at the time of the request I was pursing. When I was talking with Jeff about what a PITA it was to find a set of factory mounts for the manual rack, I mentioned that this would have been a hell of a lot easier if I could have just looped the damned rack like anyone who didn't have a rulebook would do, and he suggested writing a letter.
Since then, I've found the (low volume, NLA, PITA to find) parts I need to mount the manual rack to the k-member / steering column and I'm good to go whatever way the rule reads. If the rule goes through allowing looping the rack, I may try a looped PS rack for the quicker ratio (there are a couple to choose from). But I'm firmly in the "whatever" camp, even though I think its a modification that makes sense in my view of the IT world.
The more interesting question to me is the bearing pulley thing. I think its clearly illegal and yet people who's opinion I respect think its clearly legal. Seems like the rule should be written so that reasonable people agree on what it means.
So I wrote a letter.
Mark
(who needs to stop writing letters and start working on getting the f*cking car onto the track)
I'm the guy that wrote in the request. My cultural sense of "what a race car should be" for this is grounded entirely in "what does the rule book allow".
My real sense of what a race car should be doesn't involve production made cars with steel bodywork.
I do think looping a PS rack is "consistent" with my pretty novice view of what an IT car is.
When I wrote the request, I'd never considered other ways to disable the PS system. Personally, I think the bearing pulley is illegal (and that's more concerning to me regarding stuff like the alternator than the PS system). The restrictor in the line seems legal however.
I wrote the request because my car (1st gen Neon) has a history of PS belt throwing issues / its another component that can fail, its more crap in my way, and its more weight on the front end. My car has a manual rack option, which at the time of the request I was pursing. When I was talking with Jeff about what a PITA it was to find a set of factory mounts for the manual rack, I mentioned that this would have been a hell of a lot easier if I could have just looped the damned rack like anyone who didn't have a rulebook would do, and he suggested writing a letter.
Since then, I've found the (low volume, NLA, PITA to find) parts I need to mount the manual rack to the k-member / steering column and I'm good to go whatever way the rule reads. If the rule goes through allowing looping the rack, I may try a looped PS rack for the quicker ratio (there are a couple to choose from). But I'm firmly in the "whatever" camp, even though I think its a modification that makes sense in my view of the IT world.
The more interesting question to me is the bearing pulley thing. I think its clearly illegal and yet people who's opinion I respect think its clearly legal. Seems like the rule should be written so that reasonable people agree on what it means.
So I wrote a letter.
Mark
(who needs to stop writing letters and start working on getting the f*cking car onto the track)
Last edited:
Howdy,
You run into issues with this approach too.
Show me the rule that explicitly allows me to run the PS pump at a lower RPM than the manufacturer intended.
We have a rule that allows pulley diameters to be changed. That may (or may not, if you change enough pulleys) result in the PS pump being underdriven. But that's not explicitly allowed, and the way you're reading the rules would (IMHO) make underdriving the accessory illegal as well unless that was an explicit allowance (instead of an implied one, via the pulley diameter change allowance).
MHO, etc.
Mark
You run into issues with this approach too.
Show me the rule that explicitly allows me to run the PS pump at a lower RPM than the manufacturer intended.
We have a rule that allows pulley diameters to be changed. That may (or may not, if you change enough pulleys) result in the PS pump being underdriven. But that's not explicitly allowed, and the way you're reading the rules would (IMHO) make underdriving the accessory illegal as well unless that was an explicit allowance (instead of an implied one, via the pulley diameter change allowance).
MHO, etc.
Mark
