September 2011 Fastrack

Andy Bettencourt said:
I disagree that pulleys are free also. It says you can change diameter and material. That's it. You can't change the way they 'work' or in your example, 'don't work'.

The rules in IT tell you what you are allowed to do, nothing more.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yes on the power steering. Pain in the butt on my wife's Escort GT. Spews fluid (on the track), pops the belt off. In need of some re-engineering. Or ditch it. I vote ditch it. Letter will be written.
 
Greg Amy said:
He asked, we said, "sure, why not?" Once you really think about it - and we did - VW and Porsche are the same "family." Yeah, maybe not exactly the same structural relationship as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, GM/Pontiac, or even VW/Audi, but VW does pretty much own a major chunk of Porsche...and they've been sharing technology for decades (912/914/VW bus, Porsche 924/Audi 100, etc).

So, sure, find a way toss in that Golf 2.0L turbo engine into your 944, and go have fun playing in STU... :shrug:

GA
Click to expand...

tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.
 
Chip42 said:
tGA - I know you and I discussed this either int he ST forum or offline previously and the result was effectively "we'll let it work itself out," but the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later. VW/Audi = lexus/toyota = acura/hona, etc... fine. GM = chevy/pontiac/buick/cadillac, OK. but I don't think anyone thought less recent VW/Audi and porsches were open.

but the cross breeds, the short term corporate ownership particularly after 2008 reshuffled the deck... sooner or later there's going to be turbo volvo and rotary engined fords, subaru engined pontiacs and toyotas, and hemi MBs. the time to clarify this rule has passed, it needs to be straitened out NOW because I think the general understanding was just shattered.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much in agreement with that. There's too much ambiguity in some of these things, and too much that's being disallowed that should be pretty simple and straightforward.

Toyota made the Pontiac Vibe. Toyota also made the early Geo Metro. Mitsubishi made/makes the engines in Dodge Caravans, eagle talons, and dodge stealth.

So does that mean I can put a 4G63 turbo in my Neon?
Or how about a 2JZ-GTE in my GTO or Grand Prix, which would allow either of them into STU?

At one time, Toyota built trannies for Chevy too. So how about a 2JZ in my Camaro?

Hell, almost all OEMs use Mahle pistons anymore.. maybe we should just say they're all the same damn thing since the parts come from the same factory..

you want tortured interpretations, I'll give you tortured!!
 
Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?

If not, that's what he SHOULD have been saying, LOL.

On the surface, at first glance, I find the allowance surprising and seeming inconsistent. I'll think harder about it though.
 
lateapex911 said:
Maybe it's just me, but was Chris Rallo saying, in his "I can use a VW engine in my Porsche but I can't use a Nissan engine in my Nissan??" rant that he was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?
Click to expand...

And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob! :D
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....


No, I'm not bitter..... :023:
 
JeffYoung said:
My personal thinking on the power steering rule:

1. You can already depower the rack with a "trick" pulley that spins without turning the pump, so this can be done.

2. Arguably -- arguably -- you can depower the rack since the lines are "free" and ... use your imagination.

So this change is just to "mirror reality" that already exists under the rules.

But my feeling is that we all have some trepidation because it sure does look like rules creep.

Thoughts/discussion appreciated.
Click to expand...


I am not liking the non working pulley, or the non working lines,
they are just like snipping the existing lines...not kosher

when I bought the 14 car years ago, it had been racing in ITS for
many years, but had the lines snipped illegally....

we replaced the PS rack with a manual rack to get back inside the ruleset

.
 
Matt93SE said:
And just where do VW and Porsche and Audi come from? It ain't Detroit, Bob! :D
The Nissan engines in question at least came from the same factory....


No, I'm not bitter..... :023:
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the ultimate intorturation on motor swaps....

the Bugatti motor in a VW Golf :p

The VW/Audi/Porsche connection is best exemplified by the 924, which (btw isn't it too old to use in ST?) has a motor sourced from an Audi, and the 912/914 which uses the 1.7/2.0 type 4 motor which is also used in the later type 2 buses.
 
chuck baader said:
I don't mean to bitch, but how long does it take to formulate a sentence allowing substitution of engine/trans mounts?

My suggestion sent 2-22-10:

"Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material, may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine mounts must attach to the engine and the chassis in their stock locations."

Seems to me that in 18 months something could be formulated. Chuck
Click to expand...

I too have a proposal in the files on motor mounts... but it's been tabled:(
 
Chip42 said:
...the "family" engine swap concept needs to be defined, and apparently sooner than later.
Click to expand...
It was a long topic of conversation, on both the private forum and on the concall. In the end, we could take one of two tacks: specifically list all the allowances (kludgy, subject to reasonable omissions, likely a long list, and likely not to be approved by the CRB ) or we could take a more open interpretation of allowance-and-see. We chose the latter. The primary basis for that choice was that the category is engine-centric to begin with anyway, as weight and restrictors are all based off of what engine you choose to use. Since any engine that can be installed into a chassis will have to have been allowed to begin with, what chassis you choose to install it into has much less effect on the engine's specific competitiveness in the class chosen. In other words, the engine you want to use has to be already approved for the class you want to run, it's not like we're suddenly allowing new engines in.

Once convinced of that, I took the primary position of "think of the very best engine you can, one with the highest power-to-displacement, and put it into the very best chassis you can think of". My standard for the chassis was the Mazda Miata, and I tried to think of the very best "family" engine you could install into it, even using FoMoCo products as an extreme potential intorturation. Granted, I can't think of all possibilities ("crowd sourcing" will take care of that soon enough) but I could not think of a Ford engine that could be installed in the Miata chassis that would make it a significantly better competitor than what it can be now.

Same goes for the 944. Sure, a VW normally-aspirated 2.0-16V Golf engine would put it into STL, but so what? Is that a better choice than an 2L MZR-equipped NB Miata? Would the 2L turbo in the 944 (with an appropriate TIR) make it a better STU car than if it used the 944T engine? I suggest not.

Bottom line, yes there's potential for "abuse" here. And I'd encourage anyone thinking out-of-the-box to send in a clarification request like this bloke did, as if you get too wacky you may very well lose a protest. But out-of-the-box thinking is one of the underlying ideals of this category and a purpose behind allowing alternate engines.

Remember it's an engine-centric category and other things tend to fall into place.

lateapex911 said:
...Chris Rallo...was surprised you can't use a world market Nissan in his American Nissan ST chassis?
Click to expand...
Ah, he's chewing on the JDM bone again. Gotcha. I've not heard back the results of his letters to CRB and BoD members? S**t ain't gonna happen on its own, you know...and no one's gonna spoon-feed you on it. Just sayin'... :shrug:

GA
 
BTW, while I consider Jeff's "p/s lines made out of air" to be intorturation, I consider his bearing-pulley to be legal. Rule states:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

We considered that many moons ago but did not pursue it on the NX, primarily because I did not want to fight against all the hydraulics. Which is why I requested de-powering and looping the stuff...and was rejected.... ;)

GA
 
I think the bearing pulley is 100% legal. I think "alternate" pulleys means you can put a bearing inside the pulley if you want, and technically even that meets Andy's limitation on the "free" pulley rule to different diameter and material as you just say the bearing is different "material."

On the lines, I'm not saying they are can be like the "air" bushings on the rear suspension of an RX7, as i understand the "trick" it is to put a restrictor in the line that effectively renders the system useless.

Do people add coolers to the power steering lines? If so, I don't see how the restrictor is really any different.....

Still, this "feels" like creep and I'm only strongly advocating one side to hash this one out.
 
The unexpected power bump is (in my mind) the best argument (other than avoid creep) against this.

Any others?


Chip42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Greg Amy said:
BTW, while I consider Jeff's "p/s lines made out of air" to be intorturation, I consider his bearing-pulley to be legal. Rule states:

"Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used."

...with no further restrictions. Thus, we invoke the Roffe Corollary. If you want to invoke the "prohibited function" clause that's easy: what's the intended function of alternate pulleys? To allow accessories to turn slower. Does a bearing-infused power steering pulley allow the power steering pump to turn slower? Yes it does.

We considered that many moons ago but did not pursue it on the NX, primarily because I did not want to fight against all the hydraulics. Which is why I requested de-powering and looping the stuff...and was rejected.... ;)

GA
Click to expand...

Still not buying it. It's not 'no further restrictions'. It's 'no further ALLOWANCES'. It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.
 
Good point.

The rule as we hashed it out in committee required all power steering parts to stay on the car, but you could loop the lines.

Greg Amy said:
Weight in the nose of a FWD car. The removal of the Integra P/S stuff with Honda's cast iron brackets helped us lose ~25# from the nose...
Click to expand...
 
I changed the pulley material. The pulley "material" is now a bearing in the center.


Andy Bettencourt said:
Still not buying it. It's not 'no further restrictions'. It's 'no further ALLOWANCES'. It says you can swap the pulleys, and tells you exactly the two things you can change. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
The rule as we hashed it out in committee required all power steering parts to stay on the car, but you could loop the lines.
Click to expand...
That's lame. Do it or don't do it, but don't do it half-a**. Cars are subject to a minimum weight already, and moving 25# from the nose to the passenger floor will be functionally irrelevant.

Copy the SM rule; it's well-established and CRB-approved. Done.

GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top