September 2011 Fastrack

I kind of chuckle at the whole power steering thing. I ultimately believe that for most racers it's about "what race cars are supposed to be." Kind of like those that go to the trouble to replace the stock key with a push-button starter.

I do *NOT* think that the benefit/risk math makes an additional allowance a good idea but I'm trying hard to stay on the wagon re: my anti-creep campaigning.

Frankly, I hope that when - not if, since it's only a matter of time until this next tree falls - people can disable their power steering, a lot of them will so I'll continue to have the advantage of keeping it.

K
 
I am ambivalent about this one.

To me, it's a bit like coil overs. When we didn't allow threaded body shocks, we all went to the trouble of the trick perches, etc. to get "around" the rule the "hard" way.

Here, there are at least two "hard ways" to get around the 'no looping racks' rule.

A lot of fast guys on this thread have acknowledged looking at the bearing idea and concluding it is legal.

It's also interesting to me that most have left the power steering on, which also confirm something I had thought and that is it may actually be an advantage from a comfort/not wear the driver out standpoint.

Bottom line for me is I think the tree is already down, so not a big deal other than I just hate adding more rules to the rulebook.
 
I removed the P/S on the Integra (STL) because I needed to lose 25-30# and I wanted the space on that side of the engine to route oil cooler lines. Engine output difference is minimal. But I certainly enjoyed my power steering...you need some good arms to drive it without. For enduros I'd prefer p/s. One additional benefit is that I, like Jeff, tended to over-turn into corners. Removal of the p/s helped with that, as I can better feel what the front tires are doing.

Given the option in IT I'd consider removal, but I didn't find a significant performance advantage to it.
 
On some cars there isn't much weight in the PS system.

For point of reference the entire pump, lines, and pulley on the Rustang weigh in at 8.1 lbs. The pulley is plastic, the pump is cast aluminum with plastic reservoirs, and the lines are around one foot long for each one. The mount for the pulley is cast in with the alternator mount, so nothing I can do there, but that entire assembly is aluminum too and only 4.5 lbs.

At best I could see only ditching about 9.5 lbs - the pump/lines, plus 1/2 the bracket. Rustangs had no manual rack options so I have no savings in rack weight.

Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?
 
Ron Earp said:
Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?
Click to expand...
For some reason, Honda - the paragon of automotive engineering - uses huge cast-iron brackets for all external accessories. It's silly. Of the ~25-30# lost fully half of that was brackets, the rest being pump and hoses.

Still using the p/s rack, looped.

GA
 
If I looped the hoses on my car and removed the PS pump, I might loose 5#....however, I would loose the PS pump being 3/4" away from the radiator and a certain wash down of the track if the motor mounts fail. Chuck
 
I drive a 924S with a depowered rack. I've never had any issues with fatigue. The effort is light at racing speeds. Plus I don't have to put as much input into the wheel to make the car do what I want. I've also never had a problem catching a rotating car without power steering.
 
Ron Earp said:
Are FWD/Honda systems large and bulky or is the 25-30 lbs of savings due to the rack?
Click to expand...

On my VW Golf 2, I would estimate the power steering pump and pulley is a good 10lbs, plus the lines that run all the way from the right side of the engine across the front of the car and around the left side of the engine bay to the power steering rack. For sure it would be a significant weight savings to help get the car down to min weight. But the functional tradeoff, more steering effort=more fatigue, is questionable. To me it's less of a functional issue and more of a weight savings, simplification opportunity. One less moving part (no rotating pulley and P/S shaft bearing), one less set of lines that could potentially rupture and spew oil on the track, more space/less clutter in the engine compartment. I will submit a letter on this issue as I appreciate the request for member feedback and submitting a letter is a good way to say thanks for asking for member feedback, even if it doesn't go the way I want it, I appreciate the consideration.
 
Knestis said:
I kind of chuckle at the whole power steering thing. I ultimately believe that for most racers it's about "what race cars are supposed to be." Kind of like those that go to the trouble to replace the stock key with a push-button starter.
K
Click to expand...
I tend to agree - but F1 has power steering, ACO/FIA/ALMS and grandam too. ACO/ALMS has air conditioning. those are real racecars, no doubt.

I think people just want a system that's not "necessary" and a potential power sap (minimal, and further able to be minimized using the pulley rule even without the bearings) to be out of the car, simplifying and cleaning up the engine bay.

and layoff the pushbutton startes, and sometimes ignition switches break ;)
 
The Escort came to us with the lines looped. I went to the trouble to find all the right pieces and put it all back on. It's been nothing but trouble. I put a lot of effort to get it to where it's at, as Ford/Mazda designed it, but it's still not quite up to track use. Where to go from here? Reservoir probably needs to be bigger, more cooling, belt alignment rechecked, perhaps a smaller pulley custom made. Cheaper (and easier) to grab a rack from a regular Escort, or loop the lines again.

But, given all the comments above, I'm leaning to a spec line allowance. "Manual rack from Escort (1.9 engine) allowed."
 
My impressions from this thread:


  • Lots of people loop lines and render the PS system ineffective.
  • Others put a roller bearing in the pulley and don't turn the pump thus rendering the PS system ineffective.
  • Seems most folks don't care to have the PS system functional.

Why don't we allow PS system removal? Admittedly, I'm going to try and keep mine and see how it works out, but I'd like the option to legally toss it if it is a pain in the ass.
 
Last edited:
Register me as against the idea, I submitted my letter.

1) It would make people test multiple configurations that most don't have to test right now -- expensive
2) It's clearly rules creep
3) People exploiting a gray area (alternate fake pulleys) is not excuse for creep. Close down the gray area instead.
 
On the other hand, we have inequity in the class now. Folks driving cars that have power and non-power rack options get to choose which one they feel is more advantageous. This is not a parameter that is figured in the IT classification process but in some instances can have an impact on performance. At least having a "deactivation" allowance would somewhat level the field.
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
On the other hand, we have inequity in the class now. Folks driving cars that have power and non-power rack options get to choose which one they feel is more advantageous. This is not a parameter that is figured in the IT classification process but in some instances can have an impact on performance. At least having a "deactivation" allowance would somewhat level the field.
Click to expand...

But it's arguably a factor that one might - should? - consider when choosing a car. It's a slippery slope to start thinking we should "level" all aspects of the cars, not accounted for in the Process, by rules allowances.

Transmission ratios aren't considered in the specification process, and some cars (e.g., my Golf) have alternate sets available because of the vagaries of manufacturers' practices. Should we allow alternate ratios for all...?

Seems like "no," and PS is different only by a matter of degree.

And safety, service, and costs arguments gain zero traction with me. They can be invoked for ANY desired new allowance.

K
 
I like my power steering. What I don't like is all the damn leaks and crappy pumps that come with a Nissan power steering system. I'd probably try looping the rack to see how it felt just to make my engine bay and garage floor look better.
 
Knestis said:
But it's arguably a factor that one might - should? - consider when choosing a car. It's a slippery slope to start thinking we should "level" all aspects of the cars, not accounted for in the Process, by rules allowances.

Transmission ratios aren't considered in the specification process, and some cars (e.g., my Golf) have alternate sets available because of the vagaries of manufacturers' practices. Should we allow alternate ratios for all...?

Seems like "no," and PS is different only by a matter of degree.

And safety, service, and costs arguments gain zero traction with me. They can be invoked for ANY desired new allowance.

K
Click to expand...

I can't fault your line of thinking at all. The only thought I might add is that PS is certainly much less of a performance factor than gear ratios.

If folks are comfortable with the work around solutions for those that don't want to use PS then I'm okay with them too. There are so many innovative and interesting ways to deactivate the PS pump.
 
DavidM said:
I like my power steering. What I don't like is all the damn leaks and crappy pumps that come with a Nissan power steering system. I'd probably try looping the rack to see how it felt just to make my engine bay and garage floor look better.
Click to expand...

Just to piss you off, I looped the lines on my S14 and have been a happy camper since. the PS system broke on my twice in two track days. I finally gave up, looped the lines, and found a shorter belt at the parts store that went directly from the crank to water pump. done. steering blew up on lap 1 on a DE day at 9am. I was back up and running by 11:30.

Good thing it's legal for STU. :)

oh.. ummm, I have a larger aluminum pulley for a KA-E if you need one. a Prod racer friend gave me a couple of them. they're for a V belt instead of a grooved one, so I couldn't use them on my car. if you want to try one to slow the pump down and hopefully not blow them to bits so often, I can shoot one your way.
 
JoshS said:
Register me as against the idea, I submitted my letter.

1) It would make people test multiple configurations that most don't have to test right now -- expensive
2) It's clearly rules creep
3) People exploiting a gray area (alternate fake pulleys) is not excuse for creep. Close down the gray area instead.
Click to expand...

Not true. Does not MAKE anyone test. I could argue that it is much more expensive to build an entire car (see car choice arguement) than it is to test ps.

What? No one would do tht? I would say the same about ps. People are already testing should they do a workaround if thhey care. So far even in this overinvolved group the most you are getting is half hearted anecdotal 'testing'

This is an example of writing the rules to suit/control an imaginary 1% of people who build to 10/10th witnin the rules. Unintended consequences cuts both ways.
U
 
...but something we learned very quickly spending any time on the ITAC - all rules have to be written understanding that SOMEONE will be that 10/10ths person, and that establishes the most extreme potential application of any given rule.

Too many of the problems we've run into in the past 10 years in IT have been grounded in assumptions about what "sensible people" will do. That isn't what pushes the state of the art.

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