P class and Power Steering cooler???

[Subie Gal]

hey all.
i realize that an oil or tranny cooler is permitted...

but i've had serious issues w/the power steering fading out near the end of the long stages... as the fluid is boiling over

suggestions on what to do here?

and what can i do per the rules?

can i add some type of a ps cooler?

do i just run synthetic??

or do i just wing it and wait until i completely lose my steering??? :D


any thoughts, ideas, examples are massively appreciated!

cheers!
Jamie
www.subiegalracing.com
www.subiegal.com

[Trevor Donison]

>hey all.
>i realize that an oil or tranny cooler is permitted...
>
>but i've had serious issues w/the power steering fading out
>near the end of the long stages... as the fluid is boiling
>over
>
>suggestions on what to do here?
>
>and what can i do per the rules?
>
>can i add some type of a ps cooler?
>
>do i just run synthetic??
>
>or do i just wing it and wait until i completely lose my
>steering??? :D
>

I would try completely replacing the fluid. If its boiling over, it sounds like there may be some water in the system.

Trevor

[johnfelstead]

I found this Jamie, probably worth trying out before you go to the expense of installing a cooler!

http://www.neosyntheticoil.com/offroad2.htm

[Jerry Brownell]

Is it actually boiling out or is it getting kind of foamy? If it isn't actually boiling, you may just need to replace the power steering pump. I would be surprised if you were boiling fluid at a low temperature rally. Our G5 car has a power steering cooler, but that is because Gail raced the car in Jamaica a couple of times.

[John Vanlandingham]

Jamie,
Your question is one that had me worried when building my Frod.
European and US PS systems operate at 75 bar and no doubt Jap junk is similar, and I watched you reving the peace outa the motor at DooFlops, so I'm not surprised your seeing some heat and cavitation issues (which is what's going on, Pat R has mention similar stuff, several other friends with PS as well.)(friends that rev their motors that is...he he)

You need to get an answer on the legality aspect which nobody addressed while they're too busy being mechanics.

ATF is already an oil which is intended to run at some really high tempuratures. I doubt if just a bit fancier ATF will cure this.

There are plenty of nice compact little coolers on varios things out in the wrecking yards so I would expect to pay maybe max $15. The cooler is on the return side of the system, which is low pressue so you don't need fancy hose and fittings, Ford Motorsport has nice pictures of hoses with normal hose clamps (normal meaning AWAB clamps not the sheeeet US flat clamps with holes all the way thru).
Oh, the pictures showing the cooler also show a nice filter¤, I used some GM fuel injection filter and a Volvo V6 245 automatic trans cooler as my cooler, so total cost hoses, filter and cooler was a whopping $26.



¤Filter is for the leeetle teeeenie crystaline boogers which form in normal use in even streetcars and these boogers are the source of the normal wear and death of OEM steering racks, they chew grooves into the pinion housing where the teflon rings ride on the soft aluminum.
Little grooves, loss of pressure, loss of pressure, loss of assist.












John Vanlandingham

[Don Kennedy]

In 2 years of running my Impreza, I've never had this problem, except last year at Rapidan coef 1 which was basically 3 rallycross fields linked together to create a 5 mile course of very low speed twisty stuff. I don't know if it actually boiled or not, I just saw the results after a run and that was a very hot resevoir and some excess fluid on the outside of it.

[Jerry Brownell]

JVL said: <<You need to get an answer on the legality aspect which nobody addressed while they're too busy being mechanics.>>

No need to insult those of us who are trying to help. You give advice based on your experiences, I'll give advice based on mine. Two years ago I was having problems with cavitation even with a cooler. Replaced the PS pump and no problems since. While I'm sure OT is plenty twisty, I doubt it is more so than CT (where we had no problem last year) or the Rapidan rallycrosses that Don speaks of. Could it possibly be that there is another correct answer other than yours?

As for the legality, adding a PS cooler would be just as legal as seam welding. It is not specifically called out as permitted, so therefore it is not.

[T Bier]

Sorry to say that I don't think you can put a ps cooler on unless you can find Subaru offered one at some point. There's that section about authorized modifications - All items that are not specifically allowed or referred to as unrestricted must be of OEM spec.

Production class rules can be a pain. Best thing probably is flush the system and try Redline or NEO. Have enough spare fluid at service to flush it again. You WILL be using your steering wheel at Rim.

[John Vanlandingham]

Hey Jerry, keep your shirt on, OK?
She asked a direct question, and for all she knows, and me too for that matter, since the Sub-a-rat probably has some loop of extra piping which at least Ford refers to a PS cooler, could be shes wondering about it from that angle.
And YOURS was not the response which had me slapping my forehead, it was another which was stupid beyond belief.














John Vanlandingham

[starion887]

Hi Jamie,

As has been pointed out, in P class this should not be legal. If after you try these other solutions with changing fluid and pumps, you might try just putting on a much longer hose in one area, and routing it so that is just happens to be in some cool air?? Can't think that would be illegal, and having more fluid in the system will keep the overall fluid temp lower (same heat into more fluid = less temp rise per cc of fluid) plus some cooling benefits. I would hope that no one would gig you for an unusually long hose in P class!

How's life since you started rallying? Has Nirvana arrived at last?? :)

Mark Bowers

[Subie Gal]

thank you everyone.

first off... yes... it's boiling... not foaming..
and it boiled at doo wops as well as at ot...
there is nothing "wrong" with the ps pump...
it's the fact that i ride the rev and drive the hell out of that poor little 1.8L engine every single event...

i dont see where it specifically says i can NOT add a ps cooler.
as you can add oil and tranny coolers...
and a ps cooler does not add any hp or advantage to the engine...

wouldnt this be in the realm of what's ok?

i will check out the fluids you all mentioned...
and definately flush the system....
i just have to decide what to flush it WITH...
and next up is rim!
bah! this will be fun! *insert roll eyes here*

thanks again for your assistance and advice.
lovin this rally gig! it rocks!!!

Jamie
www.subiegalracing.com
www.subiegal.com

[Jerry Brownell]

Jamie said: <<first off... yes... it's boiling... not foaming..>>

Fair enough. Just thought I would mention that based on my experiences.

and,
<<i dont see where it specifically says i can NOT add a ps cooler.>>

10.2.F.11
All items that are not specifically allowed or referred to as "unrestricted", in this section, must be of original manufacturer's specification. Minor changes (such as a hole in the fire wall, etc.), resulting from authorized modifications, are permissable.

The power steering system is not referred to as "unrestricted", nor does any other modification require the addition of a power steering cooler. In fact, this would, by the letter of the law, make the use of a longer fluid line illegal.

[Kartwheel]

>i dont see where it specifically says i can NOT add a ps
>cooler.

That's the rub. Before the P class rules go on to what you can do legally, it says "All items not specifically allowed, or referred to as 'unrestricted' must be of original manufacturer specification". This means unless the car came with it you can not add one since they did not explicity allow it.

[Rally 1]

FWIW,

I ran into the same problem on our A-Sedan Mustangs.
The solution (at that time)was to reduce the output pressure at engine redline (7000). This was done by drilling a bleedhole (started with 1/16",finalized at 1/8") in the pressure bypass plunger inside the pump. The Ford pump is designed to operate at a pump shaft speed of 3000 rpm, turning the engine at 7000 created the exact problems you are experiencing, higher rpm=higher pressure (within its design limits)=higher temperatures. We also are using a small cooler made by Russel Industries, with a air duct from the grill area.
I have also experimented with a pressure regulator in the high pressure line, that seems to work just as well. Currently have a unit from Canton (oil pans). The bypass is plumbed back to the power steering res.
A larger pulley would help also, but not permitted within the Prod rules.
K

[John Vanlandingham]

Good call Rally Focus, this is probably allowed within the rules, maybe. and some larger holes in the pinion housing is what was done inside John Lanes Volvo rack which the guts were sent to specialist in Sweden for more volume thru and quicker pinion for 2.2 turns.

Ford expressly warns of cavitation when using standard road car parts.
(So this isn't my idea, my idea is that it's inferior stuff on them Sub-a rats te he)

So Jamie the fluis is way way hot, but almost without doubt it's not boiling per se but thinning out and then at the hi revs it becomes aereated and air, or air/fluid emulsion or foam does'nt give assist, fluid does.
The fluid gets hot and it expands, it gets aereated it takes up more volume. don't know what you can do except maybe drill out the relief hole in the pump like Focus suggests, and then don't say anything.














John Vanlandingham

[Subie Gal]

ooookaaay...
think i have a solution...
going to try running Redline D4ATF at rim...
and see if that solves the problem...

i'll keep you guys posted!
thanks for all the advice!!
it's massively appreciated...
cheers
Jamie
www.subiegalracing.com
www.subiegal.com

[Trevor Donison]

>The fluid gets hot and it expands, it gets aereated it takes
>up more volume. don't know what you can do except maybe
>drill out the relief hole in the pump like Focus suggests,
>and then don't say anything.


So you would advocate cheating? Making small hidden modifications that aren't visible? And then not saying anything?

How about oversize pistons then?

[JField]

Well Trevor, you gotta admit, if you are going to cheat, it is WAY better not to say anything. For instance, I never ever mention that my turbocha....oops....nevermind.

[starion887]

Everyone, I think there is a real and legal way to allow a power steering cooler in P class:

Refer to section 26 of Article 10.2.F, titled "Supplementary Accessories". It reads:

"Supplementary accessories are authroized, without restriction, provided they have no influence whatsoever on the behavior of the car. For example, those concerning the aesthetics.......; or those enabling easier and safer driving of the car (.....) provided they do not effect the performance and/or speed of the vehicle."

Having one's power steering fluid boil makes steering slower and harder, and it will certainly have a potential negative impact on safety, especially if one were to be surprised at increased steering effort at the end of a long straight with high engine revs and subsequent aeration of the fluid.

As a tech inspector, if you came to me with THIS argument, I would have no problem passing it A-OK. I cannot see any performnace advantage gained at all, just maintaining the orignal behavior (and safety) of the car's steering.

This looks to me to be a legal way to add the p-steering cooler, and avoid any illegalities of enlarger holes or longer hoses. AND, it truly meets the spirit under which the P class was conceived, and which is the guiding principle in the rules.

Comments?

Jamie, hope this helps more than the silly "long line" suggestion!

Mark Bowers :)

[John Vanlandingham]

>Everyone, I think there is a real and legal way to allow a
>power steering cooler in P class:
>
>Refer to section 26 of Article 10.2.F, titled "Supplementary
>Accessories". It reads:
>
>"Supplementary accessories are authroized, without
>restriction, provided they have no influence whatsoever on
>the behavior of the car. For example, those concerning the
>aesthetics.......; or those enabling easier and safer
>driving of the car (.....) provided they do not effect the
>performance and/or speed of the vehicle."
>straight with

>
>As a tech inspector, if you came to me with THIS argument, I
>would have no problem passing it A-OK. I cannot see any
>performnace advantage gained at all, just maintaining the
>orignal behavior (and safety) of the car's steering.
>
>

>
>Jamie, hope this helps more than the silly "long line"
>suggestion!
>*********Mark, you know several mfg's do just that and call it a cooling loop, so if they have the gall to call it that, don't flog yerself for suggesting it.
>Mark Bowers :)


And also, let's have beer raised to Mark B for reading and quoting the relevent chapter and verse, the way questions should be addressed.
Hey wait a minute Mark, you have some 'oafish-al' capacity as a SCCA scrutineer? don't you know you're supposed to studiously avoid responding to anything in public? Gimme back that beer!

PS want me to send you and your son some RED Pro-le-ralliat stickers?



So Jamie, drill the hole AND fit the cooler. Cheap and easy.












John Vanlandingham

[starion887]

>Hey wait a minute Mark, you have some 'oafish-al' capacity
>as a SCCA scrutineer? don't you know you're supposed to
>studiously avoid responding to anything in public? Gimme
>back that beer!

OK, but I already drank it; it'll be a bit warmer when you get it back.....
>
>PS want me to send you and your son some RED Pro-le-ralliat
>stickers?

SHO!

MB :) :) :)

[Trevor Donison]

>Everyone, I think there is a real and legal way to allow a
>power steering cooler in P class:
>
>Refer to section 26 of Article 10.2.F, titled "Supplementary
>Accessories". It reads:
>
>"Supplementary accessories are authroized, without
>restriction, provided they have no influence whatsoever on
>the behavior of the car. For example, those concerning the
>aesthetics.......; or those enabling easier and safer
>driving of the car (.....) provided they do not effect the
>performance and/or speed of the vehicle."
>
>Having one's power steering fluid boil makes steering slower
>and harder, and it will certainly have a potential negative
>impact on safety, especially if one were to be surprised at
>increased steering effort at the end of a long straight with
>high engine revs and subsequent aeration of the fluid.
>
>As a tech inspector, if you came to me with THIS argument, I
>would have no problem passing it A-OK. I cannot see any
>performnace advantage gained at all, just maintaining the
>orignal behavior (and safety) of the car's steering.
>
>This looks to me to be a legal way to add the p-steering
>cooler, and avoid any illegalities of enlarger holes or
>longer hoses. AND, it truly meets the spirit under which the
>P class was conceived, and which is the guiding principle in
>the rules.
>
>Comments?
>
>Jamie, hope this helps more than the silly "long line"
>suggestion!
>
>Mark Bowers :)

I agree with what you've said, it does follow the rule book. Part tech inspector and weekend lawyer?

Back to the origional question/problem, I'd still think completely changing the fluid may be an easy way to resolve the problem. If it doesn't, then you would need to do something more.

I had the pleasure of driving the first stage after the turn around stage on saturday without power steering belt... I can attest that power steering is mucho needed at Rim for your driving enjoyment.

[J Cox]

>Everyone, I think there is a real and legal way to allow a
>power steering cooler in P class:
>
>Refer to section 26 of Article 10.2.F, titled "Supplementary
>Accessories". It reads:
>
>"Supplementary accessories are authroized, without
>restriction, provided they have no influence whatsoever on
>the behavior of the car. For example, those concerning the
>aesthetics.......; or those enabling easier and safer
>driving of the car (.....) provided they do not effect the
>performance and/or speed of the vehicle."
>
>Having one's power steering fluid boil makes steering slower
>and harder, and it will certainly have a potential negative
>impact on safety, especially if one were to be surprised at
>increased steering effort at the end of a long straight with
>high engine revs and subsequent aeration of the fluid.
>
>As a tech inspector, if you came to me with THIS argument, I
>would have no problem passing it A-OK. I cannot see any
>performnace advantage gained at all, just maintaining the
>orignal behavior (and safety) of the car's steering.
>
>This looks to me to be a legal way to add the p-steering
>cooler, and avoid any illegalities of enlarger holes or
>longer hoses. AND, it truly meets the spirit under which the
>P class was conceived, and which is the guiding principle in
>the rules.
>
>Comments?

It seems the problem with the logic you're using:
"..those enabling safer and easier driving of the car..."
is that almost any modification to a P-car could be justified using this logic.
"I need those bigger brakes for better stopping safety"
"I need that bigger radiator so I don't boil over and lose vision at speed"
"I need to remove that cat so my upolstery doesn't catch fire"
"I need seam welding or my car may fall apart and hurt me"
"I need a quicker steering box so I am more likely to stay on the road"
...

In summary, it seems to me that the spirit of the Production class is making do with weaknesses of whatever car you choose to run. The mod classes are where you're allowed to fix the car's inherent performance limitations. If P-class allows all these "safety" mods, doesn't it become just a low-powered open class?

Jim Cox
#558


>
>Jamie, hope this helps more than the silly "long line"
>suggestion!
>
>Mark Bowers :)

[starion887]

Hi Jim,

I just knew someone was going to go down this logical road! And that's OK. These logical problems are why the oil cooler, upgraded suspension, and others allowed mods were settled explicitly with a specific rule, and really, the PS issue should be settled in the same way.

Here's some comebacks on your items, Jim:

>"I need those bigger brakes for better stopping safety"
Nope: this clearly increases the car's performance.

>"I need that bigger radiator so I don't boil over and lose
>vision at speed"
I guess you could under this logic if this was a proven problem.

>"I need to remove that cat so my upolstery doesn't catch
>fire"
You are specifically required to keep the CAT, so this logical exception cannot be applied. And no one seriously thinks that this will happen, based on actual field performance to date. (Just don't get and enriched mixture!)

>"I need seam welding or my car may fall apart and hurt me"
Again, cars do not fall suddenly becasue they are not seam welded. And any weakening of the body/frame should be caught at tech, and particularly at annual. And seam welding can clearly increase perfromance above stock levels. (NOTE: I can be convinced that seam welding should be allowed in P classes, just not under the logic of clause 26; it should be explicitly allowed or disallowed.)

>"I need a quicker steering box so I am more likely to stay
>on the road"
Enhances performance so not allowed.

>...
>
>In summary, it seems to me that the spirit of the Production
>class is making do with weaknesses of whatever car you
>choose to run.
I sorta agree with this, but the PS cooler does not improve stock performance.

The mod classes are where you're allowed to
>fix the car's inherent performance limitations.
No, the mod classes are where you can modify the car to a level above stock performance.

One more word on using this clause 26 for the PS cooler: I am not convinced that all tech inspectors would feel the same way I do about these interpretations. I do think you have a fair argument, especially at a Club event. The best route to take on this would be for someone to take this to the PRB as a rules chage proposal, and ask that it be either allowed or specifically excluded. I personally think this is far more within the spirit of the rules than the allowed suspension mods to P class.

A question to all: Do you really want Jamie to be tooling down a stage at high speed (whatever that poor lil' 1.8L can muster!) and have her PS fluid overheated and aerated, and have steering problems?? Take that a guiding question to make your conclusions.

Regards,
Mark B.

[starion887]

>
>I agree with what you've said, it does follow the rule book.
>Part tech inspector and weekend lawyer?

Tech inspection implies being a weekend lawyer!! :7

>Back to the origional question/problem, I'd still think
>completely changing the fluid may be an easy way to resolve
>the problem. If it doesn't, then you would need to do
>something more.

Yes I agree; that would be the best solution. As long as no one did an analysis in the field of the fluid to see if it was OEM spec as in the tech manual......this P class stuff just goes on and on!! The headaches I get from this is whay I go G5!

Regards,
Mark B.

[Subie Gal]

<<...best route to take on this would be for someone to take this to the PRB as a rules chage proposal, and ask that it be either allowed or specifically excluded....>>

okay... maybe i'll just have to do that then!
seems to me it "should" be allowed...

>>A question to all: Do you really want Jamie to be tooling down a stage at high speed (whatever that poor lil' 1.8L can muster!) and have her PS fluid overheated and aerated, and have steering problems?? Take that a guiding question to make your conclusions<<<

i can tell you I DONT WANT THAT... my arms hurt enough from my issues at Trail..... (laff!) and now I have to go to Rim.. where there are CLIFFS??!?!? (oh shi.....)

this synthetic stuff better work!!! hehehehe :D

after Rim... i'll check into the PS cooler rules change proposal...
good idea guys... THANK YOU SO MUCH for this discussion.
Jamie
www.subiegalracing.com
www.subiegal.com

[J Cox]

Thanks for the discussion Mark (and others). Perhaps I should have used better examples, but I was being a little sarcastic to prove a point (and probably should have inserted ; ) a few places). That said, I still disagree with you because it seems obvious to me that any mods to make Jamie's power steering work better ARE PERFORMANCE ENHANCING over the base capabilities of the car. Car "performance" isn't just about HP and acceleration as you know. The safety thing is a cop-out to make the car work better IMHO. If it's "unsafe" for her drive fast with stock power steering, she should slow down, change her technique to adjust for this issue, work on upper body strength, or get a different car without this problem. All bet every one of us in P-class has something we'd dearly love to change about our cars/trucks. I've got drum brakes on the back of my 4000 lb. truck that don't even last a stage. Once the rears are gone the fronts get overworked and I've got to be careful. Me loosing brakes on stage is at least as dangerous as Jamie having to fight a high effort steering system. However I don't think I should be able to upgrade my brakes, because that's what my truck came with. I just need to understand my available breaking power, conserve my breaks, work with the weaknesses built into my truck, and try to capitalize on its strengths when I can.

Hope this makes sense,
Jim Cox
#558
>
>>"I need those bigger brakes for better stopping safety"
>Nope: this clearly increases the car's performance.
>
>>"I need that bigger radiator so I don't boil over and lose
>>vision at speed"
>I guess you could under this logic if this was a proven
>problem.
>
>>"I need to remove that cat so my upolstery doesn't catch
>>fire"
>You are specifically required to keep the CAT, so this
>logical exception cannot be applied. And no one seriously
>thinks that this will happen, based on actual field
>performance to date. (Just don't get and enriched mixture!)
>
>>"I need seam welding or my car may fall apart and hurt me"
>Again, cars do not fall suddenly becasue they are not seam
>welded. And any weakening of the body/frame should be caught
>at tech, and particularly at annual. And seam welding can
>clearly increase perfromance above stock levels. (NOTE: I
>can be convinced that seam welding should be allowed in P
>classes, just not under the logic of clause 26; it should be
>explicitly allowed or disallowed.)
>
>>"I need a quicker steering box so I am more likely to stay
>>on the road"
>Enhances performance so not allowed.
>
>>...
>>
>>In summary, it seems to me that the spirit of the Production
>>class is making do with weaknesses of whatever car you
>>choose to run.
>I sorta agree with this, but the PS cooler does not improve
>stock performance.
>
>The mod classes are where you're allowed to
>>fix the car's inherent performance limitations.
>No, the mod classes are where you can modify the car to a
>level above stock performance.
>
>One more word on using this clause 26 for the PS cooler: I
>am not convinced that all tech inspectors would feel the
>same way I do about these interpretations. I do think you
>have a fair argument, especially at a Club event. The best
>route to take on this would be for someone to take this to
>the PRB as a rules chage proposal, and ask that it be either
>allowed or specifically excluded. I personally think this is
>far more within the spirit of the rules than the allowed
>suspension mods to P class.
>
>A question to all: Do you really want Jamie to be tooling
>down a stage at high speed (whatever that poor lil' 1.8L can
>muster!) and have her PS fluid overheated and aerated, and
>have steering problems?? Take that a guiding question to
>make your conclusions.
>
>Regards,
>Mark B.

[JField]

>>Jamie, hope this helps more than the silly "long line"
>suggestion!

I am not sure it was so silly. My Celica came from the factory with a long line, which extends and loops down in front of the radiator. The manual calls it a cooling loop. Seems to me that they went to a lot of packaging and design trouble/cost if it is just silly and serves no purpose.

[starion887]

>Thanks for the discussion Mark (and others). Perhaps I
>should have used better examples, but I was being a little
>sarcastic to prove a point (and probably should have
>inserted ; ) a few places). That said, I still disagree
>with you because it seems obvious to me that any mods to
>make Jamie's power steering work better ARE PERFORMANCE
>ENHANCING over the base capabilities of the car. Car
>"performance" isn't just about HP and acceleration as you
>know. The safety thing is a cop-out to make the car work
>better IMHO. If it's "unsafe" for her drive fast with stock
>power steering, she should slow down, change her technique
>to adjust for this issue, work on upper body strength, or
>get a different car without this problem. All bet every one
>of us in P-class has something we'd dearly love to change
>about our cars/trucks. I've got drum brakes on the back of
>my 4000 lb. truck that don't even last a stage. Once the
>rears are gone the fronts get overworked and I've got to be
>careful. Me loosing brakes on stage is at least as
>dangerous as Jamie having to fight a high effort steering
>system. However I don't think I should be able to upgrade
>my brakes, because that's what my truck came with. I just
>need to understand my available breaking power, conserve my
>breaks, work with the weaknesses built into my truck, and
>try to capitalize on its strengths when I can.
>
>Hope this makes sense,

Yes, it makes good logical sense. But how far do we take your logic? Per this reasoning, we should take all roll cages out of cars, becasue we all know they are performance enhancing with the chassis stiffening that they provide!!

It all boils down to the balance of being pure stock versus safety and reasonable relibility. Cages are manadated for safety, regardless of their performance enhancing properties. Oil coolers are allowed to enhance competition by preventing overstressed oil breakdown. I assume brake cooling ducts might be allowed to help you; and aren't the brake lining materials free for P cars? (Don't have the book handy.) If so, it's for the same reason; keeping it reasonably competitive and safe.

As far as your brakes, if you're having this much trouble, it's is troubling from a safety standpoint. (Was all this a clever ploy to get me to support you in appealing for brake changes? If so, you're pretty damned smart!)

Keep in mind that someone has to look at things from a safety view, with safety being a 10 on a scale of 10, and maintaining pure stock conditions as a 1 on the same scale of 10. This is why I come down where I do; if it does not enhance performance above the norm (which INCLUDES maintaining stock performance under racing conditions in my book), then OK it.

We need you to start another post and thread to figure out a way to help you with your brakes!!

Regards,
Mark B.
:) :)

[Charlie KA8OQF]

A long time back I was listening to...Guy Light, I believe it was...discussing reliability mods for sustained high RPM operation. One of the things was changing alternator pulleys so's things don't get spit off spinning faster for longer times than the street specs.
So...would it be legal to change the size of the power steering pump pulley so that the pump generates the street/3k pressures at 6k? How big is the PS pulley? How big's the drive pulley from the engine? If I remember right, the PS pulley is the smaller one, so's you'd need one closer to the engine pulley size. I'll leave the math and the legality to you, but as long as the required pressures are there, wouldn't running the pump slower cause less cavitation/heating problems?

[J Cox]

>
>Yes, it makes good logical sense. But how far do we take
>your logic? Per this reasoning, we should take all roll
>cages out of cars, becasue we all know they are performance
>enhancing with the chassis stiffening that they provide!!

Mark, I think we are beginning to agree on this issue. Perhaps it's the rules language that was tripping us up. I'd guess we both feel:

1) Modifications that are really required to safeley rally the car (such as roll cages) should be allowed in P-class and are allowed.

however

2) Almost any modification can be claimed to have some safety benefit, so there needs to be a limit to modifications that add performance in the name of safety. Afterall, rally is dangerous, and we can't gaurantee safety or write rules that prevent all injuries. If we can't accept some risk, we should try a different sport.

Back to the issue at hand, Jamie's steering. As I read her posts, it seems to me that she is not talking about losing the ability to steer the car, she's just reporting that she loses power assist, making the steering effort higher. Care to clarify Jamie? If I read Jamie's post correctly, I feel the "safety issue" caused by increasing her steering effort does not rise to the level of concern that would warrant an allowed modification to a P-car.

Can anyone think of any better language to propose for the rulebook (10.2 F 26) that captures the spirit of this discussion? I can't.

Jim Cox
#558

>It all boils down to the balance of being pure stock versus
>safety and reasonable relibility. Cages are manadated for
>safety, regardless of their performance enhancing
>properties. Oil coolers are allowed to enhance competition
>by preventing overstressed oil breakdown. I assume brake
>cooling ducts might be allowed to help you; and aren't the
>brake lining materials free for P cars? (Don't have the book
>handy.) If so, it's for the same reason; keeping it
>reasonably competitive and safe.
>
>As far as your brakes, if you're having this much trouble,
>it's is troubling from a safety standpoint. (Was all this a
>clever ploy to get me to support you in appealing for brake
>changes? If so, you're pretty damned smart!)
>
>Keep in mind that someone has to look at things from a
>safety view, with safety being a 10 on a scale of 10, and
>maintaining pure stock conditions as a 1 on the same scale
>of 10. This is why I come down where I do; if it does not
>enhance performance above the norm (which INCLUDES
>maintaining stock performance under racing conditions in my
>book), then OK it.
>
>We need you to start another post and thread to figure out a
>way to help you with your brakes!!
>
>Regards,
>Mark B.
>:) :)

[Jerry Brownell]

<< As I read her posts, it seems to me that she is not talking about losing the ability to steer the car, she's just reporting that she loses power assist, making the steering effort higher. Care to clarify Jamie?>>

I agree with Jim. I also think that losing power assist to your steering is less severe of a problem (in terms of safety) than losing braking power, and I would not support allowing further brake mods, hence I would not support allowing power steering mods. It is not in the spirit of the rules. If your brakes tend to fade on twisty stages, regardless of what pads (or shoes) you are using, then don't brake so much on twisty stages. If your power steering fluid cavitates when you rev the p**s out of your poor 1.8L motor, don't rev the p**s out of your poor 1.8L motor.

Am I thinking too much like an engineer?

[starion887]

Jerry, Jim,

OK, I'm changing tactics here to get you fellows to see how "un-stock" the P classes are and why you should not nit-pick on the PS cooler thing. If you are worried so much about maintaining the "purity" of stock specs, then you have a whole lot more to work on than this PS cooler issue. To wit:

Section 14 allows you freely modify the fuel delivery and boost levels. Why worry about a PS cooler but not things that allow gobs of extra HP?

Sections 19 and 20 essentially allow you to put a DMS suspension, or something darned close to it, under P cars. And you can reinforce the suspension with the cage. Again, why worry about a PS cooler?

Section 23 allows you to put a full race clutch package in the car. Get the pattern here?

These 4 sections basically allow one to do most of the same major performance enhancing mods one would do in G2 or G5 or Open. So, take a long look at these sections, and realize that the "P" in the P classes does not stand for "Pure" stock. The spirit of the rules, as they have evolved, allow for LOT of mods.

Jim, I think you may be needlessly restricing your vehicle's performance with your interpretations. Have you tried changing to carbon metallic linings, or to Hawk or other linings, and removing the front disc baking plates for cooling? All these ARE allowed in the existing rules.

Mark B.

[Kartwheel]

>These 4 sections basically allow one to do most of the same
>major performance enhancing mods one would do in G2 or G5 or
>Open. So, take a long look at these sections, and realize
>that the "P" in the P classes does not stand for "Pure"
>stock. The spirit of the rules, as they have evolved, allow
>for LOT of mods.

Dont forget LSD's Mark. The problem here is the same as the seam welding thread, rules "creep". The real question is not LSD's, seam welding, or PS coolers in particular, the real question is when does P "creep" so close to G2 that they get merged?

I am just playing Devil's Advocate here, as Trevor has pointed out, I'm not going to be a P class competitor but it seems to me that if rules creep continues P and G2 could become the same class just with out without engine swaps and interior. If your not careful you might get all the modifications you want in P when its absorbed into G2. Look at the two works 2WD (both G2) efforts to see which one of P or G2 will survive if they get merged.

[starion887]

I am with you Brian. When they allowed the "almost full rally" suspension rules to be put in place, that's when the P classes ceased to have meaning for me. With all that is in the rules now, I would be absolutely in favor of seam welding being allowed. Why not?

It really defeats the purpose of the class in my opinion to allow all of this. But, I don't run the calss so I won't count my ideas as highly as someone in the class who has an investment of $$ and time to consider.

Jim Cox, start a new thread on discussing what the P class should really be!

Mark B.

[Adrian Wintle]

The problem with considering allowing P rules to creep towards G2 with the aim of potentially combining the class is that the cost of competing at the sharp end of that class is considerably more than the cost of competing at the sharp end of P. Consider that Brad's Golf had $8k+ in its gearbox alone, and extrapolate that to other parts of the car. Then consider that an A7 Kit Car (F2) also fits in G2, and these are the cars that were considered to be too expensive for the Junior World Championship (aka Super 1600). There is at least one of these A7 Kit Cars in the country already.

P class allows for a (relatively) cheap rally car and is (in my opinion) a necessary class. The rules need to be revised and clarified to allow a balance between safety-related performance enhancements and 'production' parts.

Adrian

[Kartwheel]

>P class allows for a (relatively) cheap rally car and is (in
>my opinion) a necessary class. The rules need to be revised
>and clarified to allow a balance between safety-related
>performance enhancements and 'production' parts.
>
>Adrian

OK, I was not clear in the previous post. I do NOT advocate the merging of P and G2, I think they both serve a very useful purpose. I was trying to point out the danger of the "we just need one more modification to be legal" trend.

[J Cox]

Jamie,

Good job staying tuff and finishing Rim. In reading your post about the event I see you're running a welded diff. I think this may help explain why you seem to be having a fairly unusual PS problem. A welded diff can put A LOT of additional load on your steering system. A switch from a welded diff to a LSD may solve your PS issues. I'm not sure this is something you want to consider, but I thought I'd mention it since welded diff loads haven't been covered during this discussion.

Jim Cox
#558

PS Be careful of heatstroke, it can be very serious, I got it at a National Enduro once, scary.

[RallyGTX]

Jamie

From a geek engineer perspective, it sounds like you are getting lots of heat through fluid friction. I would suggest that the suggestion for drilling the hole to a larger size should help eliminate some of the heating caused by the friction. Additionally, slowing down the pump will probably help as well.

I would hope that both mods would be approved in the name of safety since your problem is well documented, but sound logic does not always prevail. Good luck with whatever way you decide to go.

BTW, care to share your 'practice road' secret some weekend ???
:)

Cheers,
Matt