Motor/Trans mounts?

[PSherm]

I don't know what anybody else's experience is, but I would have to change motor mounts on my SSC car twice a season. I would like to know what others think about a rule change to allow filling of the stock motor mounts with the commonly available poly inserts, or filling them with other non-metallic (polyurethane, etc) materials.

In Solo, the STS ruleset reads that alternate mounts may be used, providedthe amount of metal in a replacement may not exceed that of the stock mounts. Close to what I would like in IT, but I think it should be mandated that we use the stock mounts, but allow non-metallic filler. I am assuming that since there is currently no allowance to change factory type mounts, that everyone is still using them. An allowance to fill them, IMHO, would maybe make them last longer and would save money in the long run. Might be good for someone that has an old car where replacements are no longer available?

Whaddaya think?

[Greg Amy]

While I think alternate motor mount material is a FINE idea and LONG overdue, considering that "alternate suspension bushing material" morphed itself into welded-in spherical bearing joints my response is:



NO F****N' WAY!



(PSherm, no offense intended to/at you...)

[mbuskuhl]

Let's keep using stock motor and tranny mounts never intended for racing. Let them break and replace them often... :bash_1_: Our rules need an updating/refresher/makeover - whatever you want to call it. Washer bottle? Jacking points? Come on. I agree Paul.

[shwah]

Actually. Considering that we now have the knowledge of how a rule like this can morph - as seen with suspension bushings - we could use that information and write a better worded rule that specifies what the modifications allowed are.

The bushing rules, and the ecu rules got F'ed up becuase they were too vague. Be specific in the type of mount allowed to be modified, what materials may be added (I mean brand and type specifically), what material (if any) may be removed. Just box the thing in.

Of course the counter point is that a well designed, allready allowed, engine stay rod should be able to protect those stock engine mounts to a large degree.

[kthomas]

"Of course the counter point is that a well designed, allready allowed, engine stay rod should be able to protect those stock engine mounts to a large degree."

Yup. My stayrod went on the tension side mount.

[JeffYoung]

Greg, I hear ya, but don't you think this rule is a little silly? We allow alternate bushing material all over the car....engine mounts are essentially a bushing (at least on teh cars I am familiar with).

What high dollar intepretation of the rule are we worried about? Is there something like a spherical bearing that can be used in this situation that costs a ton? I think all of use would be leery of solid mounts, but just want something a bit harder than regular rubber that resists oil and heat a bit better, and last longer.

[dickita15]

Greg I too understand your concern but I understand that this has been a failure point for many. I cannot see the creep as long as the dimensions of the alternate mount are the same as stock. Can anyone else see where this could go wrong?
By the way I personally do not need this, the only time I have broken a motor mount is when a less that bright wrecker driver decided to pick up the front of my car by hooking the engine and ripped the mount out.

[Greg Amy]

Greg, I hear ya, but don't you think this rule is a little silly?[/b]
I believe I wrote above, "I think alternate motor mount material is a FINE idea and LONG overdue..."

What high dollar intepretation of the rule are we worried about?[/b]
I can only simply laugh when I read that. I'd guess this is EXACT attitude that whomever wrote that suspension bushing rule thought.

Oh, and the ECU rule writer (prior to the idea of MoTec-in-a-box).

And the writer of the Spec Miata clutch rule.

And the writer of the Spec Miata rules prior to camshaft specs.

And the writer(s) of all the other rules that suddenly got "out of hand" because of the lack of imagination of other "silly" rules that ended pu in high-dollar (mis?)interpretations and subsequent rules creep (or codification of changes never intended by the original author.)


I cannot see the creep as long as the dimensions of the alternate mount are the same as stock. Can anyone else see where this could go wrong?[/b]

Dude, stop: you're killing me. I can't afford to replace another Coke-infested keyboard...

Go on, all of you, have your fun. Just don't claim to be surprised when it happens...

[JeffYoung]

Greg, we understand the THEORETICAL risk.....trust me......

I'm trying to get a handle on the REAL risk.....what can be done in this area that is just ridiculous and stupid and against the spirit of IT? That's what I was looking for from you -- tell me what it is we are worried about?

Your comments above could literally be applied to ANY allowances in the ITCS -- do we think that fee exhausts are a bad thing because now people spend a ton on exhaust development?

I guess I am just trying to get a feel for what really truly could go wrong here. That's all. If you agree this is a "fine idea" and "long overdue," tell me why you are opposed to it in real terms.

Me, I am in favor but certainly don't want another spherical bearing nightmare. But if we end up with a culture that resists all change because of a few bad changes made in the past, then we are dead in the water.

[Greg Amy]

If you agree this is a "fine idea" and "long overdue," tell me why you are opposed to it in real terms.[/b]
Easy: because it *will* be abused, and you *cannot* stop it, and you *cannot* come up with verbiage to stop it. You will be pitting yourselves (a collective of, what, 6 or so guys?) against the combined imagination of the entire racing community.

You will lose.

Example Number One: ECUs. Used ta be, nothing allowed. CRB says "software changes not 'policeable' so let's allow changes for everyone." We come up with this goofy-ass verbiage that eventually morphs into Motec-in-a-box and everyone says "Oh my God, I never considered that!" So, instead of punting we decide we can't police that, and we want to make "a level playing field" for everyone and next thing you know, we're going full-up open ECUs because we can't police *that* and we want to open it up for everyone.

Care to even imagine what's coming next on that? I certainly am.

Example Number Two: suspension bushings. We want to allow "alternate material" for suspension bushings. Everyone with any modicum of common sense knows what the original intention of that rule was in 1983. As we debate and try to clarify it, next thing you know we're seeing - and now specifically allowing via codification - spherical suspension bearings/bushings/casings that are welded into the control arms. Care to even imagine what's coming next? Yep you guessed it: I am.

Example Numero Tres: air dams. No where in the rules does it specify splitters. Clever people disagree. I'm actively imagining what I can do from there (hmmm, anyone ever see the results of splitters and air dams combined with diverging tunnels on the underside of a front wheel drive car...? Schweet...)

Those are but a few of the most recent examples of how rules intent were twisted well beyond their origination, those originations having been desires to "fix" a problem or "allow" something seemingly minor. Trust me, there are many, many more. Each time you allow something new, it will be twisted and abused. That's the nature of the beast.

And now you want to open up another allowance (a la ECUs and suspension bushings), hoping to write a rule to contain it via verbiage (a la "inside the stock housing" and "material") and you truly believe you'll be able to come up with something that will thwart the collective imagination of a group of people that thrive on the pursuit of an unfair advantage?

Yeah, good luck with that.


I'm trying to get a handle on the REAL risk.....what can be done in this area that is just ridiculous and stupid and against the spirit of IT?[/b]
That's my whole point, Jeff: WE DON'T KNOW. And we'll NEVER know, right up to the point someone does it, we slap ourselves on the forehead and go "DUH!"

You allow it and they will come...

As much as I really think poly or plastic motor mount inserts are within the philosophy of Improved Touring, I'd *so* much rather buy a new set of factory engine mount bushings every year than take the very real chance that someone will find these loopholes and abuse them, like they've done for many, many other rules in the book.

But, give it your best shot, prove me wrong. - GA

[Gary L]

Here's my shot at it:

"Engine mounts are unrestricted."

I don't care if they're made of gold with hypo-allergenic filling. How can these things (as defined in the glossary, BTW) possibly make a car faster?

[Matt Rowe]

How can these things (as defined in the glossary, BTW) possibly make a car faster?[/b]
Spoken like a man that has never raced a transverse mounted FWD where the rubber tears and allows axle snapping wheel hop or at least uncomfortable on/off throttle engine movement that can upset the car mid corner.

However, it is minor difference in lap time and really is more of a cost benefit. I don't see this making as much of a difference on the RWD crowd, but the FWD guys (such as myself) typically have more mount issues. The AWD guys are on their own. :D

Oh, and stay rods are great, but they still don't prevent mounts from tearing apart. In a caged mount design you trade one axis of rotation for another and still have translation at the mount.

In general I don't think this is the highest priority we have in IT, but it is something relatively easy to handle. As for Greg's fear I think we can learn something from the Solo community they have had this rule for years and mounts are even more of an issue in Solo due to the low speed, high torque, rapid transition issues they face. If the rule has stood up to a decade or more of dedicated grey area experts I think it will stand up to IT's best. Has anyone asked Solo if they have issues with this rule?

[JeffYoung]

Greg, that's true of EVERY allowance in the ITCS. Every single one. The real question is, is this change in accordance with the spirit and intent of the rules, or not? Is it the fuddlemuck that is the ECU rules, or is it something sensible and necessary and like open exhausts?

That's the debate, not the fact that bugbears are always lurking in the woods. They are. We all know that.

That's the real question, and the one we will have to answer for every rule change going forward

I'm not committed to this, I just want some logical discussion about it.

[Knestis]

Here's my shot at it:

"Engine mounts are unrestricted." ...[/b]
Hmm.

(Goes to figure out where he wants his engine to be...)

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's my shot at it:

"Engine mounts are unrestricted."

I don't care if they're made of gold with hypo-allergenic filling. How can these things (as defined in the glossary, BTW) possibly make a car faster?
[/b]

Jeff,

I think what Greg's really afraid of are the unknown-unknown's, to deal with them one must practice blue sky what if's. This involves making a list of the way out what could happens, set it asside then sleep on it. Then return to the list and add anything that's poped into your head over night. This allows for a chance for the brain to really get creative. One of my favorite what if's to start off is that a meteor will strike. This is all part of project risk management. Once the list is compiled rank each event on a probablility and effect, then multiply PxE. You'll find most are either highly likely but have a small effect, or highly unlikely but have a large effect, but occasionly one of these will be kind of likely and have a significant effect, these are the ones to watch our for.

Here's a shot using Gary's proposal and an unexpected result. BMW stock mounts are crappy fluid filled units that alow the transmission linkage to shift around resulting in money shifts, eg hit 2nd instead of 4th from 3rd in a corner. As a result BMW sells Group-N motor mounts at $800 ea. But everyone and their brother sells the poly/delrin replacements, and aluminum mounts are avalible too. Funny thing about the aluminum mounts is that they can also lower the motor in the chassis to get a lower cg. At this rate we'll end up with motor plates bolted to the cage extension on the firewall. How's that for a blue-sky what if. I'd suggest that the rule at least require the stock mount location, furthermore one might consider mantaining stock power-train location.

I've been thinking of this because during my "incident" the motor came loose and was flopping between the chassis and the x-brace, so I'll need new mounts when I rebuild. But which mount do I purchase?

James

[JeffYoung]

Guys, I understand, I really do. Really. You open somethng up and bad stuff happens -- most of the time.

So, let me ask this. Are we so afraid of unintended consequences that we NEVER change the ITCS again? Is that it?

If not, we are back to my question. How do we decide which rule changes are the ECU flustercluck, and which ones are good, if not necessary, like "struts are free."

Have it. Tell me what you think works. Or should we be driving IT cars with full on interiors, roll bars, and stock brakes and suspensions....

[JLawton]

It seems lately that our motivation for suggestiing rule changes comes from expense. We shouldn't be changing rules just because it is expensive for some. I have NO problems with my motor mounts. Just becausee a few have problems doesn't mean we should change the rule.

It goes back to the wheel width argument (sorry to bring it up). Just becasue a few have problems finding a light weight inexpense wheel doesn't mean we should change the rule.

It isn't necessarily this specific rule that could be a problem, but the problem is more on where will it end??

I have rear bearing issues with my car. Can we look at changing the rule so I don't go through them as fast? How could bearing provide a performance advantage?? I can name a 1/2 doezn issues that are similar, some even considered safety problems that could be considered if we start going down this road.

Where does it end?? :unsure:

[spnkzss]

It seems lately that our motivation for suggestiing rule changes comes from expense. We shouldn't be changing rules just because it is expensive for some. I have NO problems with my motor mounts. Just becausee a few have problems doesn't mean we should change the rule.

[/b]

You may not have regular problems, but wouldn't you rather have a cheaper solution for when you do have to replace them. The mounts in my Honda are something like $60-$85 a piece depending on which one it is (I have 4). A poly kit is something like $50 for the whole car.

I know, I know, we can't base things on what is the cheaper solution. I for one would like to see a stock or similar replacement rule written, but there is the UNKNOWN issue like anything we change. I for one am personally still hung up on the VIN rule, but understand the worry of unknown. I think the motor/trans mount rule is even dumber.

[JLawton]

I think the motor/trans mount rule is even dumber.
[/b]


I'm OK for changing a rule if it's dumb!! Just not 'cause it's cheaper!! :D

[spnkzss]

I'm OK for changing a rule if it's dumb!! Just not 'cause it's cheaper!! :D
[/b]

:D

[bldn10]

"Engine mounts are unrestricted."



It ain't that simple.



Someone would spend hundreds of dollars to have fabricated a solid brace that would be bolted/welded to the OEM mount locations, duck under the oil pan, and tie the frame rails together. :blink:



Seriously, I'm not against helping people out who have weak OEM mounts, but I fully share Greg's apprehension. W/ the SB decision Topeka tacitly sanctioned BS interpretations of the Rules and made it much harder to draft air-tight restrictions.

[tom_sprecher]

Rules, schmules: Just like the law, they’re made to be broken. :P

Just kidding. Although I have had over two dozen run-ins with the law I never break any IT rules. ;)

[77ITA]

Keeping in mind the purpose and intent of the class, all allowances made should be limited to those necessary to construct a safe(1) race car(2).

(1) "safe": includes all of the safety upgrades of the car (rollcage, belts, etc).

(2) "race car": includes upgrades that are necessary to allow us to drive our crappy economy cars around a race track (shocks, brake pads, tires, bushings, etc).

Not to suggest that I demand a rule change (because I don't really care either way), it is my humble opinion that there should be allowances made for the modifying or filling motor/trans mounts. These items in OE spec are clearly along the lines of OE shocks, bushings, brake pads, and tires; They are not up to the demands of track use.

That matter aside, I find a lot of the posts in this thread to be quite silly. It is not possible to lose control of the direction of a class if all rules are clearly written, detail oriented, and well specified. Do you know why my "roll cage" tubing doesn't locate my front suspension? Because the rules make it clear that I can't do such a thing.

The only reason that ECU rules are creeping is because the current rule is horribly vague and no one is willing to either better define the current rule or take a step backwards. If people begin doing things that are not in the spirit of the rules, we need modify the rules to make it clear that such practice is not allowed (ala the ever evolving SM rules). Throwing your hands in the air and opening up everything is what generates rule creep (ECMs, mounts, or otherwise) and I don't want to hear about not being able to police it.

In closing, if a strict and well defining rule is written to facilitates stiffer engine mounts, there will be no way that someone can abuse it. End of story.

Humbly submitted,

[m glassburner]

I did have an engine stay rod on our engine, it seemed to cause additional vibration issues (read things coming loose and breaking that dont normally do so)....just for fun ...I say pre-write this rule and debate it here...mike.

[MMiskoe]

Why doesn't the engine stay rod rule allow motor mounts to be strenghtened or changed? Its a pretty open rule as it stands now (I'm looking at a 2005 copy of the book, but I don't remember any changes to this one - please correcte me if I'm wrong).

What could be gained from a solid mount that you can't already accomplish w/ a well designed 'stay rod' (is this in the glossary of defined terms?)

[Knestis]

My engine stay rod is about 4" long and connects a plate that bolts under the rear motor mount bracket on the block to a plate that bolts under the rear motor mount bracket on the chassis. The fact that I have to weld the stayrod together around the motor mount is immaterial.

>> ...if a strict and well defining rule is written to facilitates stiffer engine mounts, there will be no way that someone can abuse it. End of story.

Okay - I'll bite. Write the rule and let's see what size holes we can poke in it.

Kirk (who's really looking forward to someone making the mistake of trying to define what replacement motor mounts CANNOT do.) :)

[77ITA]

My engine stay rod is about 4"[/b]


Okay - I'll bite. Write the rule and let's see what size holes we can poke in it.[/b]

Now that I know my stayrod is much larger than your stayrod, I have no problem accepting your challenge :D

(rough example, sure to be torn apart here)

Definitions:

Engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft mount (hereby referred to as "powertrain mount") is defined as any item that fastens, locates, secures, or otherwise mounts an engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft unit into it's originally engineered theoretical static position and angle in relation to the vehicle body, chassis, or frame while serving no other purpose.

Allowance:

On vehicles where the powertrain mount(s) utilize soft deflect-able and/or variable materials at one or all positions as means to reducing NVH (noise/vibration/harshness), said material may be removed and subsequently replaced by a similar material that offers greater strength and resistance to deflection from static position so long as it serves no other purpose. Any modifications made to powertrain mounts must maintain the originally engineered theoretical static position and angle of the engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft relative to each other and to the vehicle body, chassis, or frame. Raising, lowering, or altering the position and/or angle of the engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft is specifically not allowed.

I'm sure I left some things out, but this will basically allow removal of all the soft rubber in our mounts and then they can be filled with something stiffer and stronger. Here is an example of what a guy is doing with Neon engine mounts.

http://www.deyemeracing.com/PL/images/PL1EMM-1.jpg

I guess the wording could also be tweaked to allow the poly inserts that are so cheap and widely availible. Either way, I don't see how it could be abused on anything but a long shot. If it gets abused and becomes a problem, update to address that issue.

[trhoppe]

Allowance:

On vehicles where the powertrain mount(s) utilize soft deflect-able and/or variable materials at one or all positions, said material may be removed and subsequently replaced by a similar material that offers greater strength and resistance to deflection from static position so long as it serves no other purpose. The OEM powertrain mount may also be filled with a polyurethane like material which will surround the soft deflectable material but not protrude past the original outside dimensions of the OEM powertrain mount Any modifications made to powertrain mounts must maintain the originally engineered theoretical static position and angle of the engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft relative to each other and to the vehicle body, chassis, or frame. Raising, lowering, or altering the position and/or angle of the engine, transmission, differential, axle, and drive shaft is specifically not allowed. The amount of metal in the powertrain mount cannot be increased from OEM in any way, shape or form.

[/b]

I added a couple of badly written lines :)

-Tom

[Bill Miller]

I'm OK for changing a rule if it's dumb!! Just not 'cause it's cheaper!! :D
[/b]

Jeff,

Does that mean you oppose the open ECU rule?

[JLawton]

Jeff,

Does that mean you oppose the open ECU rule?
[/b]


Oh no, you're not dragging me into that discussion!!! :D

[tom91ita]

i think the ecu rule analogy is perfect.

the starting point can be that you can use whatever you want as long as it fits within the confines of the OEM unit.

.....so the material of construction can be whatever as long as it is inside "the confines" of the OEM mount.

and then it can build from there to be "unrestricted" and turn into strut tower bracing, etc.

[77ITA]

so the material of construction can be whatever as long as it is inside "the confines" of the OEM mount.

and then it can build from there to be "unrestricted" and turn into strut tower bracing, etc.
[/b]

Any allowance of any type has potential to be exploited and taken advantage of if not well thought out and detail specific. I hope we can all agree on that.

Does that point suggest that we should give no more allowances in IT? No, it means that we need allowances that are detail specific instead of "open" anything goes.

Indeed, the ECU thing is a good example of rule creep and things getting out of control. "Anything within the factory ECU box" is entirely too vague if the intentions were to not allow stand-alone management.

Bottom line is; Any good competitor will always be looking to take advantage of what is legal. When allowances are made, they must clearly outline what is allowed and what is not to prevent them from being taken advantage of.

[tom91ita]

frankly, i would support an "anything that fits inside the stock bracket"

that way i don't have to change what is in my car right now (H5 legal factory brackets filled with 3M windowweld).