Question about motor mounts

[RacerBill]

Last weekend at Road Atlanta, I saw a GTI Rabbit that the owner had for sale. I took one of the flyers, just to review, and noticed something that raised my eyebrows. Under the Engine/Transmission section, the owner listed 'Urethane engine mounts and bushings'. I was under the impression that engine mounts had to remain stock, no?

[joeg]

correct

[Ron Earp]

Need to be stock crap. Mine bust a lot but they are legal. However, I need to take advantage of that stay rod rule because I could probably cut down on mount replacement.

[iambhooper]

plus 1 for the stay rod... the VIR dyno guys were getting a good chuckle at how much my motor was moving around with new stock mounts... probably doesn't help the numbers either.

[bhudson]

I saw the flyer too - it lists more than a few non-compliant items. Easily correctable though....

Bob Hudson, Atlanta Region ProIT Chief Steward

[RacerBill]

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure what I was reading. I will file that flyer away.

[SPiFF]

The motor mount rule really needs to be changed. You can spend a million dollars replacing every bushing in the car except the motor mounts. How does that make any sense!??! If you happen to be one of those cars that breaks motor mounts all the time, or worse transmission cases like in the Civic EX, you either have to run cheater mounts or take you chances trying to get a stay rod to work. Lame.

[Greg Amy]

The motor mount rule really needs to be changed.
+ eleventybillion. It's really, really, really stupid that we can't change the stock engine bushing insert materials.

And, yes, I've written the letter, 6-8 of them over the last 20-ish years. All rejected.

[kthomas]

Add Z front diff mounts to your letter next time. I'm sure they're just waiting for a big enough request.....snort.

[cjb25hs]

So I take it that the additional urethane inserts that you see in most of the kits that just slide into the original rubber mounts are also illegal. You are not replacing or modifying just adding the urethane material in addition too. Of course it is not specifically listed in the rules as a approved mod. therefore no deal. I really find it strange why we can't get it changed. It's not like you cant buy a full kit for just about every car that is spec'd. I'm sure there are some though. I would imagine the reasoniong behind it is because it would be hard to police and some people would be looking into solid mounts versus inserts versus urethane etc.. etc..

[MMiskoe]

Although I fully agree there should be an allowance for this, with stay rods being free, are there that many situations that a stay rod can't at least help a crappy mount?

+1 on the diff mounts, trans mounts to be included too since many are what hold up the motor.

[Ron Earp]

I really find it strange why we can't get it changed.

Because you are still under the impression that the SCCA is a club by members for members. Once you get that crazy notion out of your head then everything is much clearer.

[RacerBill]

Because you are still under the impression that the SCCA is a club by members for members. Once you get that crazy notion out of your head then everything is much clearer.

Rational reasoning be dammed! We've got to hold that line against the slippery slope!!!!!!! (OK, took my tongue out of my cheek, I can talk normally again.)

It's another one of those things that's right in the middle of the road. We say we want rules stability, but at the same time we say we want change. We probably could have had the little stuff like motor mounts, water bottles, jacking plates changed if we had not allowed big changes like ECU's and threaded body shocks.

[Ed Funk]

Can I hear an AMEN!?!!:)

[trhoppe]

FYI, I'm sending this rule change request to the CRB/ITAC. We'll see what happens. Otherwise I guess I'll build an engine stay rod :(


Engine and drivetrain mounts may be replaced, but must attach in the factory
location(s) without additional modification or changes. Engine
position may not be changed. The volume of metal in a
replacement mount may not be increased relative to the volume
of metal found in a stock mount for the particular application.
Solid metal mounts are specifically prohibited. Any non-metallic
inserts may be used.

Hydraulic shock type rear engine locators, or bobble struts may
be replaced by manufacturer’s performance part, or aftermarket
replacement part. This part must retain factory dimensions and
attachment points, including factory design. (Example: If factory
locator/bobble strut is gas or hydraulic piston type, replacement
part must be gas or hydraulic piston type. No solid mounts may
be substituted.)

[frnkhous]

FYI, I'm sending this rule change request to the CRB/ITAC. We'll see what happens. Otherwise I guess I'll build an engine stay rod :(

Tom, I don't think your looking at the big picture on this, your mounts are easy to just fill, buy stiffer ones etc. But some cars, especially rwd cars it would be much easier to make metal mounts than to fill some of the stock mounts i've seen that break. More importantly if your not limiting the material besides saying no metal, i'm not sure what the benefit to a rule change is that exludes metal engine mounts but nothing else. You can still basically get as stiff as you'd like, your choice, autoclaved carbonfiber engine mounts anybody?

[Z3_GoCar]

+1

Allow us to change the stock rubber mounts that are desigend to break for something more durable. If it's urethane, delrin, or aluminum I don't care. I just don't want to have to swap out stock mounts just because they are tired from running a few races. Actually, there are aluminum mounts for my application, but I'd not run them as it stresses the motor too much, I'd just stick with urethane/delrin for a little compliance.

[trhoppe]

What RWD car are you talking about?

With a quick google search I found $100 poly engine mounts for 240Z's, RX-7s, BMWs, and Miatas :shrug:

-Tom

[Ron Earp]

Give it up fellows. You can talk it up all you want but there won't be any changing of mount material in IT land. Don't you know that leads down the road to Prod???? Jeez, you'd think you fellows just joined the board around here. Next thing you know you'll want to remove your washer bottles.

[lateapex911]

Give it up fellows. You can talk it up all you want but there won't be any changing of mount material in IT land. Don't you know that leads down the road to Prod???? Jeez, you'd think you fellows just joined the board around here. Next thing you know you'll want to remove your washer bottles.

Now now Ron, a little less skeptical angst eh? You never know what the committee will do. Engine mounts have a good story behind them and from my angle, they are philosophically similar to other allowances. I imagine the ITAC has differing views from member to member, but it's not unanimous, that's for sure. Now washer bottles?? Give it up! ;)

[JeffYoung]

I think it is fair and appropriate to say that they are being discussed by the ITAC. There are differing viewpoints, so no guarantees, but letters to let your viewpoint be known would be helpful.....

[Knestis]

Heck, Ron - I'm gone so there's one less obstacle in your way. Besides, an engine mount allowance request would give the ITAC something to do since they can't change weights anymore. :(

K

[iambhooper]

Heck, Ron - I'm gone so there's one less obstacle in your way. Besides, an engine mount allowance request would give the ITAC something to do since they can't change weights anymore. :(

K

Did I miss some drama?

hoop

[Ron Earp]

Heck, Ron - I'm gone so there's one less obstacle in your way. Besides, an engine mount allowance request would give the ITAC something to do since they can't change weights anymore. :(

K

Oh I'm just giving them a hard time. I was once the bright eyed newbie who wanted to change things, but no more. I've been beat down now and I know that changing the washer bottle rule or engine mount rule would surely lead us down the road to Prod and would doom IT forever.

Based on what I read here with the CRB decisions, I'm not too sure where the ITAC stands these days on changing anything. I hope the ITAC continues in the function though and will regain effectiveness. The ITAC fixed IT, they need to be allowed to keep fixing it.

[Knestis]

Did I miss some drama?

hoop

Yup. Go get a beer and revisit the longer threads around here. There's been some issues.

K

[lateapex911]

Yup. Go get a 6 pack/case/keg (depending on your input to reading efficiency) and revisit the longer threads around here. There's been some issues.

K

For accuracy. ;)

[Xian]

Did I miss some drama?

hoop


Yup. Go get a beer and revisit the longer threads around here. There's been some issues.

K


For accuracy. ;)

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Cliff's notes: CRB said "No" to the ITAC WRT weight changes according to "the process'. Anything that's been classed for more than 5 years is "set" as is. CRB also reserved the right to make changes/adjustments to vehicle weight based on overdog status.

[iambhooper]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Cliff's notes: CRB said "No" to the ITAC WRT weight changes according to "the process'. Anything that's been classed for more than 5 years is "set" as is. CRB also reserved the right to make changes/adjustments to vehicle weight based on overdog status.

thanks for the Cliffs! any particualr thread i need to look at?

H

[Xian]

Look up any of the multi-thousand view posts in the "Rules & Reg" sub forum... Help me understand XXXXX, Problem Cars, etc, etc.

[trhoppe]

Bump. ITAC supported this and the CRB is putting it out for member comment in the next fastrack.

Once that gets here, write your letters folks!

[MMiskoe]

Based on the pages & pages of other posts about ITAC/CRB communication and the Club in general listening to member input we should expect what, a 180 response from what ever the member input is?

I'm glad you got this on their list of things to look at, lets hope rational minds prevail.