IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

[trhoppe]

As noted in the latest fastrack, we finally have the chance to have upgraded motor mounts. Please vote yes to the CRB, as unless they hear from us, this will probably not go through.

"Engine 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."

-Tom

[chuck baader]

Tom, cut and pasted your suggestion with one exception:

"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."

Chuck

[Knestis]

>> Engine and transmission mounts of alternate design and/or material...

So rear differential mounts (a la IRS designs) can be replaced as well.

Is a subframe "the chassis?"

K

[RHallRacing]

Where or who do we send our vote to? I vote yes

[chuck baader]

Send votes to www.crbscca.com and fill out the form. You will get a quick email confirmation with a confirmation number for tracking.

Bushings are free, and I have always thought diff and subframe bushings were bushings:happy204: Chuck

[Greg Amy]

Are the mounts used to hold the transmission end of a FWD assembly considered "motor mounts"? I suggest not. If not, then the whole exercise is pointless, as there's no point in doing the engine side of the drivetrain if you can't do the transmission end, especially since the front/rear mounts are usually attached to the transaxle...and if so, then the rules applies to longitudinally-mounted drivetrains too, regardless of location of the transmission/transaxle.

And why specify "fore, aft or vertical" location? All those extra words (bad, bad ITAC!) do is make me want to find a way to rotate my engine (in either roll, pitch, or possibly even yaw) in such a way as to have a competitive advantage (and with oil pans free, I can probably find a way).

I support the general concept, though... - GA


(In fairness for intorturation, my original suggestion: "Alternate engine and transmission/transaxle mounts are allowed. No chassis or drivetrain components may be repositioned or modified to accommodate this allowance.")

[chuck baader]

Come-on, y'all...lets not make this a 15 page discussion...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea. Chuck

[RHallRacing]

Done and Done

[rsportvolvo]

Vote yes sent to the CRB.

[Greg Amy]

...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea.
Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...

:shrug:

[trhoppe]

Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...

:shrug:

So write a letter saying "the idea is awesome, love it, in love with it, I'd have sex with the idea if it was female, but we need to work on the rule language, here is my suggestion "blah blah blah""

:)

[chuck baader]

Greg, since when is a transaxle not a transmission? A worded, I think it should apply to all engine/transmission mounting points, and that is the intent. As far as the differential is concerned, suspension bushings are free. Chuck

[mom'sZ]

Sending vote that Greg Amy gets to review all rule changes before submittal. No really... why the fore aft blah blah blah language? It can't move... period.
Also, I feel like I have to hop from forum to forum so I don't miss anything. Can we not combine the sandbox and this place? Don't be afraid of it over there guys, yeah there are some meanies and bullies and a few who just like to piss in everybodies cornflakes just for fun but for christmas sake... two sepparate discussions every time.
So anyhow.... WHAT about tranny and diff mounts???
an mount is a mount is a mount. either let us have em or don't
And of alternate design? as in I can run big giant steel tubes between all of them and stiffen my chassis? I know I know, can not perform an illegal function but Greg Amy this thing. Remember the George R. edict (or whatever it is) if it says you can... you bloody well can! alternate material yeah sure, alternate design? how would I need to redesign the damn thing to make it work?

[chuck baader]

You have not seen all of the FWD motor mounts, have you? Chuck

[mom'sZ]

As far as the differential is concerned, suspension bushings are free. Chuck
How is a differential a suspension component? A live axle sure, but with regard to IRS

[trhoppe]

Also, I feel like I have to hop from forum to forum so I don't miss anything. Can we not combine the sandbox and this place? Don't be afraid of it over there guys, yeah there are some meanies and bullies and a few who just like to piss in everybodies cornflakes just for fun but for christmas sake... two sepparate discussions every time.
Hey, we can absorb this place. Hell, even make a "IT" forum on the sanbox :happy204: :shrug:

[chuck baader]

I'll use my car as an example. The whole rear suspension is an assembly bolted to the car in three places, each end of a suspension subframe, and the diff. All three have bushings. The rear control arms pivot off the subframe. The complete subframe/control arms/diff is the rear suspension. Chuck

[Greg Amy]

Greg, since when is a transaxle not a transmission?
When the rules states "[e]ngine mounts of alternate design and/or material may be used..."?

(I've not read the rule myself, I'm only going by P****'s first post...)

Tom, membership rules requests and feedback to the CRB don't have a good history of being "interpreted" properly; how many times has someone submitted something but later complained it wasn't what they actually submitted? My concern, therefore, is that by emailing the CRB and saying "it's great in concept but there's issues and here's what I suggest" would be read as "it's great." - GA

On edit: just pulled down the Fastrack News for March. I see that what Tom posted was NOT a published/proposed rule change as I inferred, but simply a request for comments. Now Chuck's response makes more sense to me, and I see where I was led astray. Mea culpa on my comment on the ITAC!!!

[tom91ita]

as Chuck worded it, that would work for me. need to include transmission and transaxle type of mounts. otherwise, i only have one engine mount and two tranny mounts.

just not sure why we think the CRB is going to listen to this any more than they did other topics.

and should this go directly to the CRB, i thought they said the proper flow was members to ITAC, ITAC to CRB, etc.

[lateapex911]

It goes to the CRB, and should land in the ITACs mailbox as well.

When we were discussing this, I was under the assumption that of course teh trans was included. But yea, the wording doesn't support that thinking. So be sure to mention that in your response should you support it.

Just a note, this was very contested on the con call, and passed by one vote just to go out for comment. Now that one vote (me) is gone, and I have no idea IF there will be new guys, or who they might be...in other words, it's in the balance, get your votes in for or against.

[924Guy]

I'll be getting my vote in for, with the addition of trans etc mounts too...

[jhooten]

The productionifacation of IT is gaining speed down that well lubed slope.

Next you will all want to change the rule to allow you to remove the washer bottle and gut the doors.

[trhoppe]

Next you will all want to change the rule to gut the doors.

Uhh, welcome to 5 years ago?

[JoshS]

I'll use my car as an example. The whole rear suspension is an assembly bolted to the car in three places, each end of a suspension subframe, and the diff. All three have bushings. The rear control arms pivot off the subframe. The complete subframe/control arms/diff is the rear suspension. Chuck

Yes, in these cars (Chuck's is the same as mine) the differential is a stressed member of the subframe assembly. The whole assembly is the subframe and is attached in three places to the chassis, all with bushings. The rules already allow subframe bushings to be replaced.

This in my opinion is very different from a more traditional rear suspension. In other cases the differential is not a member of the subframe at all, but rather, hangs from it or the chassis (like a Miata). In those cars, I don't see how you could use the suspension bushing allowance to change the differential-mount bushings.

[Bill Miller]

Uhh, welcome to 5 years ago?


jhooten joke here =======



hoppe here ===========



WOOSH!

[trhoppe]

Bad joke, since we can't remove washer bottles ;)

[Bill Miller]

True dat! ;)

[Rabbit07]

My vote in with request to change the verbage to include transmission mounts

[Charlie Broring]

I'm old and grumpy and hate change. But I'm fine with the alternate motor mounts.

Charlie

[Gary L]

I'm older and grumpier, and JUST BOUGHT more new stock mounts. Screw yer change.

Seriously. Someone remind me again why this is so damned important.

...warts and all, etc.

[Charlie Broring]

I'm older and grumpier, and JUST BOUGHT more new stock mounts. Screw yer change.

Seriously. Someone remind me again why this is so damned important.

...warts and all, etc.

Those stock motor mounts are made from used kitchen sponges. I hope you have that "stay rod" thing to keep the engine from falling out.

[Gary L]

Those stock motor mounts are made from used kitchen sponges. I hope you have that "stay rod" thing to keep the engine from falling out.
It's a wear item; I replace them once per season, never had one fail. Well okay... I did separate one when the jack slid off the front crossmember into the pan!

[jhooten]

Uhh, welcome to 5 years ago?

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than
to provide for the installation of required safety equipment
or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger
compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window
operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and
inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the
inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the
door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and
the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed
or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

[MMiskoe]

"Engine, transmission and final drive mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these components is not altered in any way. All mounts must attach to the chassi and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."

This one should be a no brainer for the CRB to work over.

BTW why does the CRB have a link to email all of them but when you use it you get one back saying "nope, that email address is not how to get in touch with us, send your letter here"? Why not have that link right there in the FT . Am I simplifying something hard?

[mossaidis]

"Engine, transmission and final drive mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these components is not altered in any way. All mounts must attach to the chassis and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."

Done - thank you.

PS. Thank you ITAC and CRB for approval a weight correction to the 92-95 Civic Si. It can change to something else down the line as long as it equitable and within the ITA philosophy (lbs/hp with IT factors, etc).

[EV]

Email sent in support

[raffaelli]

I am in favor since the inserts are already in my car.:happy204:

[RacerBill]

Email sent - in favor, and advocating the inclusion of transmission/transaxle mounts.

[trhoppe]

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than
to provide for the installation of required safety equipment
or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger
compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window
operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and
inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the
inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the
door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and
the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed
or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand :shrug:

[erlrich]

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

Or... if your car was registered prior to 1/1/08, you get to use 9.4.2.G:
"Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. Door side tubes may extend into the door. NASCAR-style side protection, or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. The door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified."

But I digress...

Letter in support of alternate mounts sent :023:

[John Herman]

Good luck with policing this one. BTW, what are the tolerances on the engine/trans location? Engines/trans will be lowered, rotated, etc. by people looking for that small performance advantage. Try to prove that is hasn't been, or worse, just try to get specs on the "stock" location of the engine so you can write the protest.

[lateapex911]

John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....

[John Herman]

John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....

This whole arguement is just a red herring. If I wanted to protest any of the engine itmes you listed, either a visual inspection will determine compliance, a review of the service manual will list piston weights, etc. Protesting non-stock mounts, easy to do. Don't really care how many people are all ready doing it. Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

Your example just reinforces what I believe will happen....yeah my engine sits this low on the crappy stock mounts, so thats where I put it.

[jhooten]

Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand :shrug:


Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

[trhoppe]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.
edit: You know, I was going to post how sort of ignorant you were, then I thought "he really must be trying to make another joke if he thinks anyone gives a shit about spirit of the rules in the tech shed" so I edited my post

-Tom
who has been there, and won, more then once

[lateapex911]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

You'll be protesting my car, and we'll be sending that one as far up the flagpole as it has to go. The rule is written in English, and I happen to understand that language.

It's my thinking that the Stewards can read too, and I doubt they want to risk their spotless record on a losing case, but, I'd be happy to take it to the COA.

Not only that, but there's isn't one good reason that can be cited for why my cars door bars are "wrong", beyond what the rulebook says.

[jhooten]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I suggest a review of GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

Claiming a bar extends in the door by only breaking the plane by .0001" is straining to the breaking point.

[lateapex911]

I think the term .001" or whatever is a euphemism for the term "barely"...I've got actual steel within the door side of the door plane. It meets the words of the rule. Maybe not the "intent" as you see it though.

[jhooten]

The claim in this thread was .0001.

[lateapex911]

And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0

[EV]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.
Is this guy really a sphincter, or is he kidding?

[tom91ita]

And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0

and where is the plane of the door? where the interior crap was? where the metal was (since it has now been removed)? or do i draw a line between where the metal is still at top and bottom?

my first "nascar" bar only had one bend in it and then went to the front A pillar bar.

i suppose i could have just welded a stub to go out into the door a bit and break the plane that way.

[trhoppe]

He's either an idiot, or he's joking.

I'm gonna lean to "joking"

-Tom

[erlrich]

He's either an idiot, or he's joking.

I'm gonna lean to "joking"

-Tom

I going with C) he's going to the absurd to make is point. There's a lot of that going around lately.

Again, I'm not sure why this is a big deal, unless you're building (or have built since 1/1/08) a car. For those of us with cars whose logbooks were issued prior to that it doesn't matter.

[Chip42]

the long and short of it is that door bars and the like don't matter. what matters is the car making weight, and using only allowed mods to the power and drive trains.

too often we fight regarding all of these rediculous nit picky points. motor mounts will give few a real advantage, they are cheap to make yourself (by filling) or to buy and may be a better alternative (as in safety, per the intent of the class) to stock for many applications. if you drive an MR2, for example, it could lead to a torn chassis so it's not for everyone. neither is the removal of a window via door gutting (some use open trailers still and have lead on the floor anyhow). but there's no reason not to allow it IF THE RULE IS WRITTEN CLEANLY so as to forbid the relocation or reorientation of the driveline components.

I could go on for hours about some of what I view to be absurd or overly tight rules but I think we should stick to the toppic at hand.

I would add that the replacement of stock motor / trans / diff mounts should be an either / or with the added stabilizer. - i.e. no urethane mounts and added stabilizer link. but I wouldn't fight too hard for such language as it's, overall, not very important in the grand scheme of things.

[jhooten]

In a previous life I was a Police Officer. One little blonde cutie batted her eyes and did all the little flirty things she though would get her out af the well deserved ticket. It didn't. As I turned to walk back to my car I heard her shout "thanks alot you f...ing asshole". Ok I'm an asshole. I just give what I get.

Drivers come through tech, look in another drivers car, then come running over to the tech crew and demand we write up some percieved violation of the competitors car. Either you want us to do your dirty work or you don't. BTW, the way it works here is if it is not the the cheif stewards list of tech items for the event we can't even look at it. Write your own protest.

Idiot, if so I'm in a lot of company here.

Sombody got it. If enters the door by .0001 is compliant where is it measured from and how is is measured? Strained and tortured.

C) Ok, again lots of company there. .0001 is absurdly small.

Lot of pot and kettle going on. Quite a few need to take a good look in the mirror.

Or maybe it was just one of those days.


To the OP, sorry for taking this so far off topic. Comments have been sent to the CRB on the issue.

[vr6guy]

I learned alot about "motor mounts" on this page. :023:

[timo944]

Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.



I can't wait to fight a protest for crappy driving by saying that my 'paint' hit him, not the 'car'.

LOL

I hope the ITAC can figure out a way to allow alternate motor, tranny and diff mounts without creating issues. Sometimes I wish we could publish intent.

[EV]

Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.
I am sure he will chime in but for my car, the loosey goosey motor mounts cause me to have issues down shifting at times, so for my car, sure it will be a "competitive advantage" (of sorts).

The overly soft engine mounts do fine for the street, but present problems when used as we do. In some cases (many) factory mounts have to be replaced yearly, and cost MUCH more than stiffer, better performing poly mounts, that will last longer (cost savings).

Of course, many already run them, and everyone seems to turn a blind eye (a noobs perspective). Just about any SM that double dips in ITA has the upgraded mounts SM allows, and I am pretty sure no one is protesting. I know that isn't a reason to pass the rule, but it is, what it is.

[callard]

I've replaced five or six radiators and a couple dozen motor mounts in my Benz due to their crappy design. I'd like to see this rule changed.
Chuck

[GTIspirit]

Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.


The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

[trhoppe]

Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, as the OEM parts are not up to the task of racing.

I feel that is is a very cheap, optional modification, that will not provide a "competitive" advantage over not doing it. It will instead allow for eventual cost savings, as one purchase of engine mounts, or a $5 fix, will last a long time and not necessitate extra spending on OEM mounts every year or other timeframe. If you car has really strong motor mounts from the factory? Sweet. good for you, leave them alone, this rule won't affect you and you not buying motor mounts will not provide you with a competitive disadvantage over someone else that does buy upgraded motor mounts for his car


The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

We are in the year 2010. "Engine stay rods" are from the last century. I know there are some IT cars that were made in the 70s, but we really should upgrade our rules to keep up with new technologies. VERY inexpensive Polyurethane compounds in 2010 are available that will allow for engine mounts to be both still a little compliant, while being strong enough so they don't tear. Some engine mounts allow you to just squeeze some of that poly in the openings, some you have to replace the whole thing. Hell, some might have to buy a whole new mount.

You know? Some might say "fuck it, my stay rod does enough". Whatever, your choice.

In the end, what this rule does is allow for more choice, more options, and in the end, I feel it can save the general IT membership money and allow for less time spent working on the car :)

-Tom

[Knestis]

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

This is precisely what we did with my MkIII. The first cut was flat brackets that sandwiched between the chassis- and engine/gearbox-side of the rear mount, glued together with a welded-in square tube. It worked great until it busted because we couldn't reach inside to get full perimeter welds done.

The current iteration is a link about 4" long, with rod ends connecting the front of the engine - off of a boss down by the starter(?) - to a big ol' bracket welded to the subframe. It essentially binds up the flexibility in the front mount.

K

[dickita15]

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, -Tom

So you are not disappointed Tom:
The first gen rx7’s do not have a problem. In eleven years of using literally parts car engine mounts the only motor mount I had to replace was when a wrecker driver tried to pick up the front of the car from the motor mount. I guess there is some advantage in having no torque and very little compression braking.
Bu even so I see no problem with this rule. Enough guys are having races screwed up when a mount breaks to make this a wise move.

[timo944]

Good enough guys you have my vote. I do, of course, have evil intentions here!!!

[trhoppe]

Bump! Get your "yes" letters in, if you haven't yet :)

-Tom

[lateapex911]

If I read the update right from Josh, they have an shitload of letters Tom, but it's 40 to 1.

[trhoppe]

Yup, I also heard we have one holdout, and 40 correct people :happy204::)

Wouldn't hurt to have 100-1 so I figured I'd bump :)

-Tom

[lateapex911]

If they deny it at 40 to 1, they'll deny it at 100 to 1!

I THINK there might be some new guys on board. After we all left, I think the vote was close on the ITAC...really close with 2 guys adamantly not in favor. So, if they decide that the input isn't the way to go, the new guys votes will be the swing. But, with 40 to 1 in favor, it's hard to see how they can ignore that. Of course the Process has about the same support amongst the racers, and that gets ignored....:shrug:

[Hotshoe]

I've replaced five or six radiators and a couple dozen motor mounts in my Benz due to their crappy design. I'd like to see this rule changed.
Chuck

I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.:blink:

... Just sent in my vote............ YES :023:

[Z3_GoCar]

I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.:blink:

... Just sent in my vote............ YES :023:

And we share mounts with the M3, imagine what it'd be like if we had to use the softer mounts from the regular sedan.

[lateapex911]

http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=28388

Some recent news and discussion can be found here regarding the now controversial engine mount situation.

[Greg Amy]

Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...

[Z3_GoCar]

Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...
Synopsis is:

Last nights con-call the vote was 4-4 with the two new guys voting aginst. So it's going to the crb with no recommendation for or aginst.

Tom made fun of all the ITAC members who voted aginst.

Pete K called out the Jeffster because he lost cell coverage near the end of the call.

Oh, and they'd like input on wording on a revised rule. Seems like some still think all anyone needs is a little windshield adhesive. Others may need solid metal due to exhaust manifolds right next to the stock mount location.

That about summarizes the main points. As I lurked on the thread.

[lateapex911]

SCCA forum? That's where teh CRB goes when they want to make a public post and have nobody read it...

Other highlights...

AN ITAC member thinks all you need is a chain, and if you don't have a welder and can weld, then what are you doing racing? And another knows you need them and has seen plenty installed on cars, knows the engines in the cars he runs would flop around without them, but is against the rule.

And it's considered rules creep, even though the allowance to control engine movement has been in the books since the beginning of time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How 'bout we help the ITAC members who voted for this, have enough info to go back again and convince the no-votes to reconsider. Take your time to hear the issues and send another letter with a productive counter if you really believe in the change.

I do know that some members of the CRB are soliciting input from members to make the best decision they can since it has been presented to them without recommendation. They STILL have to make a decision.

[Z3_GoCar]

SCCA forum? That's where teh CRB goes when they want to make a public post and have nobody read it...

Other highlights...

AN ITAC member thinks all you need is a chain, and if you don't have a welder and can weld, then what are you doing racing? And another knows you need them and has seen plenty installed on cars, knows the engines in the cars he runs would flop around without them, but is against the rule.

And it's considered rules creep, even though the allowance to control engine movement has been in the books since the beginning of time.

Who's the new ITAC member from Santa Barbara with the B and S car?

[JoshS]

The ITAC consists of:

Les Chaney
Danny Doern
Lee Graser
Peter Keane
Gary Semerdjian
Josh Sirota (chair)
Bob Thornton
Jeff Young

I'm sure the SCCA web site will be updated soon to reflect the changes.

[Z3_GoCar]

The ITAC consists of:

Les Chaney
Danny Doern
Lee Graser
Peter Keane
Gary Semerdjian
Josh Sirota (chair)
Bob Thornton
Jeff Young

I'm sure the SCCA web site will be updated soon to reflect the changes.

So, it's got to be either Danny or Gary. Does he race with you guys? Neither name looks familiar to me.

Found him on google, looks like Gary's last race was with you guys...

[Bill Miller]

http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=28388

Some recent news and discussion can be found here regarding the now controversial engine mount situation.

That's some really entertaining reading right there.

[StephenB]

Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...

I agree. I am not a "cool kid" therefore I do not play in the sandbox.

Stephen

[shwah]

I pointed out again that the stayrod allowance should be able to resolve this issue, and that alternate mounts that retain current location, and mounting hardware can provide a performance advantage, at least to fwd cars, in the form of front axle weight reduction (rubber and window weld mounts have high density and lots of volume for the job they perform).

I also asked if folks stating that a stay rod will not work for them had actually tried any. No answers, other than some folks saying that they don't want to take the time to develop one.

It seems that mine is not the majority opinion in that thread, and that my logic is tantamount to returning IT to "old showroom stock cars"

[rsportvolvo]

How about applying the KISS principle to these debates? What is the easier solution for IT racers: fabricating engine locating devices (e.g. stay rods) or buying a stock replacement part?

Side question: How does the club currently regulation material and durometer on stock and stock replacement engine/transmission mounts? They can't, so couldn't a stock mount made with an alternate material that is commercially available be legal within the confines of the current ITCS? I will use the cast vs. forged piston material as a precedence. As long as the part meets the dimensions and material class it's legal. Otherwise is brand X legal and brand y illegal?.

[shwah]

That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.

[rsportvolvo]

That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.

That applies to every aspect of the ITCS. We all try to optimize and find the "unfair advantage" within the ITCS. That's a part of racing's appeal.

[trhoppe]

The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect


"Engine, transmission and final drive mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these components is not altered in any way. All mounts must attach to the chassis and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."

[IPRESS]

Tom,
As long as it makes miatas faster I am for it!:023:

(I have already made my request that the CRB be in favor.)

[ilium]

Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...

Since this is, you know, the officially SCCA sanctioned forum of Improved Touring. :rolleyes:

And discussions on the frequently read SCCA forums always turn out to be productive. :rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Conversations take place where conversations take place. There isn't always rhyme or reason, it's just the way it is. If you want to be in the conversation, you walk over to where the people are standing. If not, you don't.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Side question: How does the club currently regulation material and durometer on stock and stock replacement engine/transmission mounts? They can't, so couldn't a stock mount made with an alternate material that is commercially available be legal within the confines of the current ITCS? I will use the cast vs. forged piston material as a precedence. As long as the part meets the dimensions and material class it's legal. Otherwise is brand X legal and brand y illegal?.

Of course you could. You could take the mount that was harder and procure a stock one. SCCA corp puts a durometer on them both and determins compliance. Simple.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect

Only grey area I see there is that you havn't addressed the relocation of the engine. 'My' motor mount is in the same place but is shorter, lowering my engine. I don't think "location and orientation" of the mount really covers it. How about adding 'dimensions'? (Although that imnplies weight as well...)

[trhoppe]

Andy, I don't think you saw my updated rule that I posted on the sandbox. I'd love to see how anyone can get around this rule and move the motor or join mounts together (now becomes 1 mount vs 2 or 3 mounts != same method). The way to do this one in the tech shed is to take out the protested mount and compare it to the stock one. If it will place the motor in a non-stock location/orientation, bam, gone.


"Engine, transmission and differential housing mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these mounts, the engine, transmission and differential housing are not altered in any way. All mounts must only attach to the chassis and to the engine, transmission and differential housing in the original location, orientation and method."