June Fastrack

[spnkzss]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...track-june.pdf (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-june.pdf)

No mounts for you.

But I get to vote on whether to give the CRX/Civic around 5 extra Ponies. Bring on them crank triggers. :shrug:

So the question is, if the masses say motor mounts, and they say no, and the masses say no to the crank triggers does that mean yes? Need to go write my letter for no now.

[lateapex911]

this should get you close:

http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=78

highlight, or should I say "You've GOT to be f-ing kidding me after a HUGE amount of response, biggest ever by far, over 95% in favor of it, it's a LOWLIGHT", the CRB and or ITAC has rejected the concept of engine ounts, but if fine if you want to go weld up some rod ends and attach to your valve cover.


The IT Advisory Committee and the CRB do not recommend changing the IT rules to allow modified or unrestricted motor mounts at this time. We wish to remind members who are having issues with their engine mounts that the stayrod allowance will alleviate most motor mount problems. The ITAC and the CRB are engaged in discussions concerning IT philosophy and the future of the category. The motor mount issue will remain as part of these discussions as will other issues such as crank fired ignitions. Members will be asked for their input on specific items and more general questions about whether members want the class to drift toward Production, or remain as a much more restricted category. We wish to thank the many members who took the time to comment on this issue.

I've heard all the arguments, I haven't heard one that holds water as to why this is a bad idea. I think they've gone too far....

HOWEVER, they DID decide recommend allowing you to modify your shifter by shortening it....

AND they want to know if you think IT cars should be allowed Crank Fire ignitions...
(cuz yea, THAT"s a low tech mod...)

I DO applaud the better and more complete answers that shed light on reasoning that were used in many of the responses, and appear to becoming the norm. Good job in that department.

[spnkzss]

So Jake is the reason I can't delete the post and jsut add to yours. Bastard. :p

[tom91ita]

from the letter writing thread:



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


but i agree with the fact that if the ITAC was split 4-4 on this, the CRB did the right thing and did not approve it.

it pains me to say this, but for this instance, the ITAC was the issue.

[quadzjr]

Baffled on the motor mount rulling though personally against it.

I do know of a 2.0L honda that would benefit from a crank trigger :) Though I am also against it. Though I am also agasint open computers as well??

What is the deal with the FIA seat mounts? on person swayed the vote of the CRB? and the rest aare stuck with it?

[lateapex911]

I called my director, and he wisely (he's very wise) pointed out Toms point, which is that the CRB supported the ITAC.

Agreed, they did, ....kinda...and on one hand I can't fault that. Even so, a split vote sent to the CRB is a "you decide" vote ....
BUT, there's more here that's not so black and white.

The CRB knew:
- The previous ITAC was much more in favor of it.
- The new ITAC was split evenly.
- The membership was VASTLY...nearly unanimously in favor, in the largest input in the history of the category.
- The dissenting members of the ITAC were, in one case, NOT even driving IN IT, and in another, pretty out of touch with the category and membership, and the new votes were likely swayed by these members. So to my eye, one of those votes shouldn't even COUNT.

Based on all that, AND the fact that the CRb knows it's already in trouble in the eyes of the IT membership, I'd have thought they would have:
- taken the "No recommendation positive OR negative", and made a call to support the obvious wants of the membership,
-or, refused to make a call and returned it to the ITAC for a clear vote.

But really, WHY is it that the CRb can reject the ITACs VERY CLEAR recommendation of adjusting the weight on say, the MR2, which was an admitted ITAC error, yet REFUSE to make the right call on this??

Or, when the ITAC ran the numbers on the BMW 528, it placed it in ITB. The CRB rejected that saying "It doesn't look like an ITB car, the engine is too big", and insisted that it go to ITA, where everyone knows it can't make weight. So, the ITAC redid the recommendation, this time for ITA, and the CRB approved that one......so, the CRB has shown it will ignore recommendations and force it's hand when it sees fit.

Error 404: Logic not found.

[almskidd]

I DO applaud the better and more complete answers that shed light on reasoning that were used in many of the responses, and appear to becoming the norm. Good job in that department.

I am pretty happy about that too. :happy204:

[spawpoet]

this should get you close:

"You've GOT to be f-ing kidding me after a HUGE amount of response, biggest ever by far, over 95% in favor of it, it's a LOWLIGHT"




I agree. Seriously, why should we ever offer our input when in the face of overwhelming member opinion, the members are ignored?? I don't believe in apathy, but this result doesn't exactly encourage member response and participation. From an image standpoint they'd have been better off never asking if we wanted the change. Clearly the decision did not involve us or our opinions, so why bleeping ask???

[quadzjr]

I agree. Seriously, why should we ever offer our input when in the face of overwhelming member opinion, the members are ignored?? I don't believe in apathy, but this result doesn't exactly encourage member response and participation. From an image standpoint they'd have been better off never asking if we wanted the change. Clearly the decision did not involve us or our opinions, so why bleeping ask???


It looks better to ask, they don't post the results of the letters wone way or the other. But it looks like, ot the person not on forums, that they are in the best interest.

<sarcasm>
They also asked about H&N Restraints.. twice... how did that go?
</sarcasm>

[lateapex911]

As far as I'm concerned, the results of the member input should be posted. As well as voting records for individual committee members. Some will say that individuals won't feel 'free' to vote their preference, for fear of reprisals, but,in my eye, if I can't defend my vote, then I shouldn't make it.

When I was on the ITAC, I kept the roll call votes of every member on all the issues for about the past year or so. I'd love to see the notes released on some website.

[Ron Earp]

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=29312

[Greg Amy]

What is the deal with the FIA seat mounts?
Oh, gawd, not this AGAIN. I fought this battle ten years ago, now we have to do it again...? First I lobbied the SCCA to allow FIA seats to not have seat back braces, because EVERY manufacturer blanches at the thought of having their FIA-tested and -certified seat installed with a pole mounted to it. Then I had to lobby the SCCA to make the wording reasonable, as no manufacturer was willing to do what the SCCA wanted (see attached).

This organization is manic depressive. First they want to lean on "standards" so they have someone to point to to reduce liability, now they want to remove standards because they found a problem in the inspection process?

What a mess.

GA

[RacerBill]

In a lot of ways, IT allows far more mods than Production did when I first joined SCCA in 1966!

[tom91ita]

....Some will say that individuals won't feel 'free' to vote their preference, for fear of reprisals, but,in my eye, if I can't defend my vote, then I shouldn't make it.......

at least the ones that don't race do not have to worry about any NASCAR like "bump & runs":)

[tom91ita]

great letter Greg!

[JeffYoung]

That is a good letter.

[joeg]

I like the letter and I think any form of brace--even one just resting on the back of an FIA seat rather than "firmly attached"--destroys the safety of such a seat.

This is plain nuts.

[Chip42]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal


I am opposed to the seat back brace requirement proposal from the June 2010 fasttrack for the following reasons:

1- Many FIA seats were not designed to accommodate such a brace. Steal frame seats offer few suitable mounting locations, and carbon fiber and fiberglass seats may be structurally compromised by unregulated modifications to accomplish the requirement - adding dangers where currently they do not exist.

2- Suitable mounting is already an unregulated requirement left to the discretion of the competitor and scrutineering staff. A back brace is not a magic bullet to repair this problem, it in fact offers more opportunity for damages to the driver in a collision / accident than no brace due to the potential for failures of design and the necessary proximity of the brace to vital organs and the head.

3- Suitable language controlling the mounting of an FIA seat in agreement with FIA testing procedures and instructions for the tech shed to aid in evaluating such mountings is a much more desirable and workable alternative. in the end liability shall fall upon the competitor or his agents, not the club. The GCR and many event sups indemnify the club, regions, and tracks from damages resulting from faulty safety gear. this language may be able to be made more specific to the limited liability of the technical volunteers and organizers.

It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly. given the variety of cars, seats, competitors' size and budgets, a catch all such as this proposal may lead to is likely more dangerous than it is helpful, and certainly a hindrance on the membership.

thank you for your time.

[lateapex911]

Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?



It is understood that a properly installed seat and brace combination can be demonstrated to be safer than a seat without a brace, even when mounted properly.

[tom91ita]

submission #1475 - my letter in opposition to the seat back brace rule change proposal

i am thinking more about going this the opposite way and ask they require the seat back. given that we do not actually know what event or design issue is the real cause of this requirement, we are effectively shooting in the dark.

i think my note will be more along the lines of this:


My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.

[Chip42]

Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?

I have a tendency to try and explain that I understand both sides of any argument when I engage myself in it. the construction is varied, the materials are varied. the techniques and design of the braces will vary. there are too many things to control that cannot be controlled tightly enough given our club type structure.

the point, I hope, was that improperly installed they are dangerous, and that the mounting mechanisms already inherent to the seats, with which they were approved, should be BETTER inspected and possible legislated before additional, uncontrolled fabrication is brought to bear.

there's a story that sticks out in my mind. a veteran, legendary chief of tech from the buccaneer region and a guy who was still moving up the scrutineering ladder were doing an annual on a car at savannah. the new guy wanted to fail the seat because it was loose. he insisted that they add a back brace. the veteran signed off on the annual anyhow because the seat was FIA and that was all he needed to see. both of these guys have annualled hundreds if not thousands of our cars. and they were both missing the problem. the seat was not mounted adequately within the current rules. overlooking the poor installation because of a cert that has nothing to do with the success of the mounting, or to insist that additions be made beyond repairing the actual failure when said addition is NOT required, seems to sum up the SCCA approach - do nothing then over react to failures of the nothing. the tech sheds are full of good, concerned men and women. many of them are very smart, but their backgrounds vary and their foci or pet issues vary and their competence is not well regulated - the inherent issues within a club of volunteers.

this rule change is dangerous due to a number of factors, most of which are simply out of the reasonable control of the club.

tom91 - I get that you think the kirkey seats of the world should be allowed to run without a brace if the sparcos are. fine. just show me where FIA, SFI, NHTSA, DEKRA, or another worthy organization has crash tested it successfully without a brace and it's all good. most Al seats are structural garbage. sorry.

[quadzjr]

My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.

I hope you are not serious.

Is your aluminum seat carry and FIA certification? No
Was your seat tested without the back brace? No
Could you of paid the extra money and got an FIA seat? Yes
Of standard seat materials isn't aluminum the best one (other than maybe steel) to modify without loosing structural integrity? Yes
Doesn't your case come off a bit selfish? Yes

[StephenB]

If your interested in the FIA process. I am actually going to make sure my belts are mounted per their testing standards as well.

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/895276808__8855_1999_Competition_seat.pdf

Stephen

[tom91ita]

If your interested in the FIA process. I am actually going to make sure my belts are mounted per their testing standards as well.

don't forget to tape your feet to the footrest and to have your arms crossed and the forearms taped together as well so the seat can perform as tested.

was i serious about submitting a statement that was sarcastic, riduculous and possibly insulting? yes.

was it my intent you need back braces? no.

i was trying to point out how absurd this is and not how much it is needed.

but one thing i have just realized is that my seat back is ~ 36" long and that one inch off the bottom is on the "back" just as much as 1" off the top.

there is no dimensional aspect to this requirement that it be X" from the top or that it be perpendicular to the seat, etc.

and for those with FIA seats mounted within an inch or so of the main hoop and bracing, in an rear impact, you in effect have a back brace. the seat will deflect and then hit the cage anyways.

[quadzjr]

and for those with FIA seats mounted within an inch or so of the main hoop and bracing, in an rear impact, you in effect have a back brace. the seat will deflect and then hit the cage anyways.

In effect you are correct, but oper the rule I would be illegal unless I had installed something. In this case where my seat is around an 1" from the roll bar maybe less. If the rule passes I will still have to come up with some sort of seat back brace that attaches to a seat consisting mostly of fabric and steel cage, in that cramped area, ohh and also make it adjsutable quickly so my father can jump in during enduros' and we can more the seat forward in quick fashion. Since this is nearly inpossilbe do to because of constraints reasons this is why I chose a quality FIA seat. In the other car which the seat doesn't move I have an aluminum Kirkey and it has a back brace as it is not an FIA seat and requires one.

[tom91ita]

another question for those with FIA seats, do you replace them every 5 years per FIA's useful life statements or have them re-certified for the extra 2 years?

SCCA seems to be silent on this but it seems to be implied that if one makes use of the FIA design to not need the seat brace one might be expected to follow the rest of FIA's requirements.

[Chip42]

another question for those with FIA seats, do you replace them every 5 years per FIA's useful life statements or have them re-certified for the extra 2 years?

SCCA seems to be silent on this but it seems to be implied that if one makes use of the FIA design to not need the seat brace one might be expected to follow the rest of FIA's requirements.

I'd rather have a rule that says FIA seats must be replaced or treated as a non-homologated item after their stated service life (or 5 yrs) than a blanket rule that legislates the unsupervised engineering adulteration of a proven design. that way I can choose to NOT compromise the integrity of my safety equipment and still be in compliance.

BTW, wrist and ankles of a DUMMY are taped, so what? the number of variables for what can be hit by the flailing limbs of a driver in a wreck is not in the pervue of the seat to control. The seat is about upper body containment and safety.

the attitude you take with respect to aluminum seats vs. FIA simply baffles me. a sarcastic letter cannot help the system, nor the discussion - wether you mean it or not. nothing personal, but please DON'T submit a letter to the CRB if that's all you have to offer.

[tom91ita]

i will not be submitting a note on the seats. but since reason and logic seem to have failed on other topics, it is sort of "what do we have to lose" mode of venting.

[Chip42]

Tom, I agree with you there.
hey look! it's the CRB decision making process! (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-05-21/)

[tom91ita]

Tom, I agree with you there.
hey look! it's the CRB decision making process! (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-05-21/)

:happy204:Thanks! I needed a dose of Dilbert!

[lateapex911]

The seat thing is extraordinary...Essentially, the CRb is saying: "We see certain FIA seats are being mounted in a manner that was non homogulated, so we propose that ALL seats be modified in a manner that is non homogulated." (As well as contrary to the requirements of mounting)


Now, i think the CRB has stepped on it (along with the ITAC, but the CRB are the bosses, so they are in the line of fire too) on the ridiculous engine mount issue, but this is SO ludicrous, I have to think there is a back story that we just don't know about. If so, either shame on them for not filling us in (Maybe there are liability concerns!?) or kudos to them for forming the question in a way to get a guaranteed "Are you nuts!?" response.

I'm hoping there's more going on here than what I see.

[Scooter]

I don't understand why motor mounts and crank-fired ignitions are in the same category of a "closer to production" conversation. Essentially every other bushing is replaceable in the car, but the one set of mounts that actually breaks is not. This is silly and not consistent. But making a modification and changing the ignition system on some cars is maybe ok? That makes no sense. Not all cars get electronic ignitions. The point is supposed to be to improve the car that you have, not to make a different one.

Does everybody also get to switch to DOHC engines? Or disc brakes? Please don't mess up IT. The whole point about fighting over washer bottles is that we aren't fighting about racing transmissions.

[Speed Raycer]

I think I may have just found out what I'm going to do with my Isaac device in 2012. Use it as a seat back brace for my FIA seat! :D

[jamsilvia]

So, if you allow motor mounts...do you also allow transmission mounts? They seem to be pretty much in the same ballpark (a lot moreso than crank fired ignitions)


As far as the shifter modifications that are allowed....why not just allow the short shifters? My stock rubbery shift thing causes me to grind unless I'm very precise with the shift. So instead of costing $100 or $200 for a short shifter that is a huge improvement over stock....I'm going to be rebuilding transmissions? I don't much see the point in being able to modify almost every part of the shifter - but not being able to just buy one that's already been worked over.

[lateapex911]

So, if you allow motor mounts...do you also allow transmission mounts? They seem to be pretty much in the same ballpark (a lot moreso than crank fired ignitions)


As far as the shifter modifications that are allowed....why not just allow the short shifters? My stock rubbery shift thing causes me to grind unless I'm very precise with the shift. So instead of costing $100 or $200 for a short shifter that is a huge improvement over stock....I'm going to be rebuilding transmissions? I don't much see the point in being able to modify almost every part of the shifter - but not being able to just buy one that's already been worked over.

You're allowed to modify almost every part of your shifter? I see ONE part, the shaft, that you can lengthen or shorten. (The knob is free, allowing alternative longer lengths).

You said that you need to be precise in the shift...so be precise. Or don't and rebuild the transmission, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."

[shwah]

You said that you need to replace motor mounts periodically...so replace motor mounts periodically. Or don't and utilize a stay rod to extend the life of the motor mounts, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."

:shrug:

[EV]

You're allowed to modify almost every part of your shifter? I see ONE part, the shaft, that you can lengthen or shorten. (The knob is free, allowing alternative longer lengths).

You said that you need to be precise in the shift...so be precise. Or don't and rebuild the transmission, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."

...or go race with NASA where they allow motor mounts, transmission ratio changes battery relocation and could care less if you have your washer bottle. Pick the playground that you feel most comfortable in..

[lateapex911]

Chris, the difference is that the philosophical barn door to hold the engine in a position for racing was opened way back when they said it was ok to control engine movement, via the use of stayrods..

Whether you chose to use the stay rod, or you desire mount mods is rather irrelevant.. they are both just different ways to skin the same cat that we've been allowed to skin since the eighties. (although some are more effective/cheaper/easier in certain cases)

The redesign and changing of an entire shifter mechanism though, is a door that has never been opened.
It would raise the game across the board. I don't see a huge need, but I am aware that it's a popular item in the aftermarket.

I'm also aware that shifting is an issue when the engine/trans flops around.
Ironic.

[chuck baader]

Show of hands: How many people actually run an engine stay rod?

And please explain to me how it can be constructed to hold the engine in two directions (fore/aft, and side/side) without multiple attachment points??

And, what good will a stay rod do holding the engine in only one direction (fore/aft, OR side/side)???

Sorry, I don't see the allowance of a stay rod as a satisfactory reinforcement of motor/trans mounts. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

This is totally a gut reaction, but I spent some time looknig at GT and Prod cars at CMP last weekend. Most had pretty intricately fabricated stay rods.

I can tell you what "feels" more Prod -- they stay rod over a urethane motor mount by FAR.

[lateapex911]

Yup, I was going to go there too, Chuck..a stay rod can't do it all, and Jeff, your point is good too.

But to me, it's all really moot, because the committee long ago and far away, has already decided that controlling engine location is good, and made it legal. The difference is in the available technologies available at the time.

[JoshS]

So ... why would the prod/GT cars have or need fancy stay rods if they can use any traditional engine mount that they want?

[chuck baader]

Josh, good point...most I know use solid aluminum mounts.

Jeff, we are not racing production. Even though the engine stayrod is not defined in appendix F, I suspect that if I show up with a multisided multijointed stayrod, it would not be legal. And as an engineer and fabricator, that is the only way a stay rod will work to protect your motor/trans mounts. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Josh, my guess is they are doing it because they can. Anything to keep the motor stable -- mounts and stay rod.

Chuck, if I wasn't clear, I am agreeing with you 100%. It's silly to allow complex fabricated stay rods when aftermarket urethane mounts are illegal.


Josh, good point...most I know use solid aluminum mounts.

Jeff, we are not racing production. Even though the engine stayrod is not defined in appendix F, I suspect that if I show up with a multisided multijointed stayrod, it would not be legal. And as an engineer and fabricator, that is the only way a stay rod will work to protect your motor/trans mounts. Chuck

[chuck baader]

Sorry Jeff...I did misunderstand...blame it on cranial rectosis while I am trying to assemble a motor. CB

[Knestis]

Show of hands: How many people actually run an engine stay rod?

And please explain to me how it can be constructed to hold the engine in two directions (fore/aft, and side/side) without multiple attachment points??

And, what good will a stay rod do holding the engine in only one direction (fore/aft, OR side/side)???

Sorry, I don't see the allowance of a stay rod as a satisfactory reinforcement of motor/trans mounts. Chuck

Raises hand.

Since I've got a transverse mounted FWD package, sitting on 3 points, I used the stayrod - a short link essentially paralleling the front/center mount - to control fore-aft movement. (Where the engine jumps around primarily under braking.) I don't particularly care about locating it side-to-side because there are no substantial forces trying to MOVE it those ways. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

[JeffYoung]

I get movement both ways. Torque moves it side to side. Engine braking, bad shifting, driveline shock, etc. move it fore and aft.


Raises hand.

Since I've got a transverse mounted FWD package, sitting on 3 points, I used the stayrod - a short link essentially paralleling the front/center mount - to control fore-aft movement. (Where the engine jumps around primarily under braking.) I don't particularly care about locating it side-to-side because there are no substantial forces trying to MOVE it those ways. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

[shwah]

Last time I brought it up, the responses were not so nice, so I don't know why I am doing this, but...

I still see a lot of comments about how a stayrod won't or can't work, but only one comment from someone that has installed one - and he's not saying that it doesn't work. Did anybody asking for this TRY to use the existing rule?

This is the point that actually bugs me the most. More than being allowed alternate mounts. I would happily make and install some if allowed, but I don't see the need for the new rule, and have only read assertions that we need it from people who have apparently never tried the currently legal solution.

I mean it would be a lot easier for me to make process power by just bolting in a new cam, so why not just allow that if you don't do a full engine build. Philosophically the class already allows increased power - why not just make it easier?

[StephenB]

Last time I brought it up, the responses were not so nice, so I don't know why I am doing this, but...

I still see a lot of comments about how a stayrod won't or can't work, but only one comment from someone that has installed one - and he's not saying that it doesn't work. Did anybody asking for this TRY to use the existing rule?

This is the point that actually bugs me the most. More than being allowed alternate mounts. I would happily make and install some if allowed, but I don't see the need for the new rule, and have only read assertions that we need it from people who have apparently never tried the currently legal solution.

I mean it would be a lot easier for me to make process power by just bolting in a new cam, so why not just allow that if you don't do a full engine build. Philosophically the class already allows increased power - why not just make it easier?

What he said. : )

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Raises hand.

. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

Except it isn't JUST about that.

Go get box of cereal. Glue it to two blocks of jello on the two small sides, and fix a rod to the top with hinged joints. Now, the jello and the stayrod connect to a big "L" or some other rigid structure.

Grab that structure and shake it side to side, back and forth, up and down. That box is going to move. the TOP won't move in certain a certain mode, but the bottom sure will.
Now take a fat dowel and glue it to a location on the front and twist, you'll get some movement here as well, but again, not much at the top.

That's of course a simple version. certain cars will have mounts in other locations which will allow other modes of movement.
A stayrod might be fine for certain cases, but not every. And a stayrod might be great for certain builders, but not all.

As an ex rulesmaker, I try to think of the bigger picture, all the cars, all the people. This rule violates no existing principals. It's just an alternate way of doing what the original rulesmakers intended to allow.

It could make life easier, cheaper for some. Not all, but some. I see no downside, and I see no reason to force everybody into doing it one way. Allow options.

But that's just me.

[Knestis]

I don't disagree with you, Jake, but the stayrod option gets my particular case about 80% there - albeit for more money than the better answer would have cost. I'm on record as supporting the change, all things considered but I understand the arguments against it.

Kirk (aka The Anticreep)

[callard]

My Benz motor moves about 2 inches forward under braking with its tall cushy rubber mounts and chomps into the radiator. There are no solid sheetmetal structures near the top of the engine that can be a worthwhile attachment for a longitudinal stay rod. Can I attach a stayrod to the back of the tranny and tie it to the rear bumper bracket to prevent forward movement?
Hey, if I use steel cable instead does that still count as a stay rod?

:blink:

Chuck

[Ron Earp]

Chuck, if I wasn't clear, I am agreeing with you 100%. It's silly to allow complex fabricated stay rods when aftermarket urethane mounts are illegal.

I agree. Just bought the parts etc for my rod, came in at $55 for the rod, brackets, heim joints, etc (The Chassis Shop is a good place for this stuff). Now I've got to spend a hour or two cutting and welding to get it into the car.

Sure would be nice to buy some solid mounts for $28 to complete the picture.

Oh, wait, I suppose I could get a big ass chain like Les/Lee want me to do and crank it over with a come along and bolt it in the chassis. Sounds quite inelegant.

[chuck baader]

For the FWD guys, you have limited motion fore/aft, but not side to side, where the motor/trans mounts are in shear, not compression/extension as they were designed. If it works for you, great. But that does not work on cars with longitudinal engine/trans, nor does it work on other FWD cars I have worked with.

Ron, I do have a working blower motor, contact me [email protected] Chuck

[Z3_GoCar]

Now in my old audi 100 had the worst of all motor mount systems. Longitudinaly mounted front wheel drive with the motor hanging from rubber blocks. I had the motor litterally fall out of the car while driving down the street, twice.

Since we're not going to be allowed to replace our mounts with something better, who's going to be the first to mount the motor and transmission on a motor plate and argue it's a "stayrod"?

[SPiFF]

Oh, wait, I suppose I could get a big ass chain like Les/Lee want me to do and crank it over with a come along and bolt it in the chassis. Sounds quite inelegant.

LOL ... yea. I guess some of those guys think IT cars should only need what is available at Home Depot to make them race worthy. :rolleyes:

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

[lateapex911]

LOL ... yea. I guess some of those guys think IT cars should only need what is available at Home Depot to make them race worthy. :rolleyes:

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

Well, in defense of the guys who suggest chains, (and that's only one) he's also very against spherical bearings.

Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral. The splitter thing has always been there as part of the airdam rule.

[pfcs]

Hmmm...So that's how we got here-triangular thinking about a box. Thanks for clearing that up, Jake.

[RSTPerformance]

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

LOL... And then when you waste all that time and money you can race against a car that gets completely classed wrong by a CRB that is pinning tails on each other instead of listening to member input or following a process :) Afterall this is SCCA :023::023:

Raymond "Back to wedding planning" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Hmmm...So that's how we got here-triangular thinking about a box. Thanks for clearing that up, Jake.

Well, I can't tell you how the previous rulesmakers came to their thinking, but, the rule was: stock ECUs, then, chipped ECUs, then, (and i guess the thinking at the time was that some ECUs needed piggyback boards,) anything that fits in the unmodified box with stock harness.

Well, the net net on that was:

Some uber expensive ECUs were small enough to fit in certain stock boxes. Some cars had larger boxes. Some cars had tiny boxes. Some had boxes with vacuum lines, others had various extra holes. So, essentially, we had a rule that was open ECUs, for some of the people. Some were screwed no matter what, and some could buy $$$ their way into power.
Choices boiled down to
-rescind the rule to an earlier version. (which had it's obvious drawbacks of alienating those who took the rule in good faith and spent the $$$, as well as running into current and futere tech isses, such as limp modes, etc etc. Some problems were easy-ish for brainiacs to solve...sometimes. Or impossible for even the best firms. And the technology would of course, grow more complex in time.)
-Go back to completely stock. See above for drawbacks.
-Open it up to some 'spec' ECU. Tough to do with such a large category,, etc etc.
-Open it up to all, with certain limitations.

Because of several reasons, and the advent of cheaper, essentially DIY ECus, the latter was chosen. Member input was pretty strong, and clearly in favor. many felt it was the 'lesser of evils"

I was totally against it early on, based on the post classification 'comp adjustment' aspect, but that was worked out via the ability to reweight cars. Classifications going back as long as I have been on board have been based on the assumption that cars will have gains due to ECU mods, but, the ability of those cars to utilize alternate ECUs wasn't known, or accounted for. In other words, all cars were assumed to have gains, whether they could or not.

[pfcs]

Did you know fascetious has all the vowels in order?

That equilateral is: "having all sides equal <an equilateral triangle> <an equilateral polygon> — see triangle" (Webster's)?

"Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral." (Gulick)

Technically I guess that answer isn't un-true; maybe it was parallel thinking in another dimension??

I do blame you for the atrocious rule we now have.
You've earned your spurs

[Ron Earp]

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

Yep, IT has moved beyond the "stock seats in the car" sort of racing it was 25 years ago. And thankfully it isn't going back there.

Ummm, like 1985 called and wants its IT car back.....nope, none of those around anymore, at least none around that run in the upper part of the grid.

[lateapex911]

Well, Phil, I guess you're one of the guys who's happy my votes don't get counted anymore.

[pfcs]

"Yep, IT has moved beyond the "stock seats in the car" sort of racing it was 25 years ago. And thankfully it isn't going back there.
Ummm, like 1985 called and wants its IT car back.....nope, none of those around anymore, at least none around that run in the upper part of the grid."

I was there. The 85 part is right. Those cars weren't developed enough until 89-90. THOSE cars I promise you would have (given current tires) run near the front. Do you newbies think the older cars were unsophisticated jalopies? My Volvo looked like a jalopy and that was fine-but it incorporated about every technical asset and loophole in the ruleset to it's fullest potential.
My concern is that you've begun a process that, if it hasn't ruined the class yet, will over time.
I'm ALL about thinking outside the box in IT. Let's just keep the box small! Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Those who quote cliche's and don't offer suggestions or constructive critisism aren't part of a solution.

[Ron Earp]

The 85 part is right. Those cars weren't developed enough until 89-90. THOSE cars I promise you would have (given current tires) run near the front. Do you newbies think the older cars were unsophisticated jalopies? My Volvo looked like a jalopy and that was fine-but it incorporated about every technical asset and loophole in the ruleset to it's fullest potential.

Phil, I do not think you ran a jalopy (well, said tongue in cheek, I race a 1974 Datsun, a POS these days). I'm sure you, and many other racers, exploited every rule to the maximum.

All I'm stating is that we don't require these rules to be in stasis in relation to the year 1985 (or 1990, 1995, you pick). The fundamentals of IT are still intact and protected - stock cam, 0.5 compression hike, stock valves/valve train, minor port matching, stock induction system, coilovers, modified shocks, etc. IT is stable with these core points intact.

There should be updates to the rules over time. Life moves on.

[lateapex911]

"n a process that, if it hasn't ruined the class yet, will over time.
I'm ALL about thinking outside the box in IT. Let's just keep the box small! Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

OK, Phil. if YOU were on the ITAC, were charged with coming up with a solution to the ECU situation a few years ago (inheriting the inside the box rule) what would your solution have been?

[GKR_17]

The ECU changes were unfortunate, but the logic is solid. Stock would have been ideal, but that is not enforceable. If you think no one had chips when they were illegal you are naive. There were quite a few advertised that way in Sportscar. After having a protest disallowed because the ECU could not be checked it was crystal clear the rule was pointless.

[SPiFF]

The ECU change has been about the only sane and forward thinking rule change I have seen in IT since I came over from the N.Group. 10-15 years from now when practically every car will need to have all the ECUs changed or reprogrammed to be race-able, people will thank heaven the rules allow them to do so easily and sanely.

[lateapex911]

Did you know fascetious has all the vowels in order?

That equilateral is: "having all sides equal <an equilateral triangle> <an equilateral polygon> — see triangle" (Webster's)?

"Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral." (Gulick)

Technically I guess that answer isn't un-true; maybe it was parallel thinking in another dimension??

I do blame you for the atrocious rule we now have.
You've earned your spurs


The ECU change has been about the only sane and forward thinking rule change I have seen in IT since I came over from the N.Group. 10-15 years from now when practically every car will need to have all the ECUs changed or reprogrammed to be race-able, people will thank heaven the rules allow them to do so easily and sanely.

Well, there you have it. 180 degrees, defined. ;)