Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

[chuck baader]

Question about the legality of substitution of the guibo. The stock piece (BMW) connects the drive shaft to the transmission and is made of rubber. The alternate is of aluminum with poly bushings to cushion the forces. Both perform the same function, but would the aluminum piece be legal? Is the guibo a bushing? Thanks for your imput. Chuck

[Greg Amy]

So that's what those things are called...whenever I needed one for the old Formula Ford I'd call the guy and ask for "that rubber coupler piece in the driveshaft..."

Chuck, I'd suggest unless it was offered on a same-spec-line BMW, it's not a compliant part...I'd certainly not consider it a suspension bushing...

[chuck baader]

Greg, all BMWs from the 2002 to current (I think) use the guibo. Spec line has nothing to do with it. Chuck

[Greg Amy]

Spec line has nothing to do with it. Chuck
If none of them use the aluminum version, then I suggest it's not a compliant part in IT.

[JeffYoung]

Legal under the new driveline mount rules in my view, so long as there is some squishy stuff in it.

[Greg Amy]

Legal under the new driveline mount rules in my view, so long as there is some squishy stuff in it.
Have those been approved yet?

[JeffYoung]

Out for member comment in Nov. fastrack. I suspect they will be on the books for next year, but that is just a personal guess.

[tac911t]

Legal under the new driveline mount rules in my view, so long as there is some squishy stuff in it.

The Guibo is not a mount, it is a driveshaft flex joint. It would be like replacing U-Joints with CV-Joints, or a solid shaft. Reading the Nov Fastrack, it states that the Rubber or other inserts can be replaced with other non-metallic inserts.

The BMW Guilbo that was on the E36 M3 I had (my only experience with guilbo's), was mostly a rubber piece, with metal strips inside for reinforcement. Sounds like the replacement part is mostly aluminum with a little rubber.

Is the intent of the aftermarket motor and transmission mounts is to include the driveshaft or halfshafts?

[JeffYoung]

To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts,
replacement units, or "window weld" like solutions without allowing solid metal or rigid materials or bearings that could
result in the driveline becoming a stressed member of the chassis, the following is permitted. Engine, transmission,
differential or any other driveline mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain
stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid.Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts
may be replaced with any other non-metallic material

Well, you may be right. I think the intent was to allow replacement of anything rubber in the driveline. I would certainly vote that way. Chuck, you may want to comment on this on the rule so we cover it.


The Guibo is not a mount, it is a driveshaft flex joint. It would be like replacing U-Joints with CV-Joints, or a solid shaft. Reading the Nov Fastrack, it states that the Rubber or other inserts can be replaced with other non-metallic inserts.

The BMW Guilbo that was on the E36 M3 I had (my only experience with guilbo's), was mostly a rubber piece, with metal strips inside for reinforcement. Sounds like the replacement part is mostly aluminum with a little rubber.

Is the intent of the aftermarket motor and transmission mounts is to include the driveshaft or halfshafts?

[JohnW8]

"Flex discs (aka: the guibo) is a vibration dampener mounted on the back of the transmission. The flex disc acts as a buffer between the transmission's output shaft and the driveshaft leading back to the car's differential."

Sounds like its a vibration damper and part of what makes a BMW run so smooth. They're readily available. SO why change to an aluminum part with poly bushings when this will only transfer a harsher vibration through the driveline? Quicker response, like running a solid clutch disc as opposed to a sprung hub disc?

[GKR_17]

...engine mount... Engine, transmission,
differential or any other driveline mounts... ...stock mounts...

...I think the intent was to allow replacement of anything rubber in the driveline. I would certainly vote that way.

So if the intent was to allow the replacement of any rubber in the driveline, why include mount in the wording so many times? Good grief. Regardless, he's asking to replace a part made primarily of rubber with a part made primarily of aluminum (metallic). Not close to legal even under tortured interpretation.

[DavidM]

The flex-disk/guibo has nothing to do with mounting the transmission. It's more part of the drive-shaft. On my car, the flex-disk IS part of the drive shaft. The flex-disk is bolted between the main shaft and a little stub axle that slides into the transmission. When I ordered a new drive shaft it included the flex-disk and little stub axle. My interpretation would be that the flex-disk must be stock.

I would disagree that the intent of the new rule was to allow replacing anything rubber in the driveline. The intent was to allow replacing rubber mounts. That is entirely different.

David

[chuck baader]

Ok, I would not call this a drive line mount...it has nothing to do with mounting the motor or transmission to the chassis. I think that would have to be the test for a mount. I think it to be more of a bushing but BMW (real OEM) actually refers to it as a universal joint.

"Flex discs (aka: the guibo) is a vibration dampener mounted on the back of the transmission. The flex disc acts as a buffer between the transmission's output shaft and the driveshaft leading back to the car's differential." John, where did you get that definition? And yes, I would like to use the aluminum since the bushings in the aluminum piece are stiffer than the stock guibo. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Well, since I helped write the rule I can tell you that for me anyway, the intent was to allow replacement of rubber devices in the driveline that wear out with harder materials.

What if any is the performace advantage of allowing this other than reduced maintenance?


The flex-disk/guibo has nothing to do with mounting the transmission. It's more part of the drive-shaft. On my car, the flex-disk IS part of the drive shaft. The flex-disk is bolted between the main shaft and a little stub axle that slides into the transmission. When I ordered a new drive shaft it included the flex-disk and little stub axle. My interpretation would be that the flex-disk must be stock.

I would disagree that the intent of the new rule was to allow replacing anything rubber in the driveline. The intent was to allow replacing rubber mounts. That is entirely different.

David

[JeffYoung]

Because no one specifically thought of guibos when we were writing the rule.

What is the down side to this? Why all of the grief? If we are allowing folks to change rubber bushings pretty much anywhere else on the car, why not here?


So if the intent was to allow the replacement of any rubber in the driveline, why include mount in the wording so many times? Good grief. Regardless, he's asking to replace a part made primarily of rubber with a part made primarily of aluminum (metallic). Not close to legal even under tortured interpretation.

[Harvey]

Jeff:

If you are saying that the NEW proposed rule for motor mounts would include any and all rubber items within the drive line to include the BMW guibo then we ALL should start writing letters in against this NOW because this is going to get even MORE out of hand then even I expected.

[chuck baader]

Jeff, I did not glean that "the intent was to allow replacement of rubber devices in the drive line" from the current proposed rule. Be that the case, wording needs to be changed slightly to indicate this. Chuck

[chuck baader]

Below are the two items in question. Chuckfile:///C:/Users/Admin/Desktop/Pictures/images.jpg

[Chip42]

Because no one specifically thought of guibos when we were writing the rule.

What is the down side to this? Why all of the grief? If we are allowing folks to change rubber bushings pretty much anywhere else on the car, why not here?

Jeff, I see replacing driveline joints (that's what this is) as a really quick trip to creepsville. follow the logic: U- and CV joins will be next as they are of the same category of mount. axle and prop shafts connect to these joints, then to hubs and drive flanges... all of these are fragile on SOME cars. warts and all, right? there are some bushings in shifters and steering racks and columns, too...

IF an exception is to be made for "sloppy" joints, like rags and guibos, then that should be a very specifically worded rule with clear definitions. I'd agree that we have a ruleset that places these types in left field, but disagree that they are covered by the mount rule or that "joints" in general should be open / not stock or equivalent.

[JoshS]

I don't think guibos are included by the new rule, nor do I think they should be. They are part of the driveline, not a driveline *mount*. During all of the ITAC discussions in my tenure, the idea that something like a guibo should be included never came up and I think the idea is crazy to lump them in with the mount rule.

[GKR_17]

Why all of the grief?

Items like this should considered when writing the rule. If the intent is to allow it then do, otherwise don't water it down after the fact. Based on the wording it seems clear that parts like this are NOT included in the intent. You can remove the guibo and nothing falls out of the car - it is clearly not a mount of any kind.

[lateapex911]

I don't think guibos are included by the new rule, nor do I think they should be. They are part of the driveline, not a driveline *mount*. During all of the ITAC discussions in my tenure, the idea that something like a guibo should be included never came up and I think the idea is crazy to lump them in with the mount rule.


Items like this should considered when writing the rule. If the intent is to allow it then do, otherwise don't water it down after the fact. Based on the wording it seems clear that parts like this are NOT included in the intent. You can remove the guibo and nothing falls out of the car - it is clearly not a mount of any kind.

As a guy on the ITAC thru the first generation of debate on this rule (Version ONE: the one that was printed in fastrack, got unanimous approval from the members in a huge response, but was mysteriously voted down by the then ITAC), allowing replacement of all rubber devices within any driveline component was NOT the intent. Never even mentioned it.

Further, the new wording (Version TWO) that is currently before the members does not allow such replacements, REGARDLESS of the ITACs intent.

Again, this is the danger of suggesting that the people down the line should understand 'intent'. It creates a gray area. gray areas are the enemy to rulesmakers and enforcers. Draw a line.

Jeff, while you may think that this item (and others like it) are legal because you- the writer- intended them to be, this rule clearly does NOT support that view.
If thats what you (the ITAC) reallllly want, you better rewrite the rule.

But I'd suggest, (IMO) that you are opening a huge can of worms, if you want to allow every item in any driveline component to be replaced.

[tom91ita]

......allow every item in any driveline component to be replaced.

aw, now you are just being a spoil-sport.

i just ordered new acura hubs and bearings for my crx. they are part of the driveline, right?

you mean i can't use them?:)

[robits325is]

Items like this should considered when writing the rule. If the intent is to allow it then do, otherwise don't water it down after the fact. Based on the wording it seems clear that parts like this are NOT included in the intent. You can remove the guibo and nothing falls out of the car - it is clearly not a mount of any kind.

Actually the flex disc mounts the driveshaft to the transmission & is made of rubber - when removed the driveshaft will hit the ground.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't think guibos are included by the new rule, nor do I think they should be. They are part of the driveline, not a driveline *mount*. During all of the ITAC discussions in my tenure, the idea that something like a guibo should be included never came up and I think the idea is crazy to lump them in with the mount rule.


Exactly. If this is a unitended conciquence as written, I think it needs more work.

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, we spent several years on this rule. It was looked at from a lot of angles, and discussed by many people. Some angles would be missed. That happens, and that is why it was sent out for member comment.

Jake, my recollection is the same as yours. We originally focused on just engine mounts.

That expanded as we thought about it. It made no sense to allow harder materials for engine mounts but require people to keep crappy rubber tranny and diff mounts. In my opinion, and for me (and perhaps only me), what we were trying to accomplish was to allow people to remove rubber that did not hold up from the driveline. Personally -- again my opinion only -- I see some of the focus on just mounts as not very consistent.

We basically can replace any bushing on the car right with harder material.....except these rubber pieces in a guibo. So guys like Chuck get to continue to deal with crap rubber while everyone else can replace their driveline "rubber" (since it is all in the mounts) with delrin, etc.

I still don't see a performance advantage to this. With all due respect to Tom and Chip, and the questions/examples they raise are the type of thing we need to think through, we are simply taking about replacing driveline bushings. I don't see naything in that which would allow CV and universal joints, which are solid metal couplings, or hubs, etc. to be replaced with alternates.

So I'm still a bit confused as to what "bad" could come from a consistent rule on rubber bushings, but I fully agree we need to hash this out.

I am not adamant about this either way, but I do believe that least for me, the idea was to make sure no one had to put up with crap rubber in their driveline if they did not want to. If we allow the rule as written but no deal with "guibos" then cars that have them are something of a special case in that they cannot replace all of the rubber in the driveline.

Help me out here. What intorturation would we see with this?

[Andy Bettencourt]

'No performance advantage'? Red herring.

I am for allowing all driveline MOUNTING bushings to be upgraded...but come on, not every bushing in the driveline.

To the 'what is creep' people? THIS STARTED OUT AS A REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MOTOR MOUNTS.

[JeffYoung]

What is the rationale for allowing rubber bushings to be changed basically everywhere in the car EXCEPT the guibo?

[Matt93SE]

Warts and all. some cars will be better than others in one aspect or another. If you choose a car with a rubber component in the driveline, then you chose a car with a known weak link within IT rules.

the way the rules are worded, I would say replacing the guibo is prohibited, whether that's the intent or not. The guibo is a rotating driveline component just as the driveshaft, clutch, or differential. It is NOT a driveline mount that attaches the driveline to the car.

IT does not allow alternate driveline components (final drive/differential excepted). So IMO, replacing the guibo is against the spirit of IT rules.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of replacing the guibo with a stronger unit, as long as it doesn't bring a performance advantage. However, increasing reliability inherently provides a performance advantage. Is the new part lighter than the original part? If so, then you have another issue to deal with vs. just saying it's "more reliable than the oe."

[JoshS]

Jeff, so you're okay with allowing replacement of the mostly-rubber guibo with a metal one, but not the replacement of a failure prone metallic driveshaft U-joint with a better, stronger one? The guibo is just a driveshaft U-joint, it just doesn't allow much of an angle. How about replacement of U-joints with CVs?

I just see such an allownace as creep with no purpose.

[Z3_GoCar]

So I'm still a bit confused as to what "bad" could come from a consistent rule on rubber bushings, but I fully agree we need to hash this out.

I am not adamant about this either way, but I do believe that least for me, the idea was to make sure no one had to put up with crap rubber in their driveline if they did not want to. If we allow the rule as written but no deal with "guibos" then cars that have them are something of a special case in that they cannot replace all of the rubber in the driveline.

Help me out here. What intorturation would we see with this?

Even with the Guibo removed, that still doesn't remove all rubber in the drive-line. What about the rubber in a dual-mass flywheel. Furthermore, dual-mass flywheels can't be resurfaced, or even ballanced. If you're pushing to remove all rubber components from the driveline, then you'd want to allow flywheel replacement too.

Whee!! aluminum single mass flywheels, here we come:026:

[lateapex911]

Actually the flex disc mounts the driveshaft to the transmission & is made of rubber - when removed the driveshaft will hit the ground.
Rob, i imagine you're kidding....I see the function as mainly to transfer rotational energy, while providing vibration absorption and shock resistance.

Jeff, think about this. By your 'line in the sand" (I see your logic) you've opened up a HUGE door. The aforementioned dual mass rubber centered flywheel was one I thought of right away. Shifter couplings and bushings will be swapped out in a heartbeat. And then there are dozens of things I can't think of, or even know exist on certain cars.

Personally, I think it's about a category allowance. Engine mounts are on every car*. So the allowance is generic in nature. But opening it up as you suggest now creates model specific issues. A guibo here, a coupling there. Every car doesn't have guibos, so the rule shouldn't extend that far.
Matts right, this is counter to the basic philosophic cornerstone of IT: 'Warts and all".

*Considering the engine/trans is essentially one unit, and is often mounted in such a way as to suspend that unit via a minimum number of mounts, some attached to the trans end and the other to the engine, its obvious that the rule needs to be written to allow that assembly of the driveline to be supported, not JUST the engine, if the rule is to be inclusive of the entire category.

Good thing Kirk is off actually racing this weekend or we'd all be getting our asses chewed, LOL

[tom91ita]

Chuck,

are you looking at something like this?

http://www.revshift.com/shop/drivetrain/bmw-flex-disc-large-lk-96mm/12mm-.html

or at least making something like that?

why not get that and dip it in some of that black rubber stuff from something like Plastidip?

http://www.plastidip.com/home_solutions/Plasti_Dip

:)

[Knestis]

Add to IIDSYCYC the phrase HTHDTH

How the Hell Did THAT Happen?

It's a variation on, "Gee, nobody saw THAT coming..."

K

[Ron Earp]

Whee!! aluminum flywheels, here we come:026:

Woooo hoooo! Then we'd have a RACECAR!

Yes, I'm a bit torn over the rule. Clearly it was meant to allow you to use high performance motor mounts in place of OEM pieces. When I've read discussion about the rules it was always referred to as the "motor mount rule". But it appears that the may be interpreted to allow much more than just motor mounts or transmission mounts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is the rationale for allowing rubber bushings to be changed basically everywhere in the car EXCEPT the guibo?

Because you have created a monster. It's impossible to know where there is rubber in every driveline on every spec line. I again implore everyone to realize where we are in thread/proposed rule, based on a request to allow aftermarket motor mounts.

This is the stuff we have been warning everyone about. Lines in the sand...they will keep moving unless we stop trying to get cute with the rules, and stick to the simple stuff. I have always felt motor mounts should be able to be urgraded. I can even see the logic in transmission and differential but to allow every driveline bushing? Internal and external? Think of that for a second.

"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

I don't care if they are made of metal or cotton candy as long as they don't exceed the limitations.

[Greg Amy]

I think there's some rubber in my intake manifold...and that's where my throttle body "mounts"...

[lateapex911]

Because you have created a monster. It's impossible to know where there is rubber in every driveline on every spec line. I again implore everyone to realize where we are in thread/proposed rule, based on a request to allow aftermarket motor mounts.

This is the stuff we have been warning everyone about. Lines in the sand...they will keep moving unless we stop trying to get cute with the rules, and stick to the simple stuff. I have always felt motor mounts should be able to be urgraded. I can even see the logic in transmission and differential but to allow every driveline bushing? Internal and external? Think of that for a second.

"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

I don't care if they are made of metal or cotton candy as long as they don't exceed the limitations.

Yup!
And "driveline"= what? As Amy points out, the entire engine is part of the driveline, so everything in there goes along for the ride. Some might say, "naaaa, that's clearly not the intent" but the intent doesn't matter when the words of the rule allow it. Officials NEED Black and White.

ITAC: Please-

-Limit it to engine mounts. Those are the major issue people have problems with.
-define engine mounts to include mounts on the trans end IF the trans is part of the engine assembly.
--forget the silly 'stressed member' fear. Does not matter. Let it go.

Profit.

[faketree]

Chuck, I say just go ahead and do it........just add another 100 lbs to your car when you do. :D

[chuck baader]

Thanks, Willie...however, I definitely do not need the 100 pounds. Chuck

[ECR]

Having arrived late to this discussion, i beg the forum's pardon for any redundancy in my reply. Having moved from VW to BMW a mere 3 years ago, with an E-36 in ITS, let's suffice to say that I've learned a few things about these cars when raced. The most important of which has been that the guibo, a new guibo, coupled to a fresh and balanced driveshaft assembly, can and will come apart at random, attempting to cut the car( and driver) in half. Therefore, and based on the fact that no performance gain is netted by changing it, when I find an aluminum replacement for my application I WILL install it, and take my chances at the tech shed, where the downside is far less harsh than the alternative. Until then, an oil change includes a guibo, and fingers & toes remain crossed.

Sincerely, David Leira

[Greg Amy]

Ah, the old "safety" canard...the more things change...

[Andy Bettencourt]

fresh and balanced driveshaft assembly,

???

[Flyinglizard]

I crewed a couple of DTM( pre sequential) cars that moved stateside. They had the stock rubber drivers.
The crucial point is to torque the bolts per book. That is to; not to turn the bolts ever, just the nut.(PITA)
FWIW the nose of the shaft engages the trans just enough to not allow the shaft to fall onto the ground upon failure. In theory..
Oh, if you have to buy a new U joint for a stock BMW?? You are supposed to buy the shaft assembly.

I dont see how this is any different than my 4130 axle cages, that all of you made such a big deal about. FWIW the cages appear the same as stock until you drop them on the ground from 5ft.

Maybe the rules should state " rotational equivalent."(mass and diameter) for drive systems.
That would cover Ujoints, axles, rag joints,Guibo, half shafts, drive shafts.

[Ron Earp]

???

New drive shaft. After my Jensen explosion I think it is a good idea and had a new one for the Z and will have a new one for my Mustang. It weighs the same as an old stock one, but it is just new, tested, and balanced.

[JeffYoung]

Well, we asked for comment and we got it...lol...

Andy, this discussion moved beyond just motor mounts very quickly after you guys left and the reasons for it to me make sense. All rule writing is arbitrary line drawing. The realization hit most of us I think after discussing the motor mounts rule that it made no sense to just say motor mounts and require crap rubber tranny mounts and diff mounts.

In fact, think about it. We are allowing the replacement at this point of basically all rubber in the suspension and driveline mounts. So, I would submit that allowing the change out of rubber in a guibo mount (no picking on Josh, but precisely in my view the type of cheap bolt on mod that Josh viewed as the future of IT) to be logically consistent with the overall class approach, and logically inconsistent to single this out and not allow it.

I just don't see a monster here. The rule can be written in such a way to make sure that CV joints and U-joints and dual mass flywheels and intake "rubber" doesn't get replaced. I admit "changing all driveline rubber" is too broad.

Andy I've told you before I like your wording of the rule and it is similar to something I drafted a while back. The problem is some on the committee are opposed to solid mounts. While I disagree with that position, I understand where they are coming from and the compromise we worked out is what you see now. With this committee, your rule won't fly.

I'm not adamant about this interpretation of the rule/making sure we cover guibos. I just think folks with guibos are getting a raw deal vis a vis what is a pretty consistent philosophy on bushings on the rest of the car. But if membership is opposed, I am fine with that.


Because you have created a monster. It's impossible to know where there is rubber in every driveline on every spec line. I again implore everyone to realize where we are in thread/proposed rule, based on a request to allow aftermarket motor mounts.

This is the stuff we have been warning everyone about. Lines in the sand...they will keep moving unless we stop trying to get cute with the rules, and stick to the simple stuff. I have always felt motor mounts should be able to be urgraded. I can even see the logic in transmission and differential but to allow every driveline bushing? Internal and external? Think of that for a second.

"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

I don't care if they are made of metal or cotton candy as long as they don't exceed the limitations.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In fact, think about it. We are allowing the replacement at this point of basically all rubber in the suspension and driveline mounts.

Well, not yet actually. You are extending the line after the 'first extension' and it's getting out of control IMHO. It's not even theorhetical creep, it's just plain CREEP. Not needed, not consistant.


Andy I've told you before I like your wording of the rule and it is similar to something I drafted a while back. The problem is some on the committee are opposed to solid mounts. While I disagree with that position, I understand where they are coming from and the compromise we worked out is what you see now. With this committee, your rule won't fly.

Without naming names, hit us up with a couple examples of where they are coming from. If you have limits on function, there is no issue with the material. The compromise is overly complicated and has opened up a HUGE grey area for people to exploit. Friggen HUGE.


I'm not adamant about this interpretation of the rule/making sure we cover guibos. I just think folks with guibos are getting a raw deal vis a vis what is a pretty consistent philosophy on bushings on the rest of the car. But if membership is opposed, I am fine with that.

Do me a favor and hold off on this position. The only bushings that are free are the suspension bushings. FAR from 'the rest of the car'. It's only being extrapolated in your mind based on the current wording out for member comment.

I honestly can't believe how much this has gotten out of control. "Please allow alternate motor mounts" -------> "All driveline bushings are free".

Somebody better sharpen their pencils and update the Glossery in a VERY careful way. See: 'Drive Train'

Maybe I'm nuts. Anyone else feel like this is bogus? Let me know before I send my letter.

[Knestis]

...or we could have left well enough alone.

THIS.

ALWAYS.

HAPPENS.

WHEN.

WE.

CHANGE.

RULES.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

New drive shaft. After my Jensen explosion I think it is a good idea and had a new one for the Z and will have a new one for my Mustang. It weighs the same as an old stock one, but it is just new, tested, and balanced.

My point is that there is no provision that I can remember for an aftermarket BALANCED driveshaft unless the balancing is the same as the OEM spec. If that were the case, there would be no reason to call it out in a 'sales' way as something that was special.

[Flyinglizard]

Really Andy?? Balancing should be free. 99% of everything that spins is balanced at the OE.
I doubt that you can buy any rebuilt part, not balanced.
Even a 12$rotor is balanced

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even a 12 is balanced

Maybe so but if you were selling a car with an extra set of rotors would you advertise them as 'balanced'? No. Just asking the question here. If it's as delivered to OEM spec with no special customization, no issues...

[GKR_17]

Actually the flex disc mounts the driveshaft to the transmission & is made of rubber - when removed the driveshaft will hit the ground.

Nope. The tail shaft on the transmission has a shaft that engages a rubber bushing (also not a mount, and not replaceable except with stock parts) that keeps the driveshaft centered but does not transmit any torque. This also negates 99% of the safety concern of a failed guibo.

The E21 and earlier guibos were junk (so replace them more often). For the E30 and forward there's very little to worry about.

[shwah]

So now we get to test and develop lightweight driveline joints? Well that just reinforced my current opinion of the new rule.

If it goes through, I will definitely take the opportunity to make lightweight motor/trans mounts. I guess now I need to start looking at whether there are also smaller and lighter CVs that can work on my application...

[ShelbyRacer]

How about:

Mounts which attach the engine/transmission assembly to the chassis may be filled with alternate materials. This would include aftermarket "inserts". The geometry of the filled mount must be identical to a new, stock replacement (OEM-style) mount.


This way, you have to use the stock mount and can modify it from there. Permissive (what you CAN do) rather than restrictive. Thoughts?

[JohnW8]

John, where did you get that definition?

Got it from Turner Motorsports
http://www.turnermotorsport.com/BMW-E46/c-113-driveshaftsaxle-shafts-flex-discs-guibos.aspx

I see little to no performance advantage other than adding durability to the part and possibly a miniscule faster response time. But I do see it stressing the driveline a bit more due to the urethane bushings stiffer material. Chuck might feel more vibrations through the driveline that he currently might not.

[JeffYoung]

Your input is noted...lol....

Seriously, having now taken a few cars apart, what bushings actually exist other than in the driveline and the suspension? Body on frame cars, they have some on the body mounts. Steering column maybe? I just don't see the monster in the closet on this one. Certainly not like the sphericals that came with the initial rule change, or ECUs, or "exhaust is free," or "traction bars are legal so redesign the whole rear suspension."

And it IS consistent. You don't seem to have read my post. There would be two "consistent" rules here. One says no bushings can be replaced, the other says all. We are somewhere in the middle with an arbitrary line that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The basic position (as I understand it) of the guys who do not want metal/solid mounts is that they can be used to create stress points on the chassis and make the motor or the tranny or the diff essentially part of the "stiffening" structure of the car. I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other. The reading I did suggests that doing this is generally a BAD idea on a production based car with a limited cage and no tube frame.

Since input so far has been overwhelmingly negative on something that I view as a non-core IT value, I would oppose this despite the inconsistency I mention above.

One last comment on Kirk's post (as always, good to see you this weekend). We need to have "anchors" like Kirk and Lee and others who make sure we don't move too fast or in many cases move at all.

At the same time, IT does have to change to keep up with the times. If we were running that ruleset from 1985 we'd be dead. And we have tough competition now from NASA. Over and over again every time I go (infrequently) to a NASA event or see pictures of one, I'm shocked and amazed at how young the paddock is compared to ours.

IT should be the leading class in SCCA attracting young drivers (along with SM), especially ones who want to build their own cars (along with STL -- Greg and his team have done a great job with that). Things like the washer bottle rule and this bushing stuff seem like such huge end of the world issues to us, but to a 25 year old kid (or even sometimes the 40 year old kid) it's a lot of hot air over what to them is nonsense.

I agree we need to find a balance between no changes, and changes that don't change the core of the class and make it more attractive to others, and changes that DO change the core of the class and eventually kill us. Not easy to do, but necessary.


Well, not yet actually. You are extending the line after the 'first extension' and it's getting out of control IMHO. It's not even theorhetical creep, it's just plain CREEP. Not needed, not consistant.



Without naming names, hit us up with a couple examples of where they are coming from. If you have limits on function, there is no issue with the material. The compromise is overly complicated and has opened up a HUGE grey area for people to exploit. Friggen HUGE.



Do me a favor and hold off on this position. The only bushings that are free are the suspension bushings. FAR from 'the rest of the car'. It's only being extrapolated in your mind based on the current wording out for member comment.

I honestly can't believe how much this has gotten out of control. "Please allow alternate motor mounts" -------> "All driveline bushings are free".

Somebody better sharpen their pencils and update the Glossery in a VERY careful way. See: 'Drive Train'

Maybe I'm nuts. Anyone else feel like this is bogus? Let me know before I send my letter.

[Knestis]

Got it from Turner Motorsports
http://www.turnermotorsport.com/BMW-E46/c-113-driveshaftsaxle-shafts-flex-discs-guibos.aspx

I see little to no performance advantage other than [performance advantage] and possibly a [performance advantage]. ...

Edited for clarity.

:happy204:

K

[DavidM]

IMO flex-disks are not part of the mount rule nor should they be and the rule should not be rewritten to somehow include them. There's my input.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, can you let us know what the opposition is to solid mounts? Some worries? Avoid 'stressed member; stuff because simple wording avoids that issue.

And PLEASE, just because there is overwhelming objection to the proposal as written, doesn't mean the ITAC should throw out the entire idea. The membership wants alternate motor mounts. They don't want a Pandora's Box.

Give them what they want, in a simple and restrictive way.

[tnord]

as the actual author of the rule (with some edits from chip)...

i did not write it intending to include them.
i do not believe the "allowance" wording includes them.
i do not believe the "intent" wording includes them.

furthermore....i am one of the "objectors" to solid mounts. i've said time and time again on calls that i don't like them, but i'm sure as shit not going to hold up getting an alternate mount rule through if we can't all agree on a wording that we think that is reasonably successful. since i objected, i was voluntold to come up with some wording. i took my best crack at it which is what you see in fastrack, and it went through unanimously.

the reasoning i don't want it is partially because of what jeff mentioned with the stressed member arguement, and the other is a matter of perception. fucking bullshit like those custom bearing mounts that schaafsma has posted has no place in IT just like spherical bearings don't have any place in IT either. do they make any significant performance difference? no. but it's just another item on the list current drivers or prospective drivers see as a hurdle to being competitive. it's a bunch of little crap like this that has at least contributed to the decline in SM.....shock mounts, AFPR, torsen, subframes, etc.

the criticizm of this particular wording is that it's ambigous on whether or not it allows bricks of aluminum on mounts (i don't think it is but whatever....people that want to be pricks and intortutate will do so regardless), while simultaneously saying that there's no advantage to the solid mounts and you wouldn't want to do it anyway. if we at least put the doubt in somebody's mind that they're legal, and that a tech inspector somewhere could DQ them for having the parts.....and keep them out of 99% of cars i think we've done well.

[JohnW8]

Edited for clarity.

:happy204:

K

No need to edit me. I said "little to no" meaning there is something of value there but not enough to make Chuck any faster than he already is over non guibo-ed cars.
:p

[lateapex911]

as the actual author of the rule (with some edits from chip)...

i did not write it intending to include them.
i do not believe the "allowance" wording includes them.
i do not believe the "intent" wording includes them.

furthermore....i am one of the "objectors" to solid mounts. i've said time and time again on calls that i don't like them, but i'm sure as shit not going to hold up getting an alternate mount rule through if we can't all agree on a wording that we think that is reasonably successful. since i objected, i was voluntold to come up with some wording. i took my best crack at it which is what you see in fastrack, and it went through unanimously.

the reasoning i don't want it is partially because of what jeff mentioned with the stressed member arguement, and the other is a matter of perception. fucking bullshit like those custom bearing mounts that schaafsma has posted has no place in IT just like spherical bearings don't have any place in IT either. do they make any significant performance difference? no. but it's just another item on the list current drivers or prospective drivers see as a hurdle to being competitive. it's a bunch of little crap like this that has at least contributed to the decline in SM.....shock mounts, AFPR, torsen, subframes, etc.

the criticizm of this particular wording is that it's ambigous on whether or not it allows bricks of aluminum on mounts (i don't think it is but whatever....people that want to be pricks and intortutate will do so regardless), while simultaneously saying that there's no advantage to the solid mounts and you wouldn't want to do it anyway. if we at least put the doubt in somebody's mind that they're legal, and that a tech inspector somewhere could DQ them for having the parts.....and keep them out of 99% of cars i think we've done well.

First, I might differ on "intorutate". If the words of the rule say something, then anyone who follows the words isn't torturing anything. Thats what the rule SAYS. Rules give allowances. As a rulemaker, understand that people will read the words and take the allowance. And they certainly aren't pricks for doing so.

So, if I read the last part right, you want to imply something so that people are afraid they might get DQ'ed, and won't do it out of fear? And if the majority don't, then you're good with that?

[Andy Bettencourt]

furthermore....i am one of the "objectors" to solid mounts. i've said time and time again on calls that i don't like them, but i'm sure as shit not going to hold up getting an alternate mount rule through if we can't all agree on a wording that we think that is reasonably successful. since i objected, i was voluntold to come up with some wording. i took my best crack at it which is what you see in fastrack, and it went through unanimously.

the reasoning i don't want it is partially because of what jeff mentioned with the stressed member arguement, and the other is a matter of perception. fucking bullshit like those custom bearing mounts that schaafsma has posted has no place in IT just like spherical bearings don't have any place in IT either. do they make any significant performance difference? no. but it's just another item on the list current drivers or prospective drivers see as a hurdle to being competitive. it's a bunch of little crap like this that has at least contributed to the decline in SM.....shock mounts, AFPR, torsen, subframes, etc.

the criticizm of this particular wording is that it's ambigous on whether or not it allows bricks of aluminum on mounts (i don't think it is but whatever....people that want to be pricks and intortutate will do so regardless), while simultaneously saying that there's no advantage to the solid mounts and you wouldn't want to do it anyway. if we at least put the doubt in somebody's mind that they're legal, and that a tech inspector somewhere could DQ them for having the parts.....and keep them out of 99% of cars i think we've done well.

So my wording eliminated the stressed-member crap and that simple rule doesn't allow for a product that should create that perception. Help me understand why it isn't this simple.

Your INTENT when writing the rule is irrelevent. The written rule is what is, we all know this so lets keep it simple while giving them what they want.

[lateapex911]

No need to edit me. I said "little to no" meaning there is something of value there but not enough to make Chuck any faster than he already is over non guibo-ed cars.
:p

But it's not just about Chuck.
And it's not just about how his two pound revolving guibo is now a smaller lighter version....
It's about all the unknown parts in over THREE hundred cars on the ITCS.

It's about things like dual mass flywheels, and things none of us can imagine. Suppose there are weird parts out there on a car that weighs 5 pounds and spins. Now it can weigh maybe 12oz, and the result is certainly significant. And it's not on EVERY car....
Jeff says they can list things that need to be left alone, like the flywheel, but lists like that end up being "you can't do this or that, (or the other things we thought of) but EVERYthing else is fair game".

The issue is that we can't think of all the stuff, that may or may not exist, and that may, or may not give specific cars advantages.

[JohnW8]

But it's not just about Chuck.
And it's not just about how his two pound revolving guibo is now a smaller lighter version....
It's about all the unknown parts in over THREE hundred cars on the ITCS.

It's about things like dual mass flywheels, and things none of us can imagine. Suppose there are weird parts out there on a car that weighs 5 pounds and spins. Now it can weigh maybe 12oz, and the result is certainly significant. And it's not on EVERY car....
Jeff says they can list things that need to be left alone, like the flywheel, but lists like that end up being "you can't do this or that, (or the other things we thought of) but EVERYthing else is fair game".

The issue is that we can't think of all the stuff, that may or may not exist, and that may, or may not give specific cars advantages.

I understand the issue. But since there is still so much debate it looks like this rule change wasn't a good one to pass. There are too many way to interpret the rule and some will strain that interpretation. Others like me will live with what we have under the hood. The simple and most effective fix would have been to not pass the rule change and let us drivers replace busted rubber bits whenever it was needed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So lets try and keep this as productive as we can for the ITAC guys. I think we can agree that the proposed wording lets a huge horse out of the barn AND includes allowances that nobody actually asked for.

I still haven't heard one legitimate issue with 'free' materials for motor mounts so long as positioning and dimensions remain stock. Lets bounce that around so we can get all the info. Travis - you said you were against it for two reasons you stated above, wording solves both. Can we move forward by moving this backward from the proposal?

[tnord]

1) an aluminum guibo is not legal with the proposed wording.
2) the ITAC is not run from this site.

[lateapex911]

1) an aluminum guibo is not legal with the proposed wording.
2) the ITAC is not run from this site.

Wow.

[joeg]

Let's just post up all bits of rubber on a car (besides tires and suspension bushes).

1. Guibbos

2. Steering rack monts

3. Exhaust hangers

4. Shifter and shift stabilzer bushings

5. Bumper mounts/ bumper ends

6. Radiator cushions

7. Timing belts

8 Accessory belts

More for the list?

[JohnW8]

What if the rule was rewritten to this:

To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal, rigid materials or bearings, the following is permitted.

Only engine, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid. Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with urethane material.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1) an aluminum guibo is not legal with the proposed wording.
2) the ITAC is not run from this site.

Dude, how about a little productive banter back and forth here?

[tnord]

Dude, how about a little productive banter back and forth here?

i've done that before, it's not productive.

i read most of what's here, i put up my position on the issue. anything beyond that with a few of you guys is a total waste of time for me.

[chuck baader]

Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."

[lateapex911]

i've done that before, it's not productive.

i read most of what's here, i put up my position on the issue. anything beyond that with a few of you guys is a total waste of time for me.

Good to have a committee member who feels discussing things with members is a waste of his time.

[JeffYoung]

And while I've tried to say it when I can, let me stress again that Travis is right. The rule does not allow this as presently written, and I'm speaking for ME only, not the ITAC.


1) an aluminum guibo is not legal with the proposed wording.
2) the ITAC is not run from this site.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And while I've tried to say it when I can, let me stress again that Travis is right. The rule does not allow this as presently written, and I'm speaking for ME only, not the ITAC.

But can you agree that some are already considering it a drive-shaft mount? If so, under the proposed wording, you could 'upgrade' it.

The issue most are having here is that you are opening up any 'mount' in the driveline - internal or external. That is for sure unintended. We must bring this thing back to what we asked for. Motor mounts.

[JeffYoung]

It appears that only *I* think it makese sense to be consistent about rubber in the driveline....lol.

I disagree that this was intended to be limited to motor mounts. We discussed it at length and this I am certain about: it was intended to apply to all mounts -- mounts I agree - in the driveline.

Drawing the line at just motor mounts is a mistake in my view and inconsistent with the overall idea here.

None of this matters one wit to me personally. l can live with changing my rubber motor mounts, and my tranny mount has never been a problem. I just do not see the consistency in allowing people to change rubber pretty much everywhere in their car, but say to guys like Chuck you are stuck with rubber bushings in the guibo.

Illogical.


But can you agree that some are already considering it a drive-shaft mount? If so, under the proposed wording, you could 'upgrade' it.

The issue most are having here is that you are opening up any 'mount' in the driveline - internal or external. That is for sure unintended. We must bring this thing back to what we asked for. Motor mounts.

[lateapex911]

Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."
Thoughts;
One, I'm not sure the metal prohibition does much, if anything. one could fabricate a mount using two halves of metal, and use a sliver of non metallic adhesive and call it 'non metallic'.
Two, thinking outloud, the term "engine/transmission" might need to be more specific. With this wording, are you intending rear transmission cars, like the 944, to change bushing/mounts? If so, this, wording, to me, allows that.
if not, then perhaps saying "the engine/transmission assembly" would limit the mount change to those cars where the engine and transmission are bolted together as an assembly.

I prefer to limit it to just that, myself.

BTW, the GCR has done some heavy lifting on this subject, as the definition for engine mounts says: "
A passive mechanical coupling used to support the weight of an engine at it's attachment points to the structure of a car"

[Knestis]

Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."

You're getting sucked into - well, lots of people are getting sucked into - the "add words to clarify" trap. It almost NEVER does, and every single additional word adds room for interpretation.

What is "stock appearing?" What is "non-metallic?" Obviously, I can move my engine sideways, since you don't prohibit that. And I can rotate it about its CG, which could be handy. I've got mounts that bolt to a bracket that's bolted to the engine, so I can change the location of the intersection between those pieces, as long as I don't change the attachments at the engine or chassis...

Look. I think this whole thing could have been avoided but we've got to realize that we can't write rules that reflect intent. We can't even describe intent when we do it explicitly. And Travis, I do NOT ENJOY this and DO NOT DO IT FOR FUN. I do it because we have to understand that racers WILL DO IT.


"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

If we HAVE to do this thing, Andy's text - not surprisingly - is the best I've seen yet. To the point, no extra verbiage. I personally think the prohibition re: relocation is redundant and does open the door for problematic interpretations (it still allows for rotation) but it's better than any option that uses more words.

K

[Knestis]

It appears that only *I* think it makese sense to be consistent about rubber in the driveline....lol. ...

I'm all for consistency, generally, but remember that every allowance will have to catch up with the most liberal. If that's where we're headed, we need to accept the cost.

K

[JeffYoung]

I agree 100% Kirk. Need a balance, and discussion and view points from all sides.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It appears that only *I* think it makese sense to be consistent about rubber in the driveline....lol.

I disagree that this was intended to be limited to motor mounts. We discussed it at length and this I am certain about: it was intended to apply to all mounts -- mounts I agree - in the driveline.

Drawing the line at just motor mounts is a mistake in my view and inconsistent with the overall idea here.

None of this matters one wit to me personally. l can live with changing my rubber motor mounts, and my tranny mount has never been a problem. I just do not see the consistency in allowing people to change rubber pretty much everywhere in their car, but say to guys like Chuck you are stuck with rubber bushings in the guibo.

Illogical.

Jeff, I was talking about the original request for feedback. IIRC, it was NOT a request to consider alternate driveline mounts, it was to consider alternate engine mounts. So the intent of the rule change has morphed - inside committee.

I have ZERO issues with that. Happens all the time. But since Travis refuses to participate in a productive fashion about the unintended openings the wording would allow, I have suggested we roll the whole issue back to the original RFI and feedback given on said request.

I too believe that trans and differential mounts are 100% within the same sphere as motor mounts - so lets roll with that if you want. Less simple but we can apply some of the suggestions that have been given here.

First order of business: Define driveline. It's not in the Glossary. Drivetrain is, and you won't like a barn door that is.

Second: Take a look at the definition of bushing. Combine drivetrain and bushing and some would argue that CV joints are now upgradable.

Third: You may want to actually define in the GCR what driveline bushings/mounts are to include. Engine mounts/Transmission mounts and differential mounts. Some would say the 'mount' is also the bracketry. Another barn door. The differential housing on a Miata is integral to the mounting/bushings. Now that conflicts with another rule on that application.

Fourth: 'Rigid' is simply not clear enough. Eliminate it totally. You think the Empire State building is 'rigid'? You wouldn't if you were in the observatory on a windy day. 'Devoid of flexibilty' is what MW says. That building flexes. It's designed to. See what I did there? If you limit the dimesions, you have no worries about this 'stressed member' issue. Would I solidly mount my engine? Heck no, I think it's dumb but there is no reason to try and create a rule that prohibits it. Less is more.

Taking from Travis's wording here is my expanded shot:

Engine, transmission, and differential mounting bushings may be replaced. Alternate bushings may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units.

Tear it down and we can rework it as needed. This stuff takes time and effort and a collaberative process. Nobody can get it right in one shot.

[Gregg]

i've done that before, it's not productive.

i read most of what's here, i put up my position on the issue. anything beyond that with a few of you guys is a total waste of time for me.
Thanks for representing all of our interests, Travis. :rolleyes:

[tnord]

Good to have a committee member who feels discussing things with members is a waste of his time.

good try jake, but you know that's not what i mean at all. if anyone wants to talk to me about IT stuff i've thrown my email address out there numerous times, and i'll do it again.

[email protected]

i'm just not talking about stuff on THIS BOARD with YOU. that is what's pointless. you want to call me, you've got my number, we've talked before.

[pitbull113]

Engine, transmission, and differential mounting bushings may be replaced. Alternate bushings may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units.
I like it. I could care less if someone wants to use soild mounts. once they start cracking shit on their engine/trans. and or dif. they'll think better of it.

[shwah]

I am opposed to the whole idea still, but you could get 90% of what people are asking for, and avoid 90% of what people are worried about by simply allowing the addition of material to stock mounts to increase their stiffness.

No longer a weight reduction route.
Not able to relocate anything.
No yet unforeseen whiz bang designs with expected consequences.

The stated goal of window weld works. It doesallow conversion of stock mounts to solid, but I still don't get why anyone cares about that...

[pitbull113]

I am opposed to the whole idea still, but you could get 90% of what people are asking for, and avoid 90% of what people are worried about by simply allowing the addition of material to stock mounts to increase their stiffness.

No longer a weight reduction route.
Not able to relocate anything.
No yet unforeseen whiz bang designs with expected consequences.

The stated goal of window weld works. It doesallow conversion of stock mounts to solid, but I still don't get why anyone cares about that...that only works for us fwd cars. my miata has a rubber sponge sandwiched between two metal plates with studs on top and bottom to connect the engine to the subframe. window weld isn't going to do anything for cars like that.

[shwah]

that only works for us fwd cars. my miata has a rubber sponge sandwiched between two metal plates with studs on top and bottom to connect the engine to the subframe. window weld isn't going to do anything for cars like that.

Really? Sounds like adding a different material that ties the two plates together could help you. Better yet, if only the rules would allow a well designed engine stay rod.:dead_horse:

[pitbull113]

now are we adding or substiting material? two different things.

[Z3_GoCar]

The key to this rule is simple consice wording of what's allowed, and how. What's allowed: motor, transmission/transaxle, differential mounts (some of us are already allowed diff mounts because they locate the suspension) and how: direct replacement, only use factory mounting points, maintain the factory location, position, orientation. Not that I have a horse in this race as I'm going full bore STU.

[JeffYoung]

While I appreciate all of the input, I don't think the intent in asking for it was a complete tear down of the rule and rework. We wanted input on any bombs in the existing language.

A couple of folks have suggested that the ITAC didn't take time and effort, or work colloberatively, on this rule. In fact, it's been in process for several years, has been discussed probably more than any other single item besides "ITB" and "Miata," has involved discussions with and review of rules from the Solo guys and from other racing classes in SCCA, and has been hashed out here.

There are things in the existing rule that I do not like, but it is a product of a committee and thus has compromises. There will be some uninteded conseqeunces but -- and I'll eat crow if I am wrong -- I cannot imagine (although I understand it is possible) that this rule change will have any appreciable effect on IT and competition on IT vis a vis say the ECU rule, or the Process or the suspension bushing rule, or even things like allowing 15" wheels on all ITS cars.





Tear it down and we can rework it as needed. This stuff takes time and effort and a collaberative process. Nobody can get it right in one shot.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was asking to tear down MY rework of the rules based on the bombs that have landed already.

You have taken the original request, added scope, and in the process created a bunch of problems. See my post with all the wording and definition issues. I hope you guys step back and fix this.

[JoshS]

I think Jeff is right about one thing here ... it doesn't make sense to allow ONLY "engine" mounts, that is, only mounts that are between the engine proper and the chassis. What makes more sense is to consider any mount between the chassis and the engine block or anything rigidly bolted to the engine block (such as most obviously a cylinder head, but also a transmission or transaxle that is attached directly to the engine.)

However, just like with other elements of this allowance, it seems very hard to define that in rules language, because "rigidly" is vague enough to allow someone to slide something unintended through, and I can't think of any single word or simple phrase that limits things to this intent.

[JeffYoung]

Look, I know you are trying to help but let me ask you a question -- why do you think that a rule very similar to yours was not discussed at length on the ITAC? I'll tell you it was, and what you see is a compromise to deal with the solid mount issue.

I'm personally fine with solid mounts. However, Travis makes a damn good point that your language would allow things like those spherical bearing mounts that I totally agree are NOT what we are intending.

The point is (a) the language we have is a compromise that some people will have issues with and (b) ANY rule on this can be picked at to death.

I don't see the "end of IT" in what we are proposing. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of actual, practical negatives. I do see some words that could be defined better and some other issues, but like I said on the brown board, I think that is true of any rule that is the product of compromise.


I was asking to tear down MY rework of the rules based on the bombs that have landed already.

You have taken the original request, added scope, and in the process created a bunch of problems. See my post with all the wording and definition issues. I hope you guys step back and fix this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look, I know you are trying to help but let me ask you a question -- why do you think that a rule very similar to yours was not discussed at length on the ITAC? I'll tell you it was, and what you see is a compromise to deal with the solid mount issue.



Never said it wasn't Jeff. I have asked over and over for SOMEONE to tell us the 'other' side of the arguement and we get nothing. I have asked for some info to help us understand. We have eliminated the 'stressed member' crap so where does that leave us?

WHO CARES if people mount with sphericals? If they meet the other limitations, thee is no benefit. You can plate your car in pure gold too, but if the winner has done it, is it faster? Come on guys. You are trying to outsmart everyone and you are creating a horrible rule. Definitions are CRITICAL. Bushings are not all made of rubber BTW - Now ANYTHING can be reworked.

I'm done. You may disagree but I think you guys are really blowing this one.

[JeffYoung]

I'm sure you do....compromise was never one of your strong suits :).

You may have "blown the stressed member crap out of the water" but that is still a valid concern for others. They disagree with you about solid mounts and believe using the engine as a chassis stiffener is a big problem. Travis has explained his concern to you and while you may disagree, I don't think giving that opinion zero value is very productive.

And that is really what it boils down to. A disagreement. If this were over something fundamental on an IT car, I might be more worried about who is right. But while this is at something above the level of worrying about the washer bottle, I still think that this rule is going to have an almost imperceptible impact on on track performance and hence I think compromising with those who have different opinions than me is critical in order to get something passed that members want (and not just how I want it, and in the way I want it).

[marka]

Howdy,



Quote:
"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."
If we HAVE to do this thing, Andy's text - not surprisingly - is the best I've seen yet. To the point, no extra verbiage. I personally think the prohibition re: relocation is redundant and does open the door for problematic interpretations (it still allows for rotation) but it's better than any option that uses more words.

1) How is rotation of the engine not a repositioning? Add that explicitly if you really feel like you must, but I don't think it's required.

2) The restriction on external dimensions is likely going to make aftermarket bolt on mounts illegal, but not custom made one off mounts. That doesn't seem like a useful restriction.

3) I think you need a restriction on attachment points of the mount so that you can't make your spider brace thingy.

All together:

-----------------
Motor, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location and must use the stock attachment points. The number of mounts may not be changed.
-----------------

I think you need some allowance for transmission / differential mounts because FWD cars tend to have one mount hanging off the transmission. I also don't see any particular huge performance advantage to allowing trans/diff mounts.

Mark

[Ron Earp]

All together:

-----------------
Motor, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location and must use the stock attachment points. The number of mounts may not be changed.
-----------------

Mark

Simple language that avoids nebulous terms such as non-metallic and rigid.

I like.

[tnord]

Simple language that avoids nebulous terms such as non-metallic and rigid.

I like.

ridiculous to you because you don't care about avoiding bricks of aluminum and those stupid bearing mounts.

[shwah]

I care. Don't change the mount rule. Problem solved.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I already compromised with you! I want just motor mounts, you want all the mounts. :-)

I don't think Travis explained anything. He just stated he has a problem with it then won't give us explanations and examples. Engine bay chassis stiffening is a concern? We can add strut tower baces now. I still don't see the worry with a rule that has limits.

I bet the members don't want this rule as written. Never asked for it, especially the holes it provides.

[lawtonglenn]

Taking from Travis's wording here is my expanded shot:

Engine, transmission, and differential mounting bushings may be replaced. Alternate bushings may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units.



I like it.



Simple language that avoids nebulous terms such as non-metallic and rigid.

I like.




All together:
-----------------
Motor, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location and must use the stock attachment points. The number of mounts may not be changed.
-----------------
Mark



I think these two are the best proposals as worded... I would be most appreciative if Jeff and Travis would please bring this exact wording to the ITAC again and try to get it through.


.

[chuck baader]

"and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units."

I have a problem with this....available aftermarket mounts for BMWs are smaller in diameter because the smaller diameter is perfectly adequate, and they are cheaper (look at price of 3" urethane vs 2 ") but do meet all the other requirements. I looked at making my own until I priced the material. Chuck

BTW...stock mounts for my car are about 140$...aftermarket polyurethane 87$.

[MMiskoe]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm pretty amazed at what I see. Either that or I have missed something.

Back to engine Stayrods. There is nothing in the GCR that actually defines what these are, but we're allowed to have one.

Take the Miata for example (because a lot of people are familiar with them). Take one of the two motor mounts and weld a bridge that spans across the rubber part. There is your one Stayrod. No dimensional changes to the motor mount, no change to the rubber, only one of two is affected. The other side is left un-touched and the result is that the motor is now restrained so it won't rip the rubber apart yet it is not a stressed member in any way. Nice & simple. Stay rods are free. Why isn't this legal?

Don't give me that crap that says since it doesn't say you can, because in this case it says you can add a stayrod. Any stay rod. Just like you can add gauges, or air dams or brake ducts. All of these things require that you make a change to the car to include them (drill holes, weld tabs, modify wiring etc). I had to drill holes in the fender well to mount my transponder, but it doesn't say I can do that either, it just says I have to have a transponder. Same for my fire system. So why is the motor mount special? All we did is weld a metal strap to it.

I'm sure other cars have similar motor mounts and it seems this is just way to easy compared to the route we're on. The proposals being thrown around here look like they were written by someone who works for the government. Yuk.

[JeffYoung]

Glenn, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts.

The bottom line is rules worded just about exactly like that were considered over the last year and rejected by the ITAC due to the fact that they do not disallow solid metal mounts or the bearing mounts. So, again, what we have out there now is a compromise and frankly I do not think we are going back at this point.


I think these two are the best proposals as worded... I would be most appreciative if Jeff and Travis would please bring this exact wording to the ITAC again and try to get it through.


.

[lateapex911]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm pretty amazed at what I see. Either that or I have missed something.

Back to engine Stayrods. There is nothing in the GCR that actually defines what these are, but we're allowed to have one.

Take the Miata for example (because a lot of people are familiar with them). Take one of the two motor mounts and weld a bridge that spans across the rubber part. There is your one Stayrod. No dimensional changes to the motor mount, no change to the rubber, only one of two is affected. The other side is left un-touched and the result is that the motor is now restrained so it won't rip the rubber apart yet it is not a stressed member in any way. Nice & simple. Stay rods are free. Why isn't this legal?

Don't give me that crap that says since it doesn't say you can, because in this case it says you can add a stayrod. Any stay rod. Just like you can add gauges, or air dams or brake ducts. All of these things require that you make a change to the car to include them (drill holes, weld tabs, modify wiring etc). I had to drill holes in the fender well to mount my transponder, but it doesn't say I can do that either, it just says I have to have a transponder. Same for my fire system. So why is the motor mount special? All we did is weld a metal strap to it.

I'm sure other cars have similar motor mounts and it seems this is just way to easy compared to the route we're on. The proposals being thrown around here look like they were written by someone who works for the government. Yuk.

See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?

[Matt93SE]

See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?

1. Take one of your dead $125 mounts to a friend with a welder. 2. Buy him a 6pack of his favorite beverage. Buy another 6 for you while you're at it.
3. Have said friend weld a "stay rod" onto the dead mount.
4. take it home and replace an existing mount in the car.
5. enjoy the 6 pack of beverages you bought for yourself because all you did was change a mount like you originally planned and it cost you $7.99 at the package store.

[Knestis]

Matt describes precisely what we did with the front mount of the three-legged stool that is the VW engine support system. I went the additional mile and had the brackets welded as he describes, with a sway bar end-link (about 4" long) serving as the actual stay rod. I only had to resolve the pitching moment of engine location to get substantial improvement. It's not "rigid" (still have stock rubber and motion in the rear mounts) but I invite anyone to come wiggle my drive line. ;)

K

[JeffYoung]

You a-makin me horny.


but I invite anyone to come wiggle my drive line. ;)

K

[chuck baader]

To all committee members...the KISS principal is very difficult to apply by committee, but it must!!! The simpler the better. Chuck

[shwah]

See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?

Because in writing a rule to allow what you want, you will end up with a rule that allows 100 other things that you don't realize, and don't want.

There is a legal solution, and this whole conversation is simply about how MUCH rules creep we try to design into a new rule.

You can make your same argument about lots of things. Why not just let people with rwd all run 9" rears so they can have access to more off the shelf parts?

[shwah]

Glenn, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts.

The bottom line is rules worded just about exactly like that were considered over the last year and rejected by the ITAC due to the fact that they do not disallow solid metal mounts or the bearing mounts. So, again, what we have out there now is a compromise and frankly I do not think we are going back at this point.

Well I appreciate all the efforts of the ITACers, but that sucks.

If it was so damned important that we make some sort of rule work - to allow solving a problem that can already be solved - because a lot of members asked for it. How is it that when one is floated out that has crappy language and allows a lot more than even the requestors intended, and damn near everyone involved in a discussion about it says so (except the guy that wrote it:shrug:), it is is not worth trying to get right?

Does member input matter or not?

[JeffYoung]

Well, I disagree. It does not "suck."

There are what, maybe 4 or 5 people posting on here (and the brown board) that they don't like certain elements of the rule? We had just as many on the ITAC who had legitimate issues with the "simple" rule.

Neither will cause serious problems in IT. The one you are seeing is the product of compromise and does what membershp wanted while addressing some of the concerns the ITAC had. It's definitely the product of member input even though it may not be exactly like some members want.

We are a committee of 7 and a club of what 45,000? Everyone's not going to be happy all of the time obviously. Here, while I get some of the criticism, what I don't get is why there isn't more of, hell, this gives me most of what I want, I can deal with the rest. That's the position I took with it, and I'm happy we got it done.

[Ron Earp]

See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.

How'd I get into this and what did I write?

[pitbull113]

How'd I get into this and what did I write?
senility setting in already?:shrug:

[MMiskoe]

Kirk is exactly right, one mount well supported will help maintain the others. Meanwhile the others allow enough give that as the body flexes or the block changes w/ torque & temp changes that it doesn't snap the mounts off the block etc., nor do the other mounts rip themselves apart. Similar to the chain on one side that resists torque.

Sorry If I missed previous posts that addressed it. Tight for time, didn't read all of it.

I am glad its getting addressed and hope we're for the better of it when we're done.

[Z3_GoCar]

Kirk is only right enought for his application. If his mounts were designed to tear when stressed and allow the motor/transmission to drop out of the car, then he's just created a stress riser in the remaining mounts, causing them to fail even faster.

Hey, if there are some ITAC members that don't like purely metal solutions, I'm sure we can live with that, but to specifically to disallow "solid" mounts is opening the door to a nebulus specification. What exactly is the durometer of a "solid" mount? Is it more than a shore 70A, 85A, or even 95A? The answer is that this pohibition against "solid" mounts is meaningless, so why have it in there?

[Chip42]

Hey, if there are some ITAC members that don't like purely metal solutions, I'm sure we can live with that, but to specifically to disallow "solid" mounts is opening the door to a nebulus specification. What exactly is the durometer of a "solid" mount? Is it more than a shore 70A, 85A, or even 95A? The answer is that this pohibition against "solid" mounts is meaningless, so why have it in there?

The rule disallows "RIGID" not solid. "solid" mounts could be made of eggwhites as well as filled stock and full metal, no one had an issue with solid, there was issue with full metal / bearing. therefore we chose "rigid". we discussed specifying a hardness or othe rgidity "threshold" but quickly decided that it was too difficult to define given the variety of applications and capabilities of tech (to me the latter is a red herring, protests can establish a test facility, it does not have to be the shed at the track). rigid is nebulous, but it's less nebulous and more allowing than a prohibition on solid, which is why solid isn't in the rule.

we address the rigidity aspect in the intent statement as a way to help competitors and officials understand what is allowed in a way that a specific rule for a varied class cannot.

this rule is not perfect. but in reality it's pretty good. I suspect the rigidity aspect will be challenged to death over the course of the next few years, and that a word or two will be changed to clarify that driveline mounts (motor, transmission/transaxle and differential when NOT also a subframe) are all that is covered. seems that there's not universal agreement on that being the intent or the wording as is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chip,

Can you throw us a couple of examples why some may have issues with a bearing solution? If you add some limits to dimensions and position etc, why would this 1. be an issue and 2. be a perceived 'must have' that will increase the perception that IT has a high barrier to entry.

I don't get why this has to be so difficult. Jeff has been good explaining the position of 'some' but I haven't read the actual 'why's'.

[marka]

Howdy,



Can you throw us a couple of examples why some may have issues with a bearing solution?

Here's one issue... Lots of people would say that if a mount incorporates a bearing, then its certainly not "rigid".

:-)

Chip, so far I think the strongest non-ITAC support of this wording has been "This sucks, but it allows what I want so I'll live with it." I'm not sure I'd equate that with "in reality it's pretty good."

And that said... This allows what I want so I support it if the alternative is no allowance at all.

As a bonus, I have another justification vector for Booger Bushings. :-)

Mark

[Chip42]

Howdy nailed it. Bearing solutions would allow a drivetrain to act as a chassis stiffener while not holding the driveline rigidly. Due to the use of the word rigid it was necessary to forbid them.

Necessary because some on the committee and aparently maybe the crb don't want to see stressed engines. That's also your why, so far as I know. Yes, I know/see kirk's web of mounts but we believe that to be intorturation so did not act to revise it.

I came to the party late, made what I saw as some necessary changes to the proposed wording, made some compromises, and voted on a rule that, while imperfect, I belived to be what was asked for in a package that would pass all levels of the approval process. The intent statement I was very happy about and think its inclusion (in its original wording and position) clarifies a lot of the wackiness being suggested here better than a specific allowance ever could while granting the desired allowance to all forms of mount past present and future.

Mark, your booger bushings aren't mounts. Neither is a quibo, or anything that is bolted to the block or trans or diff that is not itself the mounting device for same. If this neds clarification, I'll be the first to sponsor it.

[marka]

Howdy,



Mark, your booger bushings aren't mounts. Neither is a quibo, or anything that is bolted to the block or trans or diff that is not itself the mounting device for same. If this neds clarification, I'll be the first to sponsor it.

“To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal or rigid materials or bearings that could result in the driveline becoming a stressed member of the chassis, the following is permitted. Engine, transmission, differential or any other driveline mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid. Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with any other non-metallic material.”

"Drive Train – Those components in a car which produce and convey the driving power to the ground, and the housings containing these parts."

The transmission and its control mechanism certainly convey driving power to the ground.

The shifter linkage cables are clearly mounted to the shifter & the transmission, via rubber inserts.

If you didn't want stuff like this being considered, why would the "any other driveline mount" language be included?

Mark

[Chip42]

I'm having trouble figuring how any bushing attached to the driveline is being read as a mount. A mount locates and supports the driveline component. If your driveline is located by your shifter and its bushings, then fine. Otherwise, stop trying to find holes where there aren't. I know this rule has some open ends, but this ain't one.

This is, to me, the same as the arrc tech ruling on moser's intake. A factory hole in his intake intended for drainage of accumulated water etc.. was intortured to be a stock intake location outside of the engine room. He lost his appeal. I believe that your bugger bushings would, too, on the same grounds.

[marka]

Howdy,


I'm having trouble figuring how any bushing attached to the driveline is being read as a mount. A mount locates and supports the driveline component. If your driveline is located by your shifter and its bushings, then fine. Otherwise, stop trying to find holes where there aren't. I know this rule has some open ends, but this ain't one.

This is, to me, the same as the arrc tech ruling on moser's intake. A factory hole in his intake intended for drainage of accumulated water etc.. was intortured to be a stock intake location outside of the engine room. He lost his appeal. I believe that your bugger bushings would, too, on the same grounds.

I agree its a stretch. However, this is the same group that is apparently ok with a bearing in a drive pulley.

And "mount" is not defined in the rulebook that I can see. "Engine mount" is, but you're explicitly opening that up. A search for "mount" through the rulebook will show you about a million cases where its used in the sense of "the thing that connects two parts".

But it points out a place where you can improve the rule wording and still keep all the "not rigid" stuff that seems to be important to you... Remove the "or any other driveline mount" part. I can't see how that's ever going to do anything useful for you, in terms of rules creep.

Mark