Motor/Trans mounts?

[bldn10]

"Engine mounts are unrestricted."



It ain't that simple.



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



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

[tom_sprecher]

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

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

[77ITA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humbly submitted,

[m glassburner]

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

[MMiskoe]

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

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

[Knestis]

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

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

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

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

[77ITA]

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

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

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

(rough example, sure to be torn apart here)

Definitions:

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

Allowance:

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

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



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

[trhoppe]

Allowance:

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

[/b]

I added a couple of badly written lines

-Tom

[Bill Miller]

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

Jeff,

Does that mean you oppose the open ECU rule?

[JLawton]

Jeff,

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

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

[tom91ita]

i think the ecu rule analogy is perfect.

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

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

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

[77ITA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tom91ita]

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

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