Dual Purpose Components

[Bill Umstead]

I've looked in the GCR but did not delve too deep to see if this question is addressed...

Can a component serve two purposes and be compliant? Specifically, the IT rules allow for an engine stay-rod. The rule set also allows for a single suspension re-inforcement, e.g., a strut bar linking the top of the shock mounts on a MacPherson strut type suspension. Can the strut bar also serve as a locating device for the engine (i.e, an engine stay-rod)?

TIA.

Bill Umstead

[Greg Amy]

Can a component serve two purposes and be compliant?

Yes, as long as both purposes are allowed.

GCR 9.1.3.D: "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

Note my emphasized portion.

[Gary L]

Specifically, the IT rules allow for an engine stay-rod. The rule set also allows for a single suspension re-inforcement, e.g., a strut bar linking the top of the shock mounts on a MacPherson strut type suspension. Can the strut bar also serve as a locating device for the engine (i.e, an engine stay-rod)?

Hmmm.... if you tie together the LH strut tower, the engine, and the RH strut tower, it could be argued that you have two engine stay-rods. You're only allowed one.

[callard]

Depends on whether it looks like a T or a V.
Chuck

[ekim952522000]

Depends on whether it looks like a T or a V.
Chuck

Either way the engine is connected to two points on the chassis.

[CRallo]

well my header is attached to my exhaust which is mounted in 3 places...

This might be worse than "extra" cage attachment points...


anyways...

2009 GCR 9.1.3.r. "One (1) engine stayrod may be added."

It seems obvious to me that said contraption would be legal and isn't even close to abusing the rule.

Heck, Based on that wording, it would seem that the door is left pretty wide open... Midplate anyone?!

[Greg Amy]

You guys better read the rules - and the glossary - again. And READ them, ignoring what you THINK or EXPECT or ASSUME they mean... just sayin'...

[Gary L]

You guys better read the rules - and the glossary - again. And READ them, ignoring what you THINK or EXPECT or ASSUME they mean... just sayin'...

Well, for starters (and I think we've had this conversation before on these pages), the ITCS allows one "engine stayrod", which is not defined in the technical glossary. You can find, however, a definition for "engine steady bar" in that section of the GCR.

If we assume, just for the sake of discussion, the ITCS was really meant to allow an "engine steady bar", I would still say it could be argued that the proposed device (in the original post) would constitute two such bars.