Tom,
What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?
Tim B.
Tom,
What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?
Tim B.
timo
I am sure he will chime in but for my car, the loosey goosey motor mounts cause me to have issues down shifting at times, so for my car, sure it will be a "competitive advantage" (of sorts).
The overly soft engine mounts do fine for the street, but present problems when used as we do. In some cases (many) factory mounts have to be replaced yearly, and cost MUCH more than stiffer, better performing poly mounts, that will last longer (cost savings).
Of course, many already run them, and everyone seems to turn a blind eye (a noobs perspective). Just about any SM that double dips in ITA has the upgraded mounts SM allows, and I am pretty sure no one is protesting. I know that isn't a reason to pass the rule, but it is, what it is.
Enjoy,
Bill
I've replaced five or six radiators and a couple dozen motor mounts in my Benz due to their crappy design. I'd like to see this rule changed.
Chuck
http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=28388
Some recent news and discussion can be found here regarding the now controversial engine mount situation.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...
Bookmarks