Senior Member
And we share mounts with the M3, imagine what it'd be like if we had to use the softer mounts from the regular sedan.Originally Posted by Hotshoe
I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.
... Just sent in my vote............ YES
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Senior Member
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
Administrator
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...
Senior Member
Synopsis is:
Last nights con-call the vote was 4-4 with the two new guys voting aginst. So it's going to the crb with no recommendation for or aginst.
Tom made fun of all the ITAC members who voted aginst.
Pete K called out the Jeffster because he lost cell coverage near the end of the call.
Oh, and they'd like input on wording on a revised rule. Seems like some still think all anyone needs is a little windshield adhesive. Others may need solid metal due to exhaust manifolds right next to the stock mount location.
That about summarizes the main points. As I lurked on the thread.
Last edited by Z3_GoCar; 03-25-2010 at 01:02 AM.
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Senior Member
SCCA forum? That's where teh CRB goes when they want to make a public post and have nobody read it...
Other highlights...
AN ITAC member thinks all you need is a chain, and if you don't have a welder and can weld, then what are you doing racing? And another knows you need them and has seen plenty installed on cars, knows the engines in the cars he runs would flop around without them, but is against the rule.
And it's considered rules creep, even though the allowance to control engine movement has been in the books since the beginning of time.
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
Senior Member
How 'bout we help the ITAC members who voted for this, have enough info to go back again and convince the no-votes to reconsider. Take your time to hear the issues and send another letter with a productive counter if you really believe in the change.
I do know that some members of the CRB are soliciting input from members to make the best decision they can since it has been presented to them without recommendation. They STILL have to make a decision.
Senior Member
Who's the new ITAC member from Santa Barbara with the B and S car?
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Senior Member
The ITAC consists of:
Les Chaney
Danny Doern
Lee Graser
Peter Keane
Gary Semerdjian
Josh Sirota (chair)
Bob Thornton
Jeff Young
I'm sure the SCCA web site will be updated soon to reflect the changes.
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
Senior Member
I agree. I am not a "cool kid" therefore I do not play in the sandbox.
Stephen
Senior Member
I pointed out again that the stayrod allowance should be able to resolve this issue, and that alternate mounts that retain current location, and mounting hardware can provide a performance advantage, at least to fwd cars, in the form of front axle weight reduction (rubber and window weld mounts have high density and lots of volume for the job they perform).
I also asked if folks stating that a stay rod will not work for them had actually tried any. No answers, other than some folks saying that they don't want to take the time to develop one.
It seems that mine is not the majority opinion in that thread, and that my logic is tantamount to returning IT to "old showroom stock cars"
Senior Member
How about applying the KISS principle to these debates? What is the easier solution for IT racers: fabricating engine locating devices (e.g. stay rods) or buying a stock replacement part?
Side question: How does the club currently regulation material and durometer on stock and stock replacement engine/transmission mounts? They can't, so couldn't a stock mount made with an alternate material that is commercially available be legal within the confines of the current ITCS? I will use the cast vs. forged piston material as a precedence. As long as the part meets the dimensions and material class it's legal. Otherwise is brand X legal and brand y illegal?.
David Russell
IT Volvo 242
Senior Member
That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.
Senior Member
Of course you could. You could take the mount that was harder and procure a stock one. SCCA corp puts a durometer on them both and determins compliance. Simple.
Junior Member
Since this is, you know, the officially SCCA sanctioned forum of Improved Touring.
And discussions on the frequently read SCCA forums always turn out to be productive.
Senior Member
Conversations take place where conversations take place. There isn't always rhyme or reason, it's just the way it is. If you want to be in the conversation, you walk over to where the people are standing. If not, you don't.
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
Senior Member
That's some really entertaining reading right there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks