IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

[callard]

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

[GTIspirit]

Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

[trhoppe]

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.

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, as the OEM parts are not up to the task of racing.

I feel that is is a very cheap, optional modification, that will not provide a "competitive" advantage over not doing it. It will instead allow for eventual cost savings, as one purchase of engine mounts, or a $5 fix, will last a long time and not necessitate extra spending on OEM mounts every year or other timeframe. If you car has really strong motor mounts from the factory? Sweet. good for you, leave them alone, this rule won't affect you and you not buying motor mounts will not provide you with a competitive disadvantage over someone else that does buy upgraded motor mounts for his car

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

We are in the year 2010. "Engine stay rods" are from the last century. I know there are some IT cars that were made in the 70s, but we really should upgrade our rules to keep up with new technologies. VERY inexpensive Polyurethane compounds in 2010 are available that will allow for engine mounts to be both still a little compliant, while being strong enough so they don't tear. Some engine mounts allow you to just squeeze some of that poly in the openings, some you have to replace the whole thing. Hell, some might have to buy a whole new mount.

You know? Some might say "fuck it, my stay rod does enough". Whatever, your choice.

In the end, what this rule does is allow for more choice, more options, and in the end, I feel it can save the general IT membership money and allow for less time spent working on the car

-Tom

[Knestis]

The addition of an engine stay rod is legal, right? And said stay rod could be a solid link of steel or some other material, or some other kind of damper, right? So why couldn't you make one of the stock rubber bushings into a stay rod by adding poly inserts? The allowed stay rod was added, it just happens to be concurrent with an existing bushing. Would this be allowed or not?

This is precisely what we did with my MkIII. The first cut was flat brackets that sandwiched between the chassis- and engine/gearbox-side of the rear mount, glued together with a welded-in square tube. It worked great until it busted because we couldn't reach inside to get full perimeter welds done.

The current iteration is a link about 4" long, with rod ends connecting the front of the engine - off of a boss down by the starter(?) - to a big ol' bracket welded to the subframe. It essentially binds up the flexibility in the front mount.

K

[dickita15]

I don't know of any car (I'm sure someone will list one, but anyways) that doesn't have to put "engine mounts" on the wear and tear list of parts they need to replace, -Tom

So you are not disappointed Tom:
The first gen rx7’s do not have a problem. In eleven years of using literally parts car engine mounts the only motor mount I had to replace was when a wrecker driver tried to pick up the front of the car from the motor mount. I guess there is some advantage in having no torque and very little compression braking.
Bu even so I see no problem with this rule. Enough guys are having races screwed up when a mount breaks to make this a wise move.

[timo944]

Good enough guys you have my vote. I do, of course, have evil intentions here!!!

[trhoppe]

Bump! Get your "yes" letters in, if you haven't yet

-Tom

[lateapex911]

If I read the update right from Josh, they have an shitload of letters Tom, but it's 40 to 1.

[trhoppe]

Yup, I also heard we have one holdout, and 40 correct people

Wouldn't hurt to have 100-1 so I figured I'd bump

-Tom

[lateapex911]

If they deny it at 40 to 1, they'll deny it at 100 to 1!

I THINK there might be some new guys on board. After we all left, I think the vote was close on the ITAC...really close with 2 guys adamantly not in favor. So, if they decide that the input isn't the way to go, the new guys votes will be the swing. But, with 40 to 1 in favor, it's hard to see how they can ignore that. Of course the Process has about the same support amongst the racers, and that gets ignored....

[Hotshoe]

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

I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.

... Just sent in my vote............ YES

[Z3_GoCar]

I spun in my own oil when one of my "fluid dampening" motor mounts broke.

... Just sent in my vote............ YES

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.

[lateapex911]

http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=28388

Some recent news and discussion can be found here regarding the now controversial engine mount situation.

[Greg Amy]

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...

[Z3_GoCar]

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...

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.

[lateapex911]

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

Who's the new ITAC member from Santa Barbara with the B and S car?

[JoshS]

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.

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

So, it's got to be either Danny or Gary. Does he race with you guys? Neither name looks familiar to me.

Found him on google, looks like Gary's last race was with you guys...