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

[Greg Amy]

Are the mounts used to hold the transmission end of a FWD assembly considered "motor mounts"? I suggest not. If not, then the whole exercise is pointless, as there's no point in doing the engine side of the drivetrain if you can't do the transmission end, especially since the front/rear mounts are usually attached to the transaxle...and if so, then the rules applies to longitudinally-mounted drivetrains too, regardless of location of the transmission/transaxle.

And why specify "fore, aft or vertical" location? All those extra words (bad, bad ITAC!) do is make me want to find a way to rotate my engine (in either roll, pitch, or possibly even yaw) in such a way as to have a competitive advantage (and with oil pans free, I can probably find a way).

I support the general concept, though... - GA


(In fairness for intorturation, my original suggestion: "Alternate engine and transmission/transaxle mounts are allowed. No chassis or drivetrain components may be repositioned or modified to accommodate this allowance.")

[chuck baader]

Come-on, y'all...lets not make this a 15 page discussion...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea. Chuck

[RHallRacing]

Done and Done

[rsportvolvo]

Vote yes sent to the CRB.

[Greg Amy]

...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea.

Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...

[trhoppe]

Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...

So write a letter saying "the idea is awesome, love it, in love with it, I'd have sex with the idea if it was female, but we need to work on the rule language, here is my suggestion "blah blah blah""

[chuck baader]

Greg, since when is a transaxle not a transmission? A worded, I think it should apply to all engine/transmission mounting points, and that is the intent. As far as the differential is concerned, suspension bushings are free. Chuck

[mom'sZ]

As far as the differential is concerned, suspension bushings are free. Chuck

How is a differential a suspension component? A live axle sure, but with regard to IRS

[chuck baader]

I'll use my car as an example. The whole rear suspension is an assembly bolted to the car in three places, each end of a suspension subframe, and the diff. All three have bushings. The rear control arms pivot off the subframe. The complete subframe/control arms/diff is the rear suspension. Chuck

[tom91ita]

as Chuck worded it, that would work for me. need to include transmission and transaxle type of mounts. otherwise, i only have one engine mount and two tranny mounts.

just not sure why we think the CRB is going to listen to this any more than they did other topics.

and should this go directly to the CRB, i thought they said the proper flow was members to ITAC, ITAC to CRB, etc.

[Greg Amy]

Greg, since when is a transaxle not a transmission?

When the rules states "[e]ngine mounts of alternate design and/or material may be used..."?

(I've not read the rule myself, I'm only going by P****'s first post...)

Tom, membership rules requests and feedback to the CRB don't have a good history of being "interpreted" properly; how many times has someone submitted something but later complained it wasn't what they actually submitted? My concern, therefore, is that by emailing the CRB and saying "it's great in concept but there's issues and here's what I suggest" would be read as "it's great." - GA

On edit: just pulled down the Fastrack News for March. I see that what Tom posted was NOT a published/proposed rule change as I inferred, but simply a request for comments. Now Chuck's response makes more sense to me, and I see where I was led astray. Mea culpa on my comment on the ITAC!!!

[mom'sZ]

Sending vote that Greg Amy gets to review all rule changes before submittal. No really... why the fore aft blah blah blah language? It can't move... period.
Also, I feel like I have to hop from forum to forum so I don't miss anything. Can we not combine the sandbox and this place? Don't be afraid of it over there guys, yeah there are some meanies and bullies and a few who just like to piss in everybodies cornflakes just for fun but for christmas sake... two sepparate discussions every time.
So anyhow.... WHAT about tranny and diff mounts???
an mount is a mount is a mount. either let us have em or don't
And of alternate design? as in I can run big giant steel tubes between all of them and stiffen my chassis? I know I know, can not perform an illegal function but Greg Amy this thing. Remember the George R. edict (or whatever it is) if it says you can... you bloody well can! alternate material yeah sure, alternate design? how would I need to redesign the damn thing to make it work?

[chuck baader]

You have not seen all of the FWD motor mounts, have you? Chuck

[trhoppe]

Also, I feel like I have to hop from forum to forum so I don't miss anything. Can we not combine the sandbox and this place? Don't be afraid of it over there guys, yeah there are some meanies and bullies and a few who just like to piss in everybodies cornflakes just for fun but for christmas sake... two sepparate discussions every time.

Hey, we can absorb this place. Hell, even make a "IT" forum on the sanbox