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

[rsportvolvo]

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?.

[shwah]

That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.

[rsportvolvo]

That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.

That applies to every aspect of the ITCS. We all try to optimize and find the "unfair advantage" within the ITCS. That's a part of racing's appeal.

[trhoppe]

The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect

"Engine, transmission and final drive mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these components is not altered in any way. All mounts must attach to the chassis and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."

[IPRESS]

Tom,
As long as it makes miatas faster I am for it!

(I have already made my request that the CRB be in favor.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect

Only grey area I see there is that you havn't addressed the relocation of the engine. 'My' motor mount is in the same place but is shorter, lowering my engine. I don't think "location and orientation" of the mount really covers it. How about adding 'dimensions'? (Although that imnplies weight as well...)

[trhoppe]

Andy, I don't think you saw my updated rule that I posted on the sandbox. I'd love to see how anyone can get around this rule and move the motor or join mounts together (now becomes 1 mount vs 2 or 3 mounts != same method). The way to do this one in the tech shed is to take out the protested mount and compare it to the stock one. If it will place the motor in a non-stock location/orientation, bam, gone.

"Engine, transmission and differential housing mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these mounts, the engine, transmission and differential housing are not altered in any way. All mounts must only attach to the chassis and to the engine, transmission and differential housing in the original location, orientation and method."

[Andy Bettencourt]

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?.

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.