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

[StephenB]

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...

I agree. I am not a "cool kid" therefore I do not play in the sandbox.

Stephen

[shwah]

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"

[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...)

[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.