Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 93 of 93

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

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=28388

    Some recent news and discussion can be found here regarding the now controversial engine mount situation.
    That's some really entertaining reading right there.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    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"
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    402

    Default

    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

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    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.
    David Russell
    IT Volvo 242

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    219

    Default

    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."
    ITA Integra | 05 Mazda3 | 03 Mini
    http://www.tomhoppe.com

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    588

    Default

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

    (I have already made my request that the CRB be in favor.)
    Mac Spikes
    Cresson, TX (Home of "The Original" MotorSport Ranch)
    "To hell with you Gen. Sheridan...I 'll take Texas!"

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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...
    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.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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


  11. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rsportvolvo View Post

    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trhoppe View Post
    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
    New England Region 188967

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    219

    Default

    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."
    ITA Integra | 05 Mazda3 | 03 Mini
    http://www.tomhoppe.com

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •