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

[jhooten]

Uhh, welcome to 5 years ago?

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than
to provide for the installation of required safety equipment
or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger
compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window
operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and
inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the
inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the
door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and
the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed
or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

[MMiskoe]

"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 chassi and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."

This one should be a no brainer for the CRB to work over.

BTW why does the CRB have a link to email all of them but when you use it you get one back saying "nope, that email address is not how to get in touch with us, send your letter here"? Why not have that link right there in the FT . Am I simplifying something hard?

[mossaidis]

"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."

Done - thank you.

PS. Thank you ITAC and CRB for approval a weight correction to the 92-95 Civic Si. It can change to something else down the line as long as it equitable and within the ITA philosophy (lbs/hp with IT factors, etc).

[trhoppe]

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than
to provide for the installation of required safety equipment
or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger
compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window
operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and
inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the
inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the
door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and
the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed
or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand

[jhooten]

Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

[trhoppe]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

edit: You know, I was going to post how sort of ignorant you were, then I thought "he really must be trying to make another joke if he thinks anyone gives a shit about spirit of the rules in the tech shed" so I edited my post

-Tom
who has been there, and won, more then once

[lateapex911]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

You'll be protesting my car, and we'll be sending that one as far up the flagpole as it has to go. The rule is written in English, and I happen to understand that language.

It's my thinking that the Stewards can read too, and I doubt they want to risk their spotless record on a losing case, but, I'd be happy to take it to the COA.

Not only that, but there's isn't one good reason that can be cited for why my cars door bars are "wrong", beyond what the rulebook says.

[jhooten]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I suggest a review of GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

Claiming a bar extends in the door by only breaking the plane by .0001" is straining to the breaking point.

[lateapex911]

I think the term .001" or whatever is a euphemism for the term "barely"...I've got actual steel within the door side of the door plane. It meets the words of the rule. Maybe not the "intent" as you see it though.

[jhooten]

The claim in this thread was .0001.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I can't wait to fight a protest for crappy driving by saying that my 'paint' hit him, not the 'car'.

LOL

I hope the ITAC can figure out a way to allow alternate motor, tranny and diff mounts without creating issues. Sometimes I wish we could publish intent.

[EV]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

Is this guy really a sphincter, or is he kidding?

[erlrich]

Ok, I know my sense of humour doesn't play well with some people BUT
Uhhhhhhhhhh, you do understand you can't just gut the door because you want to, don't you?

[rules nerd mode] As you see in GCR 9.1.3.D.9.f "Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

You can remove the door trim panel and replace it with aluminum sheet but you cannot remove the door internals.

Unless, you look in GCR 9.4.D "In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed only if the door bars extend into the door cavity. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules." [/rules nerd mode]

Or... if your car was registered prior to 1/1/08, you get to use 9.4.2.G:
"Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. Door side tubes may extend into the door. NASCAR-style side protection, or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. The door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified."

But I digress...

Letter in support of alternate mounts sent

[John Herman]

Good luck with policing this one. BTW, what are the tolerances on the engine/trans location? Engines/trans will be lowered, rotated, etc. by people looking for that small performance advantage. Try to prove that is hasn't been, or worse, just try to get specs on the "stock" location of the engine so you can write the protest.

[lateapex911]

John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....

[John Herman]

John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....

This whole arguement is just a red herring. If I wanted to protest any of the engine itmes you listed, either a visual inspection will determine compliance, a review of the service manual will list piston weights, etc. Protesting non-stock mounts, easy to do. Don't really care how many people are all ready doing it. Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

Your example just reinforces what I believe will happen....yeah my engine sits this low on the crappy stock mounts, so thats where I put it.

[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