June Fastrack

[lateapex911]

Yup, I was going to go there too, Chuck..a stay rod can't do it all, and Jeff, your point is good too.

But to me, it's all really moot, because the committee long ago and far away, has already decided that controlling engine location is good, and made it legal. The difference is in the available technologies available at the time.

[JoshS]

So ... why would the prod/GT cars have or need fancy stay rods if they can use any traditional engine mount that they want?

[chuck baader]

Josh, good point...most I know use solid aluminum mounts.

Jeff, we are not racing production. Even though the engine stayrod is not defined in appendix F, I suspect that if I show up with a multisided multijointed stayrod, it would not be legal. And as an engineer and fabricator, that is the only way a stay rod will work to protect your motor/trans mounts. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Josh, my guess is they are doing it because they can. Anything to keep the motor stable -- mounts and stay rod.

Chuck, if I wasn't clear, I am agreeing with you 100%. It's silly to allow complex fabricated stay rods when aftermarket urethane mounts are illegal.

Josh, good point...most I know use solid aluminum mounts.

Jeff, we are not racing production. Even though the engine stayrod is not defined in appendix F, I suspect that if I show up with a multisided multijointed stayrod, it would not be legal. And as an engineer and fabricator, that is the only way a stay rod will work to protect your motor/trans mounts. Chuck

[chuck baader]

Sorry Jeff...I did misunderstand...blame it on cranial rectosis while I am trying to assemble a motor. CB

[Knestis]

Show of hands: How many people actually run an engine stay rod?

And please explain to me how it can be constructed to hold the engine in two directions (fore/aft, and side/side) without multiple attachment points??

And, what good will a stay rod do holding the engine in only one direction (fore/aft, OR side/side)???

Sorry, I don't see the allowance of a stay rod as a satisfactory reinforcement of motor/trans mounts. Chuck

Raises hand.

Since I've got a transverse mounted FWD package, sitting on 3 points, I used the stayrod - a short link essentially paralleling the front/center mount - to control fore-aft movement. (Where the engine jumps around primarily under braking.) I don't particularly care about locating it side-to-side because there are no substantial forces trying to MOVE it those ways. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

[JeffYoung]

I get movement both ways. Torque moves it side to side. Engine braking, bad shifting, driveline shock, etc. move it fore and aft.

Raises hand.

Since I've got a transverse mounted FWD package, sitting on 3 points, I used the stayrod - a short link essentially paralleling the front/center mount - to control fore-aft movement. (Where the engine jumps around primarily under braking.) I don't particularly care about locating it side-to-side because there are no substantial forces trying to MOVE it those ways. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

[shwah]

Last time I brought it up, the responses were not so nice, so I don't know why I am doing this, but...

I still see a lot of comments about how a stayrod won't or can't work, but only one comment from someone that has installed one - and he's not saying that it doesn't work. Did anybody asking for this TRY to use the existing rule?

This is the point that actually bugs me the most. More than being allowed alternate mounts. I would happily make and install some if allowed, but I don't see the need for the new rule, and have only read assertions that we need it from people who have apparently never tried the currently legal solution.

I mean it would be a lot easier for me to make process power by just bolting in a new cam, so why not just allow that if you don't do a full engine build. Philosophically the class already allows increased power - why not just make it easier?

[StephenB]

Last time I brought it up, the responses were not so nice, so I don't know why I am doing this, but...

I still see a lot of comments about how a stayrod won't or can't work, but only one comment from someone that has installed one - and he's not saying that it doesn't work. Did anybody asking for this TRY to use the existing rule?

This is the point that actually bugs me the most. More than being allowed alternate mounts. I would happily make and install some if allowed, but I don't see the need for the new rule, and have only read assertions that we need it from people who have apparently never tried the currently legal solution.

I mean it would be a lot easier for me to make process power by just bolting in a new cam, so why not just allow that if you don't do a full engine build. Philosophically the class already allows increased power - why not just make it easier?

What he said. : )

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Raises hand.

. It's all about resolving torque about the crankshaft centerline.

K

Except it isn't JUST about that.

Go get box of cereal. Glue it to two blocks of jello on the two small sides, and fix a rod to the top with hinged joints. Now, the jello and the stayrod connect to a big "L" or some other rigid structure.

Grab that structure and shake it side to side, back and forth, up and down. That box is going to move. the TOP won't move in certain a certain mode, but the bottom sure will.
Now take a fat dowel and glue it to a location on the front and twist, you'll get some movement here as well, but again, not much at the top.

That's of course a simple version. certain cars will have mounts in other locations which will allow other modes of movement.
A stayrod might be fine for certain cases, but not every. And a stayrod might be great for certain builders, but not all.

As an ex rulesmaker, I try to think of the bigger picture, all the cars, all the people. This rule violates no existing principals. It's just an alternate way of doing what the original rulesmakers intended to allow.

It could make life easier, cheaper for some. Not all, but some. I see no downside, and I see no reason to force everybody into doing it one way. Allow options.

But that's just me.

[Knestis]

I don't disagree with you, Jake, but the stayrod option gets my particular case about 80% there - albeit for more money than the better answer would have cost. I'm on record as supporting the change, all things considered but I understand the arguments against it.

Kirk (aka The Anticreep)

[callard]

My Benz motor moves about 2 inches forward under braking with its tall cushy rubber mounts and chomps into the radiator. There are no solid sheetmetal structures near the top of the engine that can be a worthwhile attachment for a longitudinal stay rod. Can I attach a stayrod to the back of the tranny and tie it to the rear bumper bracket to prevent forward movement?
Hey, if I use steel cable instead does that still count as a stay rod?



Chuck

[Ron Earp]

Chuck, if I wasn't clear, I am agreeing with you 100%. It's silly to allow complex fabricated stay rods when aftermarket urethane mounts are illegal.

I agree. Just bought the parts etc for my rod, came in at $55 for the rod, brackets, heim joints, etc (The Chassis Shop is a good place for this stuff). Now I've got to spend a hour or two cutting and welding to get it into the car.

Sure would be nice to buy some solid mounts for $28 to complete the picture.

Oh, wait, I suppose I could get a big ass chain like Les/Lee want me to do and crank it over with a come along and bolt it in the chassis. Sounds quite inelegant.

[chuck baader]

For the FWD guys, you have limited motion fore/aft, but not side to side, where the motor/trans mounts are in shear, not compression/extension as they were designed. If it works for you, great. But that does not work on cars with longitudinal engine/trans, nor does it work on other FWD cars I have worked with.

Ron, I do have a working blower motor, contact me [email protected] Chuck

[Z3_GoCar]

Now in my old audi 100 had the worst of all motor mount systems. Longitudinaly mounted front wheel drive with the motor hanging from rubber blocks. I had the motor litterally fall out of the car while driving down the street, twice.

Since we're not going to be allowed to replace our mounts with something better, who's going to be the first to mount the motor and transmission on a motor plate and argue it's a "stayrod"?

[SPiFF]

Oh, wait, I suppose I could get a big ass chain like Les/Lee want me to do and crank it over with a come along and bolt it in the chassis. Sounds quite inelegant.

LOL ... yea. I guess some of those guys think IT cars should only need what is available at Home Depot to make them race worthy.

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

[lateapex911]

LOL ... yea. I guess some of those guys think IT cars should only need what is available at Home Depot to make them race worthy.

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

Well, in defense of the guys who suggest chains, (and that's only one) he's also very against spherical bearings.

Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral. The splitter thing has always been there as part of the airdam rule.

[pfcs]

Hmmm...So that's how we got here-triangular thinking about a box. Thanks for clearing that up, Jake.

[RSTPerformance]

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

LOL... And then when you waste all that time and money you can race against a car that gets completely classed wrong by a CRB that is pinning tails on each other instead of listening to member input or following a process Afterall this is SCCA

Raymond "Back to wedding planning" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Hmmm...So that's how we got here-triangular thinking about a box. Thanks for clearing that up, Jake.

Well, I can't tell you how the previous rulesmakers came to their thinking, but, the rule was: stock ECUs, then, chipped ECUs, then, (and i guess the thinking at the time was that some ECUs needed piggyback boards,) anything that fits in the unmodified box with stock harness.

Well, the net net on that was:

Some uber expensive ECUs were small enough to fit in certain stock boxes. Some cars had larger boxes. Some cars had tiny boxes. Some had boxes with vacuum lines, others had various extra holes. So, essentially, we had a rule that was open ECUs, for some of the people. Some were screwed no matter what, and some could buy $$$ their way into power.
Choices boiled down to
-rescind the rule to an earlier version. (which had it's obvious drawbacks of alienating those who took the rule in good faith and spent the $$$, as well as running into current and futere tech isses, such as limp modes, etc etc. Some problems were easy-ish for brainiacs to solve...sometimes. Or impossible for even the best firms. And the technology would of course, grow more complex in time.)
-Go back to completely stock. See above for drawbacks.
-Open it up to some 'spec' ECU. Tough to do with such a large category,, etc etc.
-Open it up to all, with certain limitations.

Because of several reasons, and the advent of cheaper, essentially DIY ECus, the latter was chosen. Member input was pretty strong, and clearly in favor. many felt it was the 'lesser of evils"

I was totally against it early on, based on the post classification 'comp adjustment' aspect, but that was worked out via the ability to reweight cars. Classifications going back as long as I have been on board have been based on the assumption that cars will have gains due to ECU mods, but, the ability of those cars to utilize alternate ECUs wasn't known, or accounted for. In other words, all cars were assumed to have gains, whether they could or not.