One...more....time...

[lateapex911]

Here's a letter I sent to the ITAC and CRB, since it's a new year and all. And it's not Ground Hog Day......yet.

Sirs-

I write to request that you approve of alternate engine and transmission mounts for the Improved Touring category.

I do so with this history:

• The allowance was requested once recently. My understanding was that a rule was written that had good verbiage to prevent non stock relocation of the driveline.
• The membership was invited to provide input, and my understanding is that the input was overwhelming in both the amount and the one sided nature: nearly 100% in favor.
• The ITAC vote was, to my understanding, divided down the middle. (the first vote was positive, but the membership changed in the time period between the votes)

Inexplicably, the request was denied in Fastrack.


Further, the ITCS has, since nearly the inception of the category, allowed methods to control engine and transmission movement. Philosophically then, this request breaks absolutely no new ground.
IT racers have been using various methods of engine location control for decades. The only difference is that, when the rule was written, alternate and higher performing mounts were rarely available.
Times and technology have changed of course, and the rule writers need to stay current with the changes. Today, many alternate mounts are available via the aftermarket. Further, many stock mounts
can be modified easily and inexpensively to achieve the same effect. Many factory mounts have become complicated and excessively expensive, and the current allowances to control engine movement
are insufficient and these mounts fail quickly under the rigors of racing. Rather than replacing these highly expensive mounts with less expensive and more effective aftermarket versions, the current rules
force the replacements to be stock. This adds to the expense of racing in a manner that is completely unnecessary and totally avoidable.

While it isn't the rules writers responsibility to ensure racers have the ability to build their cars in the cheapest manner possible, it IS their responsibility to listen
to the wants and needs of the members, and to accommodate the members when the action has no downsides.

Allowing alternate mounts will break no new performance ground. It will not open a new performance envelope. It breaks no new philosophical ground, and it creates no competitive imbalances. It has no downsides.
It merely offers the membership more ways to skin the same cat.

I urge the ITAC and the CRB to do what the embers have clearly indicated they want: Allow alternate engine and transmission mounts.


Regards


Jake Gulick

Now, the ITAC and CRB have MASSIVE support for this on file AND they have the rule already written, so, Jeff, Travis, should people write in AGAIN to support it??

[chuck baader]

+1, if necessary. CB

[Flyinglizard]

If everyone uses them, what can happen. Just all agree to use any stock placement mounts, and get on with it.
This is just like the vin rule. Took 10 yrs toget it fixed. The Board is supposed to listen to the guys paying to race .

[Ron Earp]

If everyone uses them, what can happen. Just all agree to use any stock placement mounts, and get on with it.
This is just like the vin rule. Took 10 yrs toget it fixed. The Board is supposed to listen to the guys paying to race .

+1 to that. Power to the people.

[jhooten]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

[Z3_GoCar]

(To Jake)

[lateapex911]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

So, for the guys who ...lets say, race a car that has expensive and fragile engine mounts, that break often, you suggest they leave the category they love...... or stop whining and keep spending ten times what it would cost to bolt in an aftermarket mount that would last far longer?

See, to me, THAT's the kind of thinking that open minded newbies look at and say "Crusty old geezers club, Screw them." (And trust me, that's what they DID say the last time the PTB botched this one)

If we can write a rule that allows people to do what we already allow them to do, but in a easier, more effective and more budget friendly way, why shouldn't we? Because according to you, they should put up and shut up, or go race in other categories where their car isn't classed, that require significant changes to the car, require them to change schedules/friends etc, so they can use ONE allowance? Really? THATs a good solution/recommendation? They'll be more likely to find a place to race in NASA, BMWCCA, PCA, etc etc.

Times change, if the club doesn't keep up, it dies.

My point might not be popular with you, but that line of thinking seems to me to be close minded and rather elitist.

[preparedcivic]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

I thoroughly disagree. That this allowance hasn't been updated in 25+ years is just plain dumb, and frankly comments like the one above are indicative of a lack of relevancy from many in the SCCA, and I can get away with saying that having been in the Club since 1984.

Per the ITCS I can cryo fragile metal bits, stuff a Motec in my ECU case, put sphericals in my suspension, but I can't legally fill the voids in my motor and trans mounts with 3M Window Weld from Home Depot?

My letter has been sent.

[mossaidis]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

antagonist? or protagonist? tough to say. You do have courage my friend...

[EV]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

If you race production, then your opinion on the matter means doody.

Let's stage a silent protest, run your poly mounts, and all agree to not protest your fellow competitors for said mounts.

[Duc]

Now, the ITAC and CRB have MASSIVE support for this on file AND they have the rule already written, so, Jeff, Travis, should people write in AGAIN to support it??

So is the consensus we need to write in again? (Just did a pre-season look and I might need to replace a mount.)

D

[JeffYoung]

We didn't get to Jake's letter on Monday. Issue is still open.

Any and all input will be considered, and appreciated.

Thanks guys.

[lateapex911]

Thanks for the update Jeff. I really appreciate the open line of communication.

[JeffYoung]

We tried to focus on car classification and "non-controversial" rule issues on Monday since Josh was out -- first time in 4 years! He had a lot going on, new house, etc.

Plus, we just didn't make as much progress as we had the last few weeks, primarily because Josh does a very good job of leading and getting us focused on progress instead of (sometimes) endless debate and we meandered a bit in his absence.

[lateapex911]

WOW, he's been on for 4 years? Time flies!