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

[jimbbski]

and that fits whose definition of legal besides your own?

I wrote that just to see what reaction I would get. I do have two mounts so modified but they are not installed. If the rule being dicussed here is changed to make these legal then I will.
The allowance, if it happend, to legally install non OEM style motor mounts using non OEM materials it stand to reason that adding non OEM materials to OEM type mounts can be too. Or am I out in right field here?

[Lael Cleland]

I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

[callard]

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

Hey, thanks for reminding me, Porsche inverted their gearbox to lower the racecar and improve halfshaft angles........Evil Grin

[Z3_GoCar]

I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

So since:

9. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by

similar items performing the same fastening function(s).

I can take a hole saw to my current mounts and insert my new similar hardware items in the middle that performs the same fastening function

As for making racing more economical, preventing money shifts every third race thus making new valves and bearings neccessary. Then there's the safety aspect of avoiding the oil slick when my pan breaks on the crossmember.

[Lael Cleland]

I didn't increase the diameter of the hardware, just the length and went to 12.9 grade.... Unless you disassemble the mount, I looks stock..... And yes I did use a 3/4 in hole saw..... 30 degree 12mm & 8mm flush head counter sunk type bolt(the real name eludes me).. It may be too stiff, The shear loads there are huge.... I have broken blocks, bolts, Heim joints, you name it, trying stay bars....

Now if i went back to a stock type clutch disk with springs, ditch my 5 year old 4 puck, I may not brake mounts and things but I would be replacing the clutch twice a year...
Its yin and yang.....

[StephenB]

So first of all I must say that it wouldn't matter to me which way the rule went.

My first thought is that I believe it fits the philosophy and purpose of the class. I do get a ton of movement with my engine and this is a cheap bolt on part that increases the reliability of my racecar. since it is FWD the only things that can really break are the exhaust and shift linkage. Exhaust now has a flex section at the start of it and luckily the linkage has enough play that it doesn't break until a motor mount actually breaks. Even then the engine usually just shifts and it gets stuck in a gear. I just dismiss it as a maintenance part and "that's racing" But if the rule did change I would clearly have an advantage in relation to reliability. So naturally I am in favor for selfish reasons

Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen

Read my summation again. The ITAC already voted in favor of the rules change, pending member support.
THEN, three months later, when OVERWHELMING member support showed a landslide in favor, the new ITAC inexplicably decided to re-vote, and this time, the vote was tied. The CRB decided a tie vote, in spite of the overwhelming member support, was not a positive vote, so they left the rule 'as is'.

To me, that is a disservice to the membership, who clearly made their desires known. It's my opinion that when the ITAC took it's second vote THAT was in error...they had already voted in favor pending the members response. I suspect a vocal member of the ITAC convinced the new guys (on their first or second call, I think) to vote his way.

To me, the whole thing is a travesty, it is a new calender year, and the issue needs to be reexamined, looking at it critically.

Essentially, I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership.

[StephenB]

"I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership."

Maybe we should appeal the decision rather than request the rule change again. I am honestly not sure how or if an appeal process exists but it should since it is a board that represents its members that overwhelmingly disagrees with their decision. After reading your request again I think your heading in the correct direction and asking them to discuss the decision again, I am just not sure if its going to work.

Stephen

[Knestis]

I wrote that just to see what reaction I would get. I do have two mounts so modified but they are not installed. If the rule being dicussed here is changed to make these legal then I will.
The allowance, if it happend, to legally install non OEM style motor mounts using non OEM materials it stand to reason that adding non OEM materials to OEM type mounts can be too. Or am I out in right field here?

Then you're less a cheater than you are a smarty-pants.

K