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??