Engine/Transmission Mounts

[ajmr2]

Greetings. I remember a discussion about engine mounts on this formum a while ago but can't locate it. Must have been under a different title name. Anyway, can anyone who knows for sure please clarify the rule concerning poly mounts? I reread the GCR IT rules several times and can't find anything about it one way or the other.
Thanks.
AJ

[R2 Racing]

If it doesn't say you can, you can't. All drivetrain mounts must remain OEM. Yes, the discussion to allow alternate mounts did come up, but the CRB did not approve it.

[wepsbee]

This is going to sound like nitpicking but what if you leave your OEM mounts in but just add inserts. Does that actually break the letter of the regs?

[Chip42]

This is going to sound like nitpicking but what if you leave your OEM mounts in but just add inserts. Does that actually break the letter of the regs?

If it doesn't say you can, you can't

In other words, the IT rules must ALLOW you to do something for it to be legal, not place limits on an otherwise open ended list. This is one of the biggest mental hurdels people need to clear to understand IT. An allowance might not always the cheapest, most effective, or most logical for a specific facet of a specific car. But the rules are equal in that same way. yeah - it DOES mean that some cars are "better" than others and that itsn't accounted for, but that's kinda how it is in any class when the dust settles out. that or constant mucking with the classifications which is equally frustrating.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Everyone needs to read the beginning of the rules. Clearly states that the only things that are allowed are what is listed. If you don't 'see' it, it ain't legal.

[Russ Myers]

Oh, no. Here we go again.

Russ

[mossaidis]

Damn... you mean I have to take out that Garnet G32b turbo? Rats... How am I suppose to win on driver skill alone? HELLO?

[Z3_GoCar]

If you want to be allowed to use non-oem mounts write in...

Jake and I have:

Letter ID Number: #4636
Title: Allowance of aftermarket motor and transmission mounts in IT
Class: IT
Request: I am writing to request that allow aftermarket motor, transmission, or transaxle mounts to replace fragile oem mounts be allowed in Improved Touring. These replacement mounts are to be located in the orginal location and shall not alter the location, position, or orientation of the motor, transmission, or transaxle. This request shouldn't affect individual car competitiveness, but would greatly increase relibalibity and even reduce maintenance costs. Thank you for considering my request.

[JoshS]

I think there is general support already for a rule change, guys. The problem is the wording. The goals are to A) allow easily available aftermarket stuff; B) allow the "window weld" approach; C) disallow engine relocation in any way; D) disallow fabbing something up that ultimately makes the engine a stressed chassis member. We have had trouble successfully writing a rule that accomplishes these goals that would stand up to a clever rules-reader and is enforceable.

So go ahead and get some group-think going, rather than just the rah-rah. We have tossed around lots of wording choices (including yes, those used by a few different Solo categories) and had difficulty. Maybe more minds would help.

[lateapex911]

Here's the latest on mine. I just got this update on the action the ITAC has taken a few days ago. it's not the first time it's been tabled.:

Jake Gulick,
This automated response has been sent to let you know that your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB. Your letter details are below:

Letter #3777
Title: Request to allow alternate engine mounts in IT
Request: 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 ITAC vote was positive, but the ITAC 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 members have clearly indicated they want: Allow alternate engine and transmission mounts.

Regards

Jake Gulick
Attachment:

Thank you,

Club Racing Board

For anyone that missed this whole chapter and verse, here it is again:
Tom Hoppe wrote in awhile ago requesting the alt mounts when I was on the ITAC. The ITAC discussed, and eventually agreed that wording could be created that would be an effective rule. And the ITAC voted that it would be in favor of approving that rule if the membership agreed. So it was put out for member feedback. I, along with several other ITAC members, then resigned over issues we were having with the CRB. After my departure, this item received more member feedback than any other item in IT's history, according to those who saw the letters, and the feedback was positive to the tune of over 95%.. (this is a matter of public record gained via internet postings by those in the position to know, as opposed to private information I got while discussing things privately)
Then the ITAC decided to take another vote (Not sure I see why, as it had already agreed that it was a "go" if the members wanted it). This time though, several 'yes" votes, such as myself were off the committee. I suspect that a particularly vocal member convinced the new ITAC members that it was a bad idea, and the new vote resulted in a tie. The CRB saw that as a "non recommendation", and since it wasn't recommend TO change the rule, it was left alone, and the CRB recommended against a change.

Any CRB members who might be reading should feel free to correct me on their part of the result. And any ITAC members can chime in with missing info about what happened after I resigned. I'm pretty clear on what happened when i was on the ITAC as I have notes from the con call and the voting records.

Personally, the allowance won't benefit me, as my car has it's original 25 yr old stock mounts, and if allowed, I doubt I'd replace them.

[lateapex911]

I think there is general support already for a rule change, guys. The problem is the wording. The goals are to A) allow easily available aftermarket stuff; allow the "window weld" approach; C) disallow engine relocation in any way; D) disallow fabbing something up that ultimately makes the engine a stressed chassis member. We have had trouble successfully writing a rule that accomplishes these goals that would stand up to a clever rules-reader and is enforceable.

So go ahead and get some group-think going, rather than just the rah-rah. We have tossed around lots of wording choices (including yes, those used by a few different Solo categories) and had difficulty. Maybe more minds would help.

Josh, that's great info. Thanks for sharing.
I wonder if the desire to prevent the engine from being a stressed member is getting a bit carried away though? I'm just thinking out loud, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of an engine in IT that CAN be used...effectively...as a stressed member. At least not by smart people. Or am I following some myth that just isn't true, and gains are there to be had?

[Z3_GoCar]

I think there is general support already for a rule change, guys. The problem is the wording. The goals are to A) allow easily available aftermarket stuff; allow the "window weld" approach; C) disallow engine relocation in any way; D) disallow fabbing something up that ultimately makes the engine a stressed chassis member. We have had trouble successfully writing a rule that accomplishes these goals that would stand up to a clever rules-reader and is enforceable.

So go ahead and get some group-think going, rather than just the rah-rah. We have tossed around lots of wording choices (including yes, those used by a few different Solo categories) and had difficulty. Maybe more minds would help.

I'd take Greg Amy's advice and go with less is more:
Use any mount as long as it
1) places the motor, transmission/transaxle, and/or (what's its called on a Miata / drive trans subframe??) in the orginal position from the factory.
(no moving it forwards, backwards, up, down, or rotating it in any way.)
2) are located in the original location that the oem mounts use and mount using the same number of hardware fasteners.
(if there's a nut on the top and bottom, there should be a nut on top and bottom or a bolt head and a nut. Or if there's three bosses with three bolts then you could use three studs and three nuts, but not add a couple of bosses to the mount, or use different bosses.)
Notice I didn't say anything about reinforcing the oe mounting locations, in some applicaitons these can crack if an aluminum blocks are used in place of a oe mount, if that's the case then you shouldn't use the aluminum and stick with urethane or nylon elements.

Jake,

I talked to a West coast Pro-7 guy (Bill Barnes) who told me the mounts on the first gen Rx7's will crack in half and you won't know it until the motor starts clunking around in the car. He replaced his with blocks of aluminum.

[ShelbyRacer]

I think there is general support already for a rule change, guys. The problem is the wording. The goals are to A) allow easily available aftermarket stuff; allow the "window weld" approach; C) disallow engine relocation in any way; D) disallow fabbing something up that ultimately makes the engine a stressed chassis member. We have had trouble successfully writing a rule that accomplishes these goals that would stand up to a clever rules-reader and is enforceable.

So go ahead and get some group-think going, rather than just the rah-rah. We have tossed around lots of wording choices (including yes, those used by a few different Solo categories) and had difficulty. Maybe more minds would help.

I *did* submit suggested wording when I sent my request in over a year ago, but simply got back the "thanks for your input" reply. I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but the major points were:

• OEM-style inserts may be filled with non-metallic material
• The critical dimensions of the insert, including all fastener locations, must be identical to stock
• The mounts themselves could not be modified

I would even suggest that if you are truly worried about the "stressed member" issue, that a material hardness (durometer) maximum could be spec'd, but I think you're making more of it than you need to.

Enforcability? Have possession of an un-filled OEM-style mount for comparison. Have a durometer handy of you choose to use a hardness limit.

Where's the issue?

[JoshS]

I *did* submit suggested wording when I sent my request in over a year ago, but simply got back the "thanks for your input" reply. I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but the major points were:

• OEM-style inserts may be filled with non-metallic material
• The critical dimensions of the insert, including all fastener locations, must be identical to stock
• The mounts themselves could not be modified

Matt, I just searched for your letter, #1206. It didn't have specific wording, just concepts, as you just did here. It's not enough.

BTW, "mounts themselves cannot be modified" doesn't meet the first goal I listed above, which is to allow commonly-available aftermarket mounts. It is a somewhat reasonable compromise to allow only modified stock mounts, but that would be like a plan B.

Josh

[Greg Amy]

I seem to recall I had a submission that wasn't subjected to significant intorturation...but it was rejected simply due to the whole concept of allowing alternate mounts...thank you, come again...

On edit: Josh, you're free to re-post that verbiage here if you find my letter. - GA

[Matt93SE]

Damn... you mean I have to take out that Garnet G32b turbo? Rats... How am I suppose to win on driver skill alone? HELLO?

Oh, you've run in STU recently?

[chuck baader]

Tom and I both submitted requests that were very similar. My wording was something like this (I've slept since then so I don't remember): Allow alternate non metalic motor/trans mounts that mount the motor/trans in the OEM position. Intortuate away....Chuck

[JeffYoung]

We are working on it guys. It's trickier than you would think.

[Z3_GoCar]

Agreed Jeff,

But still if I want to use aftermarket mounts, why not prod the discussion? So, what should be allowed?

OE mounts with any fillers..
Aftermarket mounts, that mount in the oe position, and doesn't change the position of the motor/transmission/transaxle/power-plant subframe...

What shouldn't be allowed?

motor plates that mount to the firewall...

[lateapex911]

James, wait...those motor plates that mount to the firewall ARE allowed...NOW!