IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

I pointed out again that the stayrod allowance should be able to resolve this issue, and that alternate mounts that retain current location, and mounting hardware can provide a performance advantage, at least to fwd cars, in the form of front axle weight reduction (rubber and window weld mounts have high density and lots of volume for the job they perform).

I also asked if folks stating that a stay rod will not work for them had actually tried any. No answers, other than some folks saying that they don't want to take the time to develop one.

It seems that mine is not the majority opinion in that thread, and that my logic is tantamount to returning IT to "old showroom stock cars"
 
How about applying the KISS principle to these debates? What is the easier solution for IT racers: fabricating engine locating devices (e.g. stay rods) or buying a stock replacement part?

Side question: How does the club currently regulation material and durometer on stock and stock replacement engine/transmission mounts? They can't, so couldn't a stock mount made with an alternate material that is commercially available be legal within the confines of the current ITCS? I will use the cast vs. forged piston material as a precedence. As long as the part meets the dimensions and material class it's legal. Otherwise is brand X legal and brand y illegal?.
 
That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.
 
shwah said:
That's fine, but there will be those who chose to take advantage of the allowance, rather than just bolt something in.
Click to expand...

That applies to every aspect of the ITCS. We all try to optimize and find the "unfair advantage" within the ITCS. That's a part of racing's appeal.
 
The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect

"Engine, transmission and final drive mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these components is not altered in any way. All mounts must attach to the chassis and to the motor/trans/final drive in the original location and method."
Click to expand...
 
Tom,
As long as it makes miatas faster I am for it!:023:

(I have already made my request that the CRB be in favor.)
 
Greg Amy said:
Synopsis? I'd prefer to see discussion on a proposed Improved Touring rule at, well, the Improved Touring forum. Or, at a minimum on the SCCA forum...
Click to expand...

Since this is, you know, the officially SCCA sanctioned forum of Improved Touring. :rolleyes:

And discussions on the frequently read SCCA forums always turn out to be productive. :rolleyes:
 
Conversations take place where conversations take place. There isn't always rhyme or reason, it's just the way it is. If you want to be in the conversation, you walk over to where the people are standing. If not, you don't.
 
rsportvolvo said:
Side question: How does the club currently regulation material and durometer on stock and stock replacement engine/transmission mounts? They can't, so couldn't a stock mount made with an alternate material that is commercially available be legal within the confines of the current ITCS? I will use the cast vs. forged piston material as a precedence. As long as the part meets the dimensions and material class it's legal. Otherwise is brand X legal and brand y illegal?.
Click to expand...

Of course you could. You could take the mount that was harder and procure a stock one. SCCA corp puts a durometer on them both and determins compliance. Simple.
 
trhoppe said:
The reason most discussion ends up on the sandbox, is that this board is viewed by so many fewer people then roadraceautox.

Either way, I think this rule that MMiskoe presented is pretty damn close to perfect
Click to expand...

Only grey area I see there is that you havn't addressed the relocation of the engine. 'My' motor mount is in the same place but is shorter, lowering my engine. I don't think "location and orientation" of the mount really covers it. How about adding 'dimensions'? (Although that imnplies weight as well...)
 
Andy, I don't think you saw my updated rule that I posted on the sandbox. I'd love to see how anyone can get around this rule and move the motor or join mounts together (now becomes 1 mount vs 2 or 3 mounts != same method). The way to do this one in the tech shed is to take out the protested mount and compare it to the stock one. If it will place the motor in a non-stock location/orientation, bam, gone.

"Engine, transmission and differential housing mounts may be modified or replaced provided the location and orientation of these mounts, the engine, transmission and differential housing are not altered in any way. All mounts must only attach to the chassis and to the engine, transmission and differential housing in the original location, orientation and method."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top