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.

[Flyinglizard]

SCCA is a bunch of crusty old geezers. Thats a given.
Can you get reasonable rules?? No, not in a reasonable time frame.
Is SCCA a member driven club?? Not from what I have seen.
Does the rule make for good racing?? Most of the time. If they are checked, ever.
300$ for a legality question?? Total BS.

[RacerBill]

Jake, what is the letter number, so I can voice my support.

[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...

[JLawton]

Hey, don't get testy with Jerry just because he has a different opinion...............





.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly - Jerry expressed a valid viewpoint, and did so politiely. That's appreciated.

We need the debate on this. While I support it, in discussing it with those who opposed it I certainly did learn something about potential pitfalls in allowing it that need to be addressed in the rule. Debate is a good thing.

[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.

[BruceG]

Keeping the rule the way it is currently may be one more nail in the cofffin(wallet) of NER racers. What with the 2010 helmets, H&R rules(needed), increased reg fees, wait till we pay for pump gas this spring at LRP,etc, Jake is right in requesting a rule change that may save us money and not affect racing.IMHO

[Greg Amy]

...requesting a rule change that may save us money and not affect racing.IMHO

First, I support the rule. I believe it's within the modern philosophy of the class, especially given technology and aftermarket supply changes over the last quarter-century.

But if you're pushing this as a cost savings, safety, or performance move then I'm opposed to it. There is no cost savings to the category as a whole; it's cheaper to leave the stock ones in and I've never had to replace motor mounts due to the stress of racing in decades of running Improved Touring. There is no safety in this change to the category as a whole; if it's a safety issue for you then it's your responsibility to replace them as a service item regularly. And there's no performance value to the category as a whole; as in costs and "safety", some will benefit, some will not.

So if you want to be honest about the whole thing, simply say exactly as Jake has: I like this, I want to do it, it's a reasonable modification to allow, and I believe it's within the philosophy of the category.

But don't play this dishonest game of "safety and costs".

GA

[RacerBill]

I agree that Jerry has a valid point about the slippery slope from IT to Production-like rules. However, there is a difference between rules changes that allow the addition of complex (expensive) changes such as open ECU's, coil-over suspensions, etc. and a simple change in the material used in a motor mount. Some will say, enough is enough - no more changes, or if we allow the change then everyone will be forced to make the same change (BS!!!!!). And others will say that we need the change to lower costs to our racers. I tend to agree with the later viewpoint. (Sorry Greg, I was writing my post while you were writing your's).

[mossaidis]

Hey, don't get testy with Jerry just because he has a different opinion...............

I did appreciate the disclaimer and approach, wasn't trying to be testy. Seriously. If I was, I would be including him with the like of some others on forum that call us whiners and like. I meant what I said, it takes courage to say what Jerry said on this forum.

Jerry, I meant no offense, it was 6:32 am in morning, please forgive me if I came off as "testy" as that was not my intent. I do want to ask you to expand on your view point if it's anything other than the "if you want to do more to your car, then upgrade to prod" viewpoint.

[almskidd]

There are a few downsides to this allowance. First of all there are more than a few aftermarket mounts out there that move the motor from its factory location.

With my particular motor I could easily move my motor down an inch or more using factory motor mounts with the stock rubber removed and the window weld polyurethane squeezed into its place. If we allow complete replacement of factory motor mounts it would be even easier to disguise the relocation or even rotation of the motor. Would I personally do that, no. But would other people do that, absolutely. Some people don't mind being that guy, if it helps them win.

Even though this type of cheating is a certainty, I am still 100% behind this allowance. A lot of cars out there really need a better system for supporting their engines than what comes from the factory and at least a few of them are down right dangerous if not checked often. I would personally like to fill my mounts with poly and call it a day. You have my support.

[JeffYoung]

We woud nt consider a rule that allowed the motor to move. We can't write rules to stop cheating, and this allowance won't really change anything. If someone wants to move the motor with a disguised mount, they will do that.