Come-on, y'all...lets not make this a 15 page discussion...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea. Chuck
Come-on, y'all...lets not make this a 15 page discussion...send your version to the CRB in support of the idea. Chuck
Chuck Baader
White EP BMW M-Techniq
I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!
Done and Done
Ryan Hall
Just Boss It
#03 Mini Cooper B-Spec
Indian Summer Racing/Advanced Monograms
SolidSkills.Net
Vote yes sent to the CRB.
David Russell
IT Volvo 242
Problem is, Chuck, we're not writing in support of an idea, we're writing in support of a rule. While I agree with the idea, I do not agree with the rule; as it's written I can only replace one of the three mounts in my FWD car (the other two attach to the transaxle), making the whole exercise pointless (and a potential competitive disadvantage)...
Greg, since when is a transaxle not a transmission? A worded, I think it should apply to all engine/transmission mounting points, and that is the intent. As far as the differential is concerned, suspension bushings are free. Chuck
Chuck Baader
White EP BMW M-Techniq
I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!
I'll use my car as an example. The whole rear suspension is an assembly bolted to the car in three places, each end of a suspension subframe, and the diff. All three have bushings. The rear control arms pivot off the subframe. The complete subframe/control arms/diff is the rear suspension. Chuck
Chuck Baader
White EP BMW M-Techniq
I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!
Yes, in these cars (Chuck's is the same as mine) the differential is a stressed member of the subframe assembly. The whole assembly is the subframe and is attached in three places to the chassis, all with bushings. The rules already allow subframe bushings to be replaced.
This in my opinion is very different from a more traditional rear suspension. In other cases the differential is not a member of the subframe at all, but rather, hangs from it or the chassis (like a Miata). In those cars, I don't see how you could use the suspension bushing allowance to change the differential-mount bushings.
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
as Chuck worded it, that would work for me. need to include transmission and transaxle type of mounts. otherwise, i only have one engine mount and two tranny mounts.
just not sure why we think the CRB is going to listen to this any more than they did other topics.
and should this go directly to the CRB, i thought they said the proper flow was members to ITAC, ITAC to CRB, etc.
1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL
It goes to the CRB, and should land in the ITACs mailbox as well.
When we were discussing this, I was under the assumption that of course teh trans was included. But yea, the wording doesn't support that thinking. So be sure to mention that in your response should you support it.
Just a note, this was very contested on the con call, and passed by one vote just to go out for comment. Now that one vote (me) is gone, and I have no idea IF there will be new guys, or who they might be...in other words, it's in the balance, get your votes in for or against.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
When the rules states "[e]ngine mounts of alternate design and/or material may be used..."?
(I've not read the rule myself, I'm only going by P****'s first post...)
Tom, membership rules requests and feedback to the CRB don't have a good history of being "interpreted" properly; how many times has someone submitted something but later complained it wasn't what they actually submitted? My concern, therefore, is that by emailing the CRB and saying "it's great in concept but there's issues and here's what I suggest" would be read as "it's great." - GA
On edit: just pulled down the Fastrack News for March. I see that what Tom posted was NOT a published/proposed rule change as I inferred, but simply a request for comments. Now Chuck's response makes more sense to me, and I see where I was led astray. Mea culpa on my comment on the ITAC!!!
Last edited by Greg Amy; 02-23-2010 at 01:02 PM.
Sending vote that Greg Amy gets to review all rule changes before submittal. No really... why the fore aft blah blah blah language? It can't move... period.
Also, I feel like I have to hop from forum to forum so I don't miss anything. Can we not combine the sandbox and this place? Don't be afraid of it over there guys, yeah there are some meanies and bullies and a few who just like to piss in everybodies cornflakes just for fun but for christmas sake... two sepparate discussions every time.
So anyhow.... WHAT about tranny and diff mounts???
an mount is a mount is a mount. either let us have em or don't
And of alternate design? as in I can run big giant steel tubes between all of them and stiffen my chassis? I know I know, can not perform an illegal function but Greg Amy this thing. Remember the George R. edict (or whatever it is) if it says you can... you bloody well can! alternate material yeah sure, alternate design? how would I need to redesign the damn thing to make it work?
You have not seen all of the FWD motor mounts, have you? Chuck
Chuck Baader
White EP BMW M-Techniq
I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!
Bookmarks