Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

[lateapex911]

I don't think guibos are included by the new rule, nor do I think they should be. They are part of the driveline, not a driveline *mount*. During all of the ITAC discussions in my tenure, the idea that something like a guibo should be included never came up and I think the idea is crazy to lump them in with the mount rule.

Items like this should considered when writing the rule. If the intent is to allow it then do, otherwise don't water it down after the fact. Based on the wording it seems clear that parts like this are NOT included in the intent. You can remove the guibo and nothing falls out of the car - it is clearly not a mount of any kind.

As a guy on the ITAC thru the first generation of debate on this rule (Version ONE: the one that was printed in fastrack, got unanimous approval from the members in a huge response, but was mysteriously voted down by the then ITAC), allowing replacement of all rubber devices within any driveline component was NOT the intent. Never even mentioned it.

Further, the new wording (Version TWO) that is currently before the members does not allow such replacements, REGARDLESS of the ITACs intent.

Again, this is the danger of suggesting that the people down the line should understand 'intent'. It creates a gray area. gray areas are the enemy to rulesmakers and enforcers. Draw a line.

Jeff, while you may think that this item (and others like it) are legal because you- the writer- intended them to be, this rule clearly does NOT support that view.
If thats what you (the ITAC) reallllly want, you better rewrite the rule.

But I'd suggest, (IMO) that you are opening a huge can of worms, if you want to allow every item in any driveline component to be replaced.