Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

[Z3_GoCar]

So I'm still a bit confused as to what "bad" could come from a consistent rule on rubber bushings, but I fully agree we need to hash this out.

I am not adamant about this either way, but I do believe that least for me, the idea was to make sure no one had to put up with crap rubber in their driveline if they did not want to. If we allow the rule as written but no deal with "guibos" then cars that have them are something of a special case in that they cannot replace all of the rubber in the driveline.

Help me out here. What intorturation would we see with this?

Even with the Guibo removed, that still doesn't remove all rubber in the drive-line. What about the rubber in a dual-mass flywheel. Furthermore, dual-mass flywheels can't be resurfaced, or even ballanced. If you're pushing to remove all rubber components from the driveline, then you'd want to allow flywheel replacement too.

Whee!! aluminum single mass flywheels, here we come:026:

[Ron Earp]

Whee!! aluminum flywheels, here we come:026:

Woooo hoooo! Then we'd have a RACECAR!

Yes, I'm a bit torn over the rule. Clearly it was meant to allow you to use high performance motor mounts in place of OEM pieces. When I've read discussion about the rules it was always referred to as the "motor mount rule". But it appears that the may be interpreted to allow much more than just motor mounts or transmission mounts.