Jake Gulick,
This automated response has been sent to let you know that your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB. Your letter details are below:
Letter #3777
Title: Request to allow alternate engine mounts in IT
Request: 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 ITAC vote was positive, but the ITAC 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 members have clearly indicated they want: Allow alternate engine and transmission mounts.
Regards
Jake Gulick
Attachment:
Thank you,
Club Racing Board
allow the "window weld" approach; C) disallow engine relocation in any way; D) disallow fabbing something up that ultimately makes the engine a stressed chassis member. We have had trouble successfully writing a rule that accomplishes these goals that would stand up to a clever rules-reader and is enforceable.
