Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

JeffYoung said:
Why all of the grief?
Click to expand...

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.
 
JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...

GKR_17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GKR_17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually the flex disc mounts the driveshaft to the transmission & is made of rubber - when removed the driveshaft will hit the ground.
 
JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...


Exactly. If this is a unitended conciquence as written, I think it needs more work.
 
Grafton, we spent several years on this rule. It was looked at from a lot of angles, and discussed by many people. Some angles would be missed. That happens, and that is why it was sent out for member comment.

Jake, my recollection is the same as yours. We originally focused on just engine mounts.

That expanded as we thought about it. It made no sense to allow harder materials for engine mounts but require people to keep crappy rubber tranny and diff mounts. In my opinion, and for me (and perhaps only me), what we were trying to accomplish was to allow people to remove rubber that did not hold up from the driveline. Personally -- again my opinion only -- I see some of the focus on just mounts as not very consistent.

We basically can replace any bushing on the car right with harder material.....except these rubber pieces in a guibo. So guys like Chuck get to continue to deal with crap rubber while everyone else can replace their driveline "rubber" (since it is all in the mounts) with delrin, etc.

I still don't see a performance advantage to this. With all due respect to Tom and Chip, and the questions/examples they raise are the type of thing we need to think through, we are simply taking about replacing driveline bushings. I don't see naything in that which would allow CV and universal joints, which are solid metal couplings, or hubs, etc. to be replaced with alternates.

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?
 
'No performance advantage'? Red herring.

I am for allowing all driveline MOUNTING bushings to be upgraded...but come on, not every bushing in the driveline.

To the 'what is creep' people? THIS STARTED OUT AS A REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MOTOR MOUNTS.
 
What is the rationale for allowing rubber bushings to be changed basically everywhere in the car EXCEPT the guibo?
 
Warts and all. some cars will be better than others in one aspect or another. If you choose a car with a rubber component in the driveline, then you chose a car with a known weak link within IT rules.

the way the rules are worded, I would say replacing the guibo is prohibited, whether that's the intent or not. The guibo is a rotating driveline component just as the driveshaft, clutch, or differential. It is NOT a driveline mount that attaches the driveline to the car.

IT does not allow alternate driveline components (final drive/differential excepted). So IMO, replacing the guibo is against the spirit of IT rules.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of replacing the guibo with a stronger unit, as long as it doesn't bring a performance advantage. However, increasing reliability inherently provides a performance advantage. Is the new part lighter than the original part? If so, then you have another issue to deal with vs. just saying it's "more reliable than the oe."
 
Jeff, so you're okay with allowing replacement of the mostly-rubber guibo with a metal one, but not the replacement of a failure prone metallic driveshaft U-joint with a better, stronger one? The guibo is just a driveshaft U-joint, it just doesn't allow much of an angle. How about replacement of U-joints with CVs?

I just see such an allownace as creep with no purpose.
 
JeffYoung said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
 
robits325is said:
Actually the flex disc mounts the driveshaft to the transmission & is made of rubber - when removed the driveshaft will hit the ground.
Click to expand...
Rob, i imagine you're kidding....I see the function as mainly to transfer rotational energy, while providing vibration absorption and shock resistance.

Jeff, think about this. By your 'line in the sand" (I see your logic) you've opened up a HUGE door. The aforementioned dual mass rubber centered flywheel was one I thought of right away. Shifter couplings and bushings will be swapped out in a heartbeat. And then there are dozens of things I can't think of, or even know exist on certain cars.

Personally, I think it's about a category allowance. Engine mounts are on every car*. So the allowance is generic in nature. But opening it up as you suggest now creates model specific issues. A guibo here, a coupling there. Every car doesn't have guibos, so the rule shouldn't extend that far.
Matts right, this is counter to the basic philosophic cornerstone of IT: 'Warts and all".

*Considering the engine/trans is essentially one unit, and is often mounted in such a way as to suspend that unit via a minimum number of mounts, some attached to the trans end and the other to the engine, its obvious that the rule needs to be written to allow that assembly of the driveline to be supported, not JUST the engine, if the rule is to be inclusive of the entire category.

Good thing Kirk is off actually racing this weekend or we'd all be getting our asses chewed, LOL
 
Last edited:
Add to IIDSYCYC the phrase HTHDTH

How the Hell Did THAT Happen?

It's a variation on, "Gee, nobody saw THAT coming..."

K
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Whee!! aluminum flywheels, here we come:026:
Click to expand...

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.
 
JeffYoung said:
What is the rationale for allowing rubber bushings to be changed basically everywhere in the car EXCEPT the guibo?
Click to expand...

Because you have created a monster. It's impossible to know where there is rubber in every driveline on every spec line. I again implore everyone to realize where we are in thread/proposed rule, based on a request to allow aftermarket motor mounts.

This is the stuff we have been warning everyone about. Lines in the sand...they will keep moving unless we stop trying to get cute with the rules, and stick to the simple stuff. I have always felt motor mounts should be able to be urgraded. I can even see the logic in transmission and differential but to allow every driveline bushing? Internal and external? Think of that for a second.

"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

I don't care if they are made of metal or cotton candy as long as they don't exceed the limitations.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Because you have created a monster. It's impossible to know where there is rubber in every driveline on every spec line. I again implore everyone to realize where we are in thread/proposed rule, based on a request to allow aftermarket motor mounts.

This is the stuff we have been warning everyone about. Lines in the sand...they will keep moving unless we stop trying to get cute with the rules, and stick to the simple stuff. I have always felt motor mounts should be able to be urgraded. I can even see the logic in transmission and differential but to allow every driveline bushing? Internal and external? Think of that for a second.

"Motor mounts may be substituted with units of alternate material. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location. They must be of stock external dimensions."

I don't care if they are made of metal or cotton candy as long as they don't exceed the limitations.
Click to expand...

Yup!
And "driveline"= what? As Amy points out, the entire engine is part of the driveline, so everything in there goes along for the ride. Some might say, "naaaa, that's clearly not the intent" but the intent doesn't matter when the words of the rule allow it. Officials NEED Black and White.

ITAC: Please-

-Limit it to engine mounts. Those are the major issue people have problems with.
-define engine mounts to include mounts on the trans end IF the trans is part of the engine assembly.
--forget the silly 'stressed member' fear. Does not matter. Let it go.

Profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top