Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

tnord said:
as the actual author of the rule (with some edits from chip)...

i did not write it intending to include them.
i do not believe the "allowance" wording includes them.
i do not believe the "intent" wording includes them.

furthermore....i am one of the "objectors" to solid mounts. i've said time and time again on calls that i don't like them, but i'm sure as shit not going to hold up getting an alternate mount rule through if we can't all agree on a wording that we think that is reasonably successful. since i objected, i was voluntold to come up with some wording. i took my best crack at it which is what you see in fastrack, and it went through unanimously.

the reasoning i don't want it is partially because of what jeff mentioned with the stressed member arguement, and the other is a matter of perception. fucking bullshit like those custom bearing mounts that schaafsma has posted has no place in IT just like spherical bearings don't have any place in IT either. do they make any significant performance difference? no. but it's just another item on the list current drivers or prospective drivers see as a hurdle to being competitive. it's a bunch of little crap like this that has at least contributed to the decline in SM.....shock mounts, AFPR, torsen, subframes, etc.

the criticizm of this particular wording is that it's ambigous on whether or not it allows bricks of aluminum on mounts (i don't think it is but whatever....people that want to be pricks and intortutate will do so regardless), while simultaneously saying that there's no advantage to the solid mounts and you wouldn't want to do it anyway. if we at least put the doubt in somebody's mind that they're legal, and that a tech inspector somewhere could DQ them for having the parts.....and keep them out of 99% of cars i think we've done well.
Click to expand...

First, I might differ on "intorutate". If the words of the rule say something, then anyone who follows the words isn't torturing anything. Thats what the rule SAYS. Rules give allowances. As a rulemaker, understand that people will read the words and take the allowance. And they certainly aren't pricks for doing so.

So, if I read the last part right, you want to imply something so that people are afraid they might get DQ'ed, and won't do it out of fear? And if the majority don't, then you're good with that?
 
tnord said:
furthermore....i am one of the "objectors" to solid mounts. i've said time and time again on calls that i don't like them, but i'm sure as shit not going to hold up getting an alternate mount rule through if we can't all agree on a wording that we think that is reasonably successful. since i objected, i was voluntold to come up with some wording. i took my best crack at it which is what you see in fastrack, and it went through unanimously.

the reasoning i don't want it is partially because of what jeff mentioned with the stressed member arguement, and the other is a matter of perception. fucking bullshit like those custom bearing mounts that schaafsma has posted has no place in IT just like spherical bearings don't have any place in IT either. do they make any significant performance difference? no. but it's just another item on the list current drivers or prospective drivers see as a hurdle to being competitive. it's a bunch of little crap like this that has at least contributed to the decline in SM.....shock mounts, AFPR, torsen, subframes, etc.

the criticizm of this particular wording is that it's ambigous on whether or not it allows bricks of aluminum on mounts (i don't think it is but whatever....people that want to be pricks and intortutate will do so regardless), while simultaneously saying that there's no advantage to the solid mounts and you wouldn't want to do it anyway. if we at least put the doubt in somebody's mind that they're legal, and that a tech inspector somewhere could DQ them for having the parts.....and keep them out of 99% of cars i think we've done well.
Click to expand...

So my wording eliminated the stressed-member crap and that simple rule doesn't allow for a product that should create that perception. Help me understand why it isn't this simple.

Your INTENT when writing the rule is irrelevent. The written rule is what is, we all know this so lets keep it simple while giving them what they want.
 
JohnW8 said:
No need to edit me. I said "little to no" meaning there is something of value there but not enough to make Chuck any faster than he already is over non guibo-ed cars.
:p
Click to expand...

But it's not just about Chuck.
And it's not just about how his two pound revolving guibo is now a smaller lighter version....
It's about all the unknown parts in over THREE hundred cars on the ITCS.

It's about things like dual mass flywheels, and things none of us can imagine. Suppose there are weird parts out there on a car that weighs 5 pounds and spins. Now it can weigh maybe 12oz, and the result is certainly significant. And it's not on EVERY car....
Jeff says they can list things that need to be left alone, like the flywheel, but lists like that end up being "you can't do this or that, (or the other things we thought of) but EVERYthing else is fair game".

The issue is that we can't think of all the stuff, that may or may not exist, and that may, or may not give specific cars advantages.
 
lateapex911 said:
But it's not just about Chuck.
And it's not just about how his two pound revolving guibo is now a smaller lighter version....
It's about all the unknown parts in over THREE hundred cars on the ITCS.

It's about things like dual mass flywheels, and things none of us can imagine. Suppose there are weird parts out there on a car that weighs 5 pounds and spins. Now it can weigh maybe 12oz, and the result is certainly significant. And it's not on EVERY car....
Jeff says they can list things that need to be left alone, like the flywheel, but lists like that end up being "you can't do this or that, (or the other things we thought of) but EVERYthing else is fair game".

The issue is that we can't think of all the stuff, that may or may not exist, and that may, or may not give specific cars advantages.
Click to expand...

I understand the issue. But since there is still so much debate it looks like this rule change wasn't a good one to pass. There are too many way to interpret the rule and some will strain that interpretation. Others like me will live with what we have under the hood. The simple and most effective fix would have been to not pass the rule change and let us drivers replace busted rubber bits whenever it was needed.
 
So lets try and keep this as productive as we can for the ITAC guys. I think we can agree that the proposed wording lets a huge horse out of the barn AND includes allowances that nobody actually asked for.

I still haven't heard one legitimate issue with 'free' materials for motor mounts so long as positioning and dimensions remain stock. Lets bounce that around so we can get all the info. Travis - you said you were against it for two reasons you stated above, wording solves both. Can we move forward by moving this backward from the proposal?
 
Let's just post up all bits of rubber on a car (besides tires and suspension bushes).

1. Guibbos

2. Steering rack monts

3. Exhaust hangers

4. Shifter and shift stabilzer bushings

5. Bumper mounts/ bumper ends

6. Radiator cushions

7. Timing belts

8 Accessory belts

More for the list?
 
What if the rule was rewritten to this:

To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal, rigid materials or bearings, the following is permitted.

Only engine, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid. Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with urethane material.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Dude, how about a little productive banter back and forth here?
Click to expand...

i've done that before, it's not productive.

i read most of what's here, i put up my position on the issue. anything beyond that with a few of you guys is a total waste of time for me.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."
 
Last edited:
tnord said:
i've done that before, it's not productive.

i read most of what's here, i put up my position on the issue. anything beyond that with a few of you guys is a total waste of time for me.
Click to expand...

Good to have a committee member who feels discussing things with members is a waste of his time.
 
And while I've tried to say it when I can, let me stress again that Travis is right. The rule does not allow this as presently written, and I'm speaking for ME only, not the ITAC.

tnord said:
1) an aluminum guibo is not legal with the proposed wording.
2) the ITAC is not run from this site.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
And while I've tried to say it when I can, let me stress again that Travis is right. The rule does not allow this as presently written, and I'm speaking for ME only, not the ITAC.
Click to expand...

But can you agree that some are already considering it a drive-shaft mount? If so, under the proposed wording, you could 'upgrade' it.

The issue most are having here is that you are opening up any 'mount' in the driveline - internal or external. That is for sure unintended. We must bring this thing back to what we asked for. Motor mounts.
 
It appears that only *I* think it makese sense to be consistent about rubber in the driveline....lol.

I disagree that this was intended to be limited to motor mounts. We discussed it at length and this I am certain about: it was intended to apply to all mounts -- mounts I agree - in the driveline.

Drawing the line at just motor mounts is a mistake in my view and inconsistent with the overall idea here.

None of this matters one wit to me personally. l can live with changing my rubber motor mounts, and my tranny mount has never been a problem. I just do not see the consistency in allowing people to change rubber pretty much everywhere in their car, but say to guys like Chuck you are stuck with rubber bushings in the guibo.

Illogical.

Andy Bettencourt said:
But can you agree that some are already considering it a drive-shaft mount? If so, under the proposed wording, you could 'upgrade' it.

The issue most are having here is that you are opening up any 'mount' in the driveline - internal or external. That is for sure unintended. We must bring this thing back to what we asked for. Motor mounts.
Click to expand...
 
chuck baader said:
Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."
Click to expand...
Thoughts;
One, I'm not sure the metal prohibition does much, if anything. one could fabricate a mount using two halves of metal, and use a sliver of non metallic adhesive and call it 'non metallic'.
Two, thinking outloud, the term "engine/transmission" might need to be more specific. With this wording, are you intending rear transmission cars, like the 944, to change bushing/mounts? If so, this, wording, to me, allows that.
if not, then perhaps saying "the engine/transmission assembly" would limit the mount change to those cars where the engine and transmission are bolted together as an assembly.

I prefer to limit it to just that, myself.

BTW, the GCR has done some heavy lifting on this subject, as the definition for engine mounts says: "
A passive mechanical coupling used to support the weight of an engine at it's attachment points to the structure of a car"
Click to expand...
 
chuck baader said:
Actually, Jake, I think the aluminum one I posted is heavier than the stock. However, I agree that the rule as written, first: does not include the guibo, and second: needs to be rephrased per one Andy and I were throwing back and forth in August of this year. Why would this be inadequate??? CB

"Alternate stock appearing engine/transmission mounts of non metallic material may be used, but there can be no change to the engine’s fore, aft or vertical location. Engine/trans mounts must attach to the engine/trans and the chassis in their stock locations."
Click to expand...

You're getting sucked into - well, lots of people are getting sucked into - the "add words to clarify" trap. It almost NEVER does, and every single additional word adds room for interpretation.

What is "stock appearing?" What is "non-metallic?" Obviously, I can move my engine sideways, since you don't prohibit that. And I can rotate it about its CG, which could be handy. I've got mounts that bolt to a bracket that's bolted to the engine, so I can change the location of the intersection between those pieces, as long as I don't change the attachments at the engine or chassis...

Look. I think this whole thing could have been avoided but we've got to realize that we can't write rules that reflect intent. We can't even describe intent when we do it explicitly. And Travis, I do NOT ENJOY this and DO NOT DO IT FOR FUN. I do it because we have to understand that racers WILL DO IT.

"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."
Click to expand...

If we HAVE to do this thing, Andy's text - not surprisingly - is the best I've seen yet. To the point, no extra verbiage. I personally think the prohibition re: relocation is redundant and does open the door for problematic interpretations (it still allows for rotation) but it's better than any option that uses more words.

K
 
JeffYoung said:
It appears that only *I* think it makese sense to be consistent about rubber in the driveline....lol. ...
Click to expand...

I'm all for consistency, generally, but remember that every allowance will have to catch up with the most liberal. If that's where we're headed, we need to accept the cost.

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