Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule
- Thread starter chuck baader
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Jeff, I was talking about the original request for feedback. IIRC, it was NOT a request to consider alternate driveline mounts, it was to consider alternate engine mounts. So the intent of the rule change has morphed - inside committee.
I have ZERO issues with that. Happens all the time. But since Travis refuses to participate in a productive fashion about the unintended openings the wording would allow, I have suggested we roll the whole issue back to the original RFI and feedback given on said request.
I too believe that trans and differential mounts are 100% within the same sphere as motor mounts - so lets roll with that if you want. Less simple but we can apply some of the suggestions that have been given here.
First order of business: Define driveline. It's not in the Glossary. Drivetrain is, and you won't like a barn door that is.
Second: Take a look at the definition of bushing. Combine drivetrain and bushing and some would argue that CV joints are now upgradable.
Third: You may want to actually define in the GCR what driveline bushings/mounts are to include. Engine mounts/Transmission mounts and differential mounts. Some would say the 'mount' is also the bracketry. Another barn door. The differential housing on a Miata is integral to the mounting/bushings. Now that conflicts with another rule on that application.
Fourth: 'Rigid' is simply not clear enough. Eliminate it totally. You think the Empire State building is 'rigid'? You wouldn't if you were in the observatory on a windy day. 'Devoid of flexibilty' is what MW says. That building flexes. It's designed to. See what I did there? If you limit the dimesions, you have no worries about this 'stressed member' issue. Would I solidly mount my engine? Heck no, I think it's dumb but there is no reason to try and create a rule that prohibits it. Less is more.
Taking from Travis's wording here is my expanded shot:
Engine, transmission, and differential mounting bushings may be replaced. Alternate bushings may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units.
Tear it down and we can rework it as needed. This stuff takes time and effort and a collaberative process. Nobody can get it right in one shot.
Gregg
New member
Thanks for representing all of our interests, Travis.
good try jake, but you know that's not what i mean at all. if anyone wants to talk to me about IT stuff i've thrown my email address out there numerous times, and i'll do it again.
[email protected]
i'm just not talking about stuff on THIS BOARD with YOU. that is what's pointless. you want to call me, you've got my number, we've talked before.
pitbull113
New member
I like it. I could care less if someone wants to use soild mounts. once they start cracking shit on their engine/trans. and or dif. they'll think better of it.
shwah
New member
I am opposed to the whole idea still, but you could get 90% of what people are asking for, and avoid 90% of what people are worried about by simply allowing the addition of material to stock mounts to increase their stiffness.
No longer a weight reduction route.
Not able to relocate anything.
No yet unforeseen whiz bang designs with expected consequences.
The stated goal of window weld works. It doesallow conversion of stock mounts to solid, but I still don't get why anyone cares about that...
No longer a weight reduction route.
Not able to relocate anything.
No yet unforeseen whiz bang designs with expected consequences.
The stated goal of window weld works. It doesallow conversion of stock mounts to solid, but I still don't get why anyone cares about that...
pitbull113
New member
that only works for us fwd cars. my miata has a rubber sponge sandwiched between two metal plates with studs on top and bottom to connect the engine to the subframe. window weld isn't going to do anything for cars like that.
shwah
New member
Really? Sounds like adding a different material that ties the two plates together could help you. Better yet, if only the rules would allow a well designed engine stay rod.
pitbull113
New member
now are we adding or substiting material? two different things.
Z3_GoCar
New member
The key to this rule is simple consice wording of what's allowed, and how. What's allowed: motor, transmission/transaxle, differential mounts (some of us are already allowed diff mounts because they locate the suspension) and how: direct replacement, only use factory mounting points, maintain the factory location, position, orientation. Not that I have a horse in this race as I'm going full bore STU.
JeffYoung
New member
While I appreciate all of the input, I don't think the intent in asking for it was a complete tear down of the rule and rework. We wanted input on any bombs in the existing language.
A couple of folks have suggested that the ITAC didn't take time and effort, or work colloberatively, on this rule. In fact, it's been in process for several years, has been discussed probably more than any other single item besides "ITB" and "Miata," has involved discussions with and review of rules from the Solo guys and from other racing classes in SCCA, and has been hashed out here.
There are things in the existing rule that I do not like, but it is a product of a committee and thus has compromises. There will be some uninteded conseqeunces but -- and I'll eat crow if I am wrong -- I cannot imagine (although I understand it is possible) that this rule change will have any appreciable effect on IT and competition on IT vis a vis say the ECU rule, or the Process or the suspension bushing rule, or even things like allowing 15" wheels on all ITS cars.
A couple of folks have suggested that the ITAC didn't take time and effort, or work colloberatively, on this rule. In fact, it's been in process for several years, has been discussed probably more than any other single item besides "ITB" and "Miata," has involved discussions with and review of rules from the Solo guys and from other racing classes in SCCA, and has been hashed out here.
There are things in the existing rule that I do not like, but it is a product of a committee and thus has compromises. There will be some uninteded conseqeunces but -- and I'll eat crow if I am wrong -- I cannot imagine (although I understand it is possible) that this rule change will have any appreciable effect on IT and competition on IT vis a vis say the ECU rule, or the Process or the suspension bushing rule, or even things like allowing 15" wheels on all ITS cars.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I was asking to tear down MY rework of the rules based on the bombs that have landed already.
You have taken the original request, added scope, and in the process created a bunch of problems. See my post with all the wording and definition issues. I hope you guys step back and fix this.
You have taken the original request, added scope, and in the process created a bunch of problems. See my post with all the wording and definition issues. I hope you guys step back and fix this.
JoshS
New member
I think Jeff is right about one thing here ... it doesn't make sense to allow ONLY "engine" mounts, that is, only mounts that are between the engine proper and the chassis. What makes more sense is to consider any mount between the chassis and the engine block or anything rigidly bolted to the engine block (such as most obviously a cylinder head, but also a transmission or transaxle that is attached directly to the engine.)
However, just like with other elements of this allowance, it seems very hard to define that in rules language, because "rigidly" is vague enough to allow someone to slide something unintended through, and I can't think of any single word or simple phrase that limits things to this intent.
However, just like with other elements of this allowance, it seems very hard to define that in rules language, because "rigidly" is vague enough to allow someone to slide something unintended through, and I can't think of any single word or simple phrase that limits things to this intent.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Look, I know you are trying to help but let me ask you a question -- why do you think that a rule very similar to yours was not discussed at length on the ITAC? I'll tell you it was, and what you see is a compromise to deal with the solid mount issue.
I'm personally fine with solid mounts. However, Travis makes a damn good point that your language would allow things like those spherical bearing mounts that I totally agree are NOT what we are intending.
The point is (a) the language we have is a compromise that some people will have issues with and (b) ANY rule on this can be picked at to death.
I don't see the "end of IT" in what we are proposing. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of actual, practical negatives. I do see some words that could be defined better and some other issues, but like I said on the brown board, I think that is true of any rule that is the product of compromise.
I'm personally fine with solid mounts. However, Travis makes a damn good point that your language would allow things like those spherical bearing mounts that I totally agree are NOT what we are intending.
The point is (a) the language we have is a compromise that some people will have issues with and (b) ANY rule on this can be picked at to death.
I don't see the "end of IT" in what we are proposing. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of actual, practical negatives. I do see some words that could be defined better and some other issues, but like I said on the brown board, I think that is true of any rule that is the product of compromise.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Never said it wasn't Jeff. I have asked over and over for SOMEONE to tell us the 'other' side of the arguement and we get nothing. I have asked for some info to help us understand. We have eliminated the 'stressed member' crap so where does that leave us?
WHO CARES if people mount with sphericals? If they meet the other limitations, thee is no benefit. You can plate your car in pure gold too, but if the winner has done it, is it faster? Come on guys. You are trying to outsmart everyone and you are creating a horrible rule. Definitions are CRITICAL. Bushings are not all made of rubber BTW - Now ANYTHING can be reworked.
I'm done. You may disagree but I think you guys are really blowing this one.
JeffYoung
New member
I'm sure you do....compromise was never one of your strong suits 
.
You may have "blown the stressed member crap out of the water" but that is still a valid concern for others. They disagree with you about solid mounts and believe using the engine as a chassis stiffener is a big problem. Travis has explained his concern to you and while you may disagree, I don't think giving that opinion zero value is very productive.
And that is really what it boils down to. A disagreement. If this were over something fundamental on an IT car, I might be more worried about who is right. But while this is at something above the level of worrying about the washer bottle, I still think that this rule is going to have an almost imperceptible impact on on track performance and hence I think compromising with those who have different opinions than me is critical in order to get something passed that members want (and not just how I want it, and in the way I want it).
.You may have "blown the stressed member crap out of the water" but that is still a valid concern for others. They disagree with you about solid mounts and believe using the engine as a chassis stiffener is a big problem. Travis has explained his concern to you and while you may disagree, I don't think giving that opinion zero value is very productive.
And that is really what it boils down to. A disagreement. If this were over something fundamental on an IT car, I might be more worried about who is right. But while this is at something above the level of worrying about the washer bottle, I still think that this rule is going to have an almost imperceptible impact on on track performance and hence I think compromising with those who have different opinions than me is critical in order to get something passed that members want (and not just how I want it, and in the way I want it).
Howdy,
1) How is rotation of the engine not a repositioning? Add that explicitly if you really feel like you must, but I don't think it's required.
2) The restriction on external dimensions is likely going to make aftermarket bolt on mounts illegal, but not custom made one off mounts. That doesn't seem like a useful restriction.
3) I think you need a restriction on attachment points of the mount so that you can't make your spider brace thingy.
All together:
-----------------
Motor, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location and must use the stock attachment points. The number of mounts may not be changed.
-----------------
I think you need some allowance for transmission / differential mounts because FWD cars tend to have one mount hanging off the transmission. I also don't see any particular huge performance advantage to allowing trans/diff mounts.
Mark
1) How is rotation of the engine not a repositioning? Add that explicitly if you really feel like you must, but I don't think it's required.
2) The restriction on external dimensions is likely going to make aftermarket bolt on mounts illegal, but not custom made one off mounts. That doesn't seem like a useful restriction.
3) I think you need a restriction on attachment points of the mount so that you can't make your spider brace thingy.
All together:
-----------------
Motor, transmission, and differential mounts may be replaced. They may not reposition any component from it's stock location and must use the stock attachment points. The number of mounts may not be changed.
-----------------
I think you need some allowance for transmission / differential mounts because FWD cars tend to have one mount hanging off the transmission. I also don't see any particular huge performance advantage to allowing trans/diff mounts.
Mark
Ron Earp
Administrator
ridiculous to you because you don't care about avoiding bricks of aluminum and those stupid bearing mounts.