Guibo - Proposed Motormount rule

I already compromised with you! I want just motor mounts, you want all the mounts. :-)

I don't think Travis explained anything. He just stated he has a problem with it then won't give us explanations and examples. Engine bay chassis stiffening is a concern? We can add strut tower baces now. I still don't see the worry with a rule that has limits.

I bet the members don't want this rule as written. Never asked for it, especially the holes it provides.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
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.
Click to expand...

pitbull113 said:
I like it.
Click to expand...


Ron Earp said:
Simple language that avoids nebulous terms such as non-metallic and rigid.

I like.
Click to expand...


marka said:
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.
-----------------
Mark
Click to expand...



I think these two are the best proposals as worded... I would be most appreciative if Jeff and Travis would please bring this exact wording to the ITAC again and try to get it through.


.
 
"and must be dimensionally the same as the stock units."

I have a problem with this....available aftermarket mounts for BMWs are smaller in diameter because the smaller diameter is perfectly adequate, and they are cheaper (look at price of 3" urethane vs 2 ") but do meet all the other requirements. I looked at making my own until I priced the material. Chuck

BTW...stock mounts for my car are about 140$...aftermarket polyurethane 87$.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little late to the party, but I'm pretty amazed at what I see. Either that or I have missed something.

Back to engine Stayrods. There is nothing in the GCR that actually defines what these are, but we're allowed to have one.

Take the Miata for example (because a lot of people are familiar with them). Take one of the two motor mounts and weld a bridge that spans across the rubber part. There is your one Stayrod. No dimensional changes to the motor mount, no change to the rubber, only one of two is affected. The other side is left un-touched and the result is that the motor is now restrained so it won't rip the rubber apart yet it is not a stressed member in any way. Nice & simple. Stay rods are free. Why isn't this legal?

Don't give me that crap that says since it doesn't say you can, because in this case it says you can add a stayrod. Any stay rod. Just like you can add gauges, or air dams or brake ducts. All of these things require that you make a change to the car to include them (drill holes, weld tabs, modify wiring etc). I had to drill holes in the fender well to mount my transponder, but it doesn't say I can do that either, it just says I have to have a transponder. Same for my fire system. So why is the motor mount special? All we did is weld a metal strap to it.

I'm sure other cars have similar motor mounts and it seems this is just way to easy compared to the route we're on. The proposals being thrown around here look like they were written by someone who works for the government. Yuk.
 
Glenn, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts.

The bottom line is rules worded just about exactly like that were considered over the last year and rejected by the ITAC due to the fact that they do not disallow solid metal mounts or the bearing mounts. So, again, what we have out there now is a compromise and frankly I do not think we are going back at this point.

lawtonglenn said:
I think these two are the best proposals as worded... I would be most appreciative if Jeff and Travis would please bring this exact wording to the ITAC again and try to get it through.


.
Click to expand...
 
MMiskoe said:
I'm a little late to the party, but I'm pretty amazed at what I see. Either that or I have missed something.

Back to engine Stayrods. There is nothing in the GCR that actually defines what these are, but we're allowed to have one.

Take the Miata for example (because a lot of people are familiar with them). Take one of the two motor mounts and weld a bridge that spans across the rubber part. There is your one Stayrod. No dimensional changes to the motor mount, no change to the rubber, only one of two is affected. The other side is left un-touched and the result is that the motor is now restrained so it won't rip the rubber apart yet it is not a stressed member in any way. Nice & simple. Stay rods are free. Why isn't this legal?

Don't give me that crap that says since it doesn't say you can, because in this case it says you can add a stayrod. Any stay rod. Just like you can add gauges, or air dams or brake ducts. All of these things require that you make a change to the car to include them (drill holes, weld tabs, modify wiring etc). I had to drill holes in the fender well to mount my transponder, but it doesn't say I can do that either, it just says I have to have a transponder. Same for my fire system. So why is the motor mount special? All we did is weld a metal strap to it.

I'm sure other cars have similar motor mounts and it seems this is just way to easy compared to the route we're on. The proposals being thrown around here look like they were written by someone who works for the government. Yuk.
Click to expand...

See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?
 
lateapex911 said:
See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?
Click to expand...

1. Take one of your dead $125 mounts to a friend with a welder. 2. Buy him a 6pack of his favorite beverage. Buy another 6 for you while you're at it.
3. Have said friend weld a "stay rod" onto the dead mount.
4. take it home and replace an existing mount in the car.
5. enjoy the 6 pack of beverages you bought for yourself because all you did was change a mount like you originally planned and it cost you $7.99 at the package store.
 
Matt describes precisely what we did with the front mount of the three-legged stool that is the VW engine support system. I went the additional mile and had the brackets welded as he describes, with a sway bar end-link (about 4" long) serving as the actual stay rod. I only had to resolve the pitching moment of engine location to get substantial improvement. It's not "rigid" (still have stock rubber and motion in the rear mounts) but I invite anyone to come wiggle my drive line. ;)

K
 
To all committee members...the KISS principal is very difficult to apply by committee, but it must!!! The simpler the better. Chuck
 
lateapex911 said:
See Ron Earps post earlier about the failure modes of engine mounts.
1- Many engines have mounts in locations that result in rotational forces that can't be solved with a stayrod.
2-adding one stayrod to a mount leaves the other one still stock and flopping. (arm moments, etc etc)
3- not all mounts can even be modified in your manner.
4-I don't have a welder, nor the skills. is it REALLY necessary for me to drag my car to a fabricator? Or tie up the shop while the engine hangs one a hook to take the mount to a fabricator?

Why can't I just buy a freakin $30 part, (saving me a bi yearly $250 expense) and bolt two in!?
Click to expand...

Because in writing a rule to allow what you want, you will end up with a rule that allows 100 other things that you don't realize, and don't want.

There is a legal solution, and this whole conversation is simply about how MUCH rules creep we try to design into a new rule.

You can make your same argument about lots of things. Why not just let people with rwd all run 9" rears so they can have access to more off the shelf parts?
 
JeffYoung said:
Glenn, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts.

The bottom line is rules worded just about exactly like that were considered over the last year and rejected by the ITAC due to the fact that they do not disallow solid metal mounts or the bearing mounts. So, again, what we have out there now is a compromise and frankly I do not think we are going back at this point.
Click to expand...

Well I appreciate all the efforts of the ITACers, but that sucks.

If it was so damned important that we make some sort of rule work - to allow solving a problem that can already be solved - because a lot of members asked for it. How is it that when one is floated out that has crappy language and allows a lot more than even the requestors intended, and damn near everyone involved in a discussion about it says so (except the guy that wrote it:shrug:), it is is not worth trying to get right?

Does member input matter or not?
 
Well, I disagree. It does not "suck."

There are what, maybe 4 or 5 people posting on here (and the brown board) that they don't like certain elements of the rule? We had just as many on the ITAC who had legitimate issues with the "simple" rule.

Neither will cause serious problems in IT. The one you are seeing is the product of compromise and does what membershp wanted while addressing some of the concerns the ITAC had. It's definitely the product of member input even though it may not be exactly like some members want.

We are a committee of 7 and a club of what 45,000? Everyone's not going to be happy all of the time obviously. Here, while I get some of the criticism, what I don't get is why there isn't more of, hell, this gives me most of what I want, I can deal with the rest. That's the position I took with it, and I'm happy we got it done.
 
Kirk is exactly right, one mount well supported will help maintain the others. Meanwhile the others allow enough give that as the body flexes or the block changes w/ torque & temp changes that it doesn't snap the mounts off the block etc., nor do the other mounts rip themselves apart. Similar to the chain on one side that resists torque.

Sorry If I missed previous posts that addressed it. Tight for time, didn't read all of it.

I am glad its getting addressed and hope we're for the better of it when we're done.
 
Kirk is only right enought for his application. If his mounts were designed to tear when stressed and allow the motor/transmission to drop out of the car, then he's just created a stress riser in the remaining mounts, causing them to fail even faster.

Hey, if there are some ITAC members that don't like purely metal solutions, I'm sure we can live with that, but to specifically to disallow "solid" mounts is opening the door to a nebulus specification. What exactly is the durometer of a "solid" mount? Is it more than a shore 70A, 85A, or even 95A? The answer is that this pohibition against "solid" mounts is meaningless, so why have it in there?
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Hey, if there are some ITAC members that don't like purely metal solutions, I'm sure we can live with that, but to specifically to disallow "solid" mounts is opening the door to a nebulus specification. What exactly is the durometer of a "solid" mount? Is it more than a shore 70A, 85A, or even 95A? The answer is that this pohibition against "solid" mounts is meaningless, so why have it in there?
Click to expand...

The rule disallows "RIGID" not solid. "solid" mounts could be made of eggwhites as well as filled stock and full metal, no one had an issue with solid, there was issue with full metal / bearing. therefore we chose "rigid". we discussed specifying a hardness or othe rgidity "threshold" but quickly decided that it was too difficult to define given the variety of applications and capabilities of tech (to me the latter is a red herring, protests can establish a test facility, it does not have to be the shed at the track). rigid is nebulous, but it's less nebulous and more allowing than a prohibition on solid, which is why solid isn't in the rule.

we address the rigidity aspect in the intent statement as a way to help competitors and officials understand what is allowed in a way that a specific rule for a varied class cannot.

this rule is not perfect. but in reality it's pretty good. I suspect the rigidity aspect will be challenged to death over the course of the next few years, and that a word or two will be changed to clarify that driveline mounts (motor, transmission/transaxle and differential when NOT also a subframe) are all that is covered. seems that there's not universal agreement on that being the intent or the wording as is.
 
Chip,

Can you throw us a couple of examples why some may have issues with a bearing solution? If you add some limits to dimensions and position etc, why would this 1. be an issue and 2. be a perceived 'must have' that will increase the perception that IT has a high barrier to entry.

I don't get why this has to be so difficult. Jeff has been good explaining the position of 'some' but I haven't read the actual 'why's'.
 
Howdy,

Andy Bettencourt said:
Can you throw us a couple of examples why some may have issues with a bearing solution?
Click to expand...

Here's one issue... Lots of people would say that if a mount incorporates a bearing, then its certainly not "rigid".

:-)

Chip, so far I think the strongest non-ITAC support of this wording has been "This sucks, but it allows what I want so I'll live with it." I'm not sure I'd equate that with "in reality it's pretty good."

And that said... This allows what I want so I support it if the alternative is no allowance at all.

As a bonus, I have another justification vector for Booger Bushings. :-)

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