IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

Good luck with policing this one. BTW, what are the tolerances on the engine/trans location? Engines/trans will be lowered, rotated, etc. by people looking for that small performance advantage. Try to prove that is hasn't been, or worse, just try to get specs on the "stock" location of the engine so you can write the protest.
 
John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....
 
lateapex911 said:
John, when was the last time you knew that your competitions crank wasn't lightened. Or that his pistons weren't skirted...or......

We have a protest system. Heck, as it stands now, are you aware of how many engines are sitting on non stock mounts? What about the locations? Further, Using STOCK mounts in crappy conditions lowers the engine, and a stayrod attached to the strut tower brace ensures it stays low....
Click to expand...

This whole arguement is just a red herring. If I wanted to protest any of the engine itmes you listed, either a visual inspection will determine compliance, a review of the service manual will list piston weights, etc. Protesting non-stock mounts, easy to do. Don't really care how many people are all ready doing it. Stay rod (which was put in to help the crappy mounts) is legal. No issue.

Your example just reinforces what I believe will happen....yeah my engine sits this low on the crappy stock mounts, so thats where I put it.
 
trhoppe said:
Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand :shrug:
Click to expand...


Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.
 
jhooten said:
Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.
Click to expand...
edit: You know, I was going to post how sort of ignorant you were, then I thought "he really must be trying to make another joke if he thinks anyone gives a shit about spirit of the rules in the tech shed" so I edited my post

-Tom
who has been there, and won, more then once
 
jhooten said:
Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.
Click to expand...

You'll be protesting my car, and we'll be sending that one as far up the flagpole as it has to go. The rule is written in English, and I happen to understand that language.

It's my thinking that the Stewards can read too, and I doubt they want to risk their spotless record on a losing case, but, I'd be happy to take it to the COA.

Not only that, but there's isn't one good reason that can be cited for why my cars door bars are "wrong", beyond what the rulebook says.
 
Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I suggest a review of GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

Claiming a bar extends in the door by only breaking the plane by .0001" is straining to the breaking point.
 
Last edited:
I think the term .001" or whatever is a euphemism for the term "barely"...I've got actual steel within the door side of the door plane. It meets the words of the rule. Maybe not the "intent" as you see it though.
 
And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0
 
lateapex911 said:
And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0
Click to expand...

and where is the plane of the door? where the interior crap was? where the metal was (since it has now been removed)? or do i draw a line between where the metal is still at top and bottom?

my first "nascar" bar only had one bend in it and then went to the front A pillar bar.

i suppose i could have just welded a stub to go out into the door a bit and break the plane that way.
 
trhoppe said:
He's either an idiot, or he's joking.

I'm gonna lean to "joking"

-Tom
Click to expand...

I going with C) he's going to the absurd to make is point. There's a lot of that going around lately.

Again, I'm not sure why this is a big deal, unless you're building (or have built since 1/1/08) a car. For those of us with cars whose logbooks were issued prior to that it doesn't matter.
 
the long and short of it is that door bars and the like don't matter. what matters is the car making weight, and using only allowed mods to the power and drive trains.

too often we fight regarding all of these rediculous nit picky points. motor mounts will give few a real advantage, they are cheap to make yourself (by filling) or to buy and may be a better alternative (as in safety, per the intent of the class) to stock for many applications. if you drive an MR2, for example, it could lead to a torn chassis so it's not for everyone. neither is the removal of a window via door gutting (some use open trailers still and have lead on the floor anyhow). but there's no reason not to allow it IF THE RULE IS WRITTEN CLEANLY so as to forbid the relocation or reorientation of the driveline components.

I could go on for hours about some of what I view to be absurd or overly tight rules but I think we should stick to the toppic at hand.

I would add that the replacement of stock motor / trans / diff mounts should be an either / or with the added stabilizer. - i.e. no urethane mounts and added stabilizer link. but I wouldn't fight too hard for such language as it's, overall, not very important in the grand scheme of things.
 
In a previous life I was a Police Officer. One little blonde cutie batted her eyes and did all the little flirty things she though would get her out af the well deserved ticket. It didn't. As I turned to walk back to my car I heard her shout "thanks alot you f...ing asshole". Ok I'm an asshole. I just give what I get.

Drivers come through tech, look in another drivers car, then come running over to the tech crew and demand we write up some percieved violation of the competitors car. Either you want us to do your dirty work or you don't. BTW, the way it works here is if it is not the the cheif stewards list of tech items for the event we can't even look at it. Write your own protest.

Idiot, if so I'm in a lot of company here.

Sombody got it. If enters the door by .0001 is compliant where is it measured from and how is is measured? Strained and tortured.

C) Ok, again lots of company there. .0001 is absurdly small.

Lot of pot and kettle going on. Quite a few need to take a good look in the mirror.

Or maybe it was just one of those days.


To the OP, sorry for taking this so far off topic. Comments have been sent to the CRB on the issue.
 
Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.
 
jhooten said:
Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to fight a protest for crappy driving by saying that my 'paint' hit him, not the 'car'.

LOL

I hope the ITAC can figure out a way to allow alternate motor, tranny and diff mounts without creating issues. Sometimes I wish we could publish intent.
 
timo944 said:
Tom,

What is your rationale for this? I am with you, but I would like to know why you think this change is justfiied. Also, does it represent a competitive advantage for any cars?

Tim B.
Click to expand...
I am sure he will chime in but for my car, the loosey goosey motor mounts cause me to have issues down shifting at times, so for my car, sure it will be a "competitive advantage" (of sorts).

The overly soft engine mounts do fine for the street, but present problems when used as we do. In some cases (many) factory mounts have to be replaced yearly, and cost MUCH more than stiffer, better performing poly mounts, that will last longer (cost savings).

Of course, many already run them, and everyone seems to turn a blind eye (a noobs perspective). Just about any SM that double dips in ITA has the upgraded mounts SM allows, and I am pretty sure no one is protesting. I know that isn't a reason to pass the rule, but it is, what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top