Motor Mount Options?

Greg Amy said:
...noting that, "...Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must be supplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numbers listed on that particular model’s specification line."

Both in same paragraph, ITCS 9.1.3.C.
Click to expand...
That's what the rule says, but does anyone else think it's silly?

Let's see -- my car's motor mount is dead. I go to the dealer parts counter and I say, "I need a replacement motor mount for my 1999 BMW Z3". He gives me one which has a newer part number than the dead one (which was original).

Now, I go racing and someone hears that I just replaced my motor mounts and went 2 seconds faster, so I get protested for illegal motor mounts. They pull my motor mounts out of the car and read the part number off the side. They call the local BMW dealer and ask for the part number for a Z3 motor mount, and they get the same number. Pretty sure they are going to rule it legal.

Now, let's go the other way. My competitors misheard me in the paddock. What I really said was, "I'll bet if I replace these old crappy motor mounts with the new ones I just bought, I'll go 2 seconds faster!" So I get protested. They pull out my old, crappy, original motor mounts, and read off the part number. They call the local BMW dealer and ask for the part number for a motor mount. The parts guy reads off the new part number. No match. So the tech guy says, "Okay, then what's a 123456789?" Oh, that's the ORIGINAL part number. It's been superceded." Still legal.

Why do we need line item exceptions? There have been so many superceded parts on all the IT cars that the ITCS would quadruple in size. Not to mention that now, as James pointed out, we can use "stock-equivalent" parts that won't even have BMW part numbers on them.

Does anyone else agree that we should strike the rule Greg quoted?
 
JoshS said:
That's what the rule says, but does anyone else think it's silly?

Let's see -- my car's motor mount is dead. I go to the dealer parts counter and I say, "I need a replacement motor mount for my 1999 BMW Z3". He gives me one which has a newer part number than the dead one (which was original).

Now, I go racing and someone hears that I just replaced my motor mounts and went 2 seconds faster, so I get protested for illegal motor mounts. They pull my motor mounts out of the car and read the part number off the side. They call the local BMW dealer and ask for the part number for a Z3 motor mount, and they get the same number. Pretty sure they are going to rule it legal.

Now, let's go the other way. My competitors misheard me in the paddock. What I really said was, "I'll bet if I replace these old crappy motor mounts with the new ones I just bought, I'll go 2 seconds faster!" So I get protested. They pull out my old, crappy, original motor mounts, and read off the part number. They call the local BMW dealer and ask for the part number for a motor mount. The parts guy reads off the new part number. No match. So the tech guy says, "Okay, then what's a 123456789?" Oh, that's the ORIGINAL part number. It's been superceded." Still legal.

Why do we need line item exceptions? There have been so many superceded parts on all the IT cars that the ITCS would quadruple in size. Not to mention that now, as James pointed out, we can use "stock-equivalent" parts that won't even have BMW part numbers on them.

Does anyone else agree that we should strike the rule Greg quoted?
Click to expand...

Hey Josh!
Your making way too much out of this. Is everyone this hyper in silicone valley?:D Who ever you buy your mounts from, just keep the receipt with the part # on it. I you will get protested for your engine if you go 2 sec's a lap faster, not your engine mounts.;) Try and relax and go have a drink somewhere. Just don't drink and drive.
 
dj10 said:
Hey Josh!
Your making way too much out of this. Is everyone this hyper in silicone valley?:D Who ever you buy your mounts from, just keep the receipt with the part # on it. I you will get protested for your engine if you go 2 sec's a lap faster, not your engine mounts.;) Try and relax and go have a drink somewhere. Just don't drink and drive.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm just an ITAC guy trying to clean up and clarify the rules. I 'm fine. I probably have a bunch of superceded parts on my car already, and I'm sleeping just fine.

It's not even silly season for me ... I had my first race this past weekend (with NASA, not SCCA ...)
 
JoshS said:
Does anyone else agree that we should strike the rule Greg quoted?
Click to expand...
The rule was created many moons ago to cover situations - such as the infamous VDub G-grind cam wars - where a lesser-performing part was superceded by the manufacturer with a better design. One can reasonably argue a performance advantage where a car is classified with one camshaft, yet when the cam goes out of production is superceded to one from another model that provides significantly more airflow.

While I highly doubt someone is going to protest a simple suffix change in a part number (it happens constantly, and changes with things as simple as a supplier change) it would be reasonable to protest a significant change in engine mount design. In that case it's the competitors' responsibility to work through the system to get it line-itemed.

There's no other reasonable way to cover it in the rules. Leave it to the competitors to prove reasonable supercession. Create a minor crack in the rules and we'll drive a truck through the resulting loophole. - GA
 
dj10 said:
Hey Josh!
Your making way too much out of this. Is everyone this hyper in silicone valley?:D Who ever you buy your mounts from, just keep the receipt with the part # on it. I you will get protested for your engine if you go 2 sec's a lap faster, not your engine mounts.;) Try and relax and go have a drink somewhere. Just don't drink and drive.
Click to expand...

Hey Dan,

Yes... Yes we are. Just remember that about 80% of the people in California are from somewhere else:023: I guess you could call me a Carter/Reganomics Okie.

Back to this topic. Were are all the excepted parts, there should litterally be thousands of superceeded part numbers listed. Except looking at the ITCS, there are none listed. Greg, I bet you could litterally find a hundred on your egg alone.

James
 
It should put the onus on the person opting to use a part not explicitly defined as "stock" on the car in question.

The "equivalent part rule" handles "equivalent parts" - if the engine mount in question is "the same" as what was delivered on the car when new, no change to the rules is required to cover that eventuality. If the part is DIFFERENT, then someone might try to rationalize it based on the "supersede" rule - as distinct from the "equivalent part" rule. THAT is when it should reasonably have been necessary for someone to get the clarity that results from a line-item allowance.

NOW, the minimum conditions necessary for the ITAC to approve such a line item variance are not entirely clear. I would think that it would be necessary to demonstrate that the stock/original part is truly NLA from any source, including through "equivalent part" aftermarket. But that's a lot of supposition on my part.

K
 
JoshS said:
Hey, I'm just an ITAC guy trying to clean up and clarify the rules. I 'm fine. I probably have a bunch of superceded parts on my car already, and I'm sleeping just fine.

It's not even silly season for me ... I had my first race this past weekend (with NASA, not SCCA ...)
Click to expand...

To Josh & James,
1st thing, I'm glad to hear you guys aren't going to have a nervous break down. :D I have loaded the BMW parts CD on my laptop. There should be no complaints or questions if you have the data for support.

Did you win the nasa race? What class were you?
 
I did win both NASA races. I was racing in PTC. No one runs in GTS out here, it's totally non-existent.
 
dj10 said:
Hey Josh!
Your making way too much out of this. Is everyone this hyper in silicone valley?:D.
Click to expand...

OK, let's get this straight...Josh might fantasize about the comings and goings in Silicone Valley, but it's hundreds of miles south....he spends his days herding electrons in SiliCON valley.....

Interesting how the two valleys have become so interdependent on each other, LOL.
 
lateapex911 said:
OK, let's get this straight...Josh might fantasize about the comings and goings in Silicone Valley, but it's hundreds of miles south....he spends his days herding electrons in SiliCON valley.....
Click to expand...
Now that there's funny... I don't care WHO you are! :happy204:
 
Knestis said:
NOW, the minimum conditions necessary for the ITAC to approve such a line item variance are not entirely clear. I would think that it would be necessary to demonstrate that the stock/original part is truly NLA from any source, including through "equivalent part" aftermarket. But that's a lot of supposition on my part.

K
Click to expand...

Cannot be done. Simple statistics. I can reject the null hypothesis that the part is unavailable but it doesn't go the other way.
 
jjjanos said:
Actually, having done the analysis, I can say that with a 95% confidence interval that we can reject the hypothesis that economists are damnable. I am unable to reject the hypothesis that we are contemptible.
Click to expand...

You need to go pick up your new car.

***shaking head*****
 
Maybe some pictures of the damage will get me some sympathy:

twisted_racer5.jpg


The bar hanging down on the left connects the shifter to the tail of the transmission. It's completely twisted in two and was jammed into insulation on the drivers side of the tunnel.

twisted_racer6.jpg



twisted_racer7.jpg


I was thinking the through bolts would at least stop the flop with out making the mounting stiffer. I highly suspect that part of the spin had to do with loosing one of the nuts on the right side motor mount, as it's the only mount not torn in half, the nut is no where to be found and the threads on the top stud is buggered like the braket rubbed up and down on it several times.

James
 
I think that rolling the car over had something to do with the extreme damage. There is no evidence that compels me to believe that you'd shear the stock engine mounts with "normal" use.
 
It's a good thing that you said "normal," because there's nothing normal in how we use these cars. All I can say is that in about 12-16 days of hard use I could feel something was going soft :shrug: Did the nut already vibrate off the right mount? I wouldn't know, except I did check it before I went out for the weekend. But I do know that the shifting was getting sloppier, and shifting while cornering was less and less a good idea. I'd say maybe 3-4 weekends is the limit on the mounts. Probably part of the problem is the desert conditions are hard on rubber, plastic, and wood.

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