One...more....time...

I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?
 
Last edited:
Lael Cleland said:
P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks for reminding me, Porsche inverted their gearbox to lower the racecar and improve halfshaft angles........Evil Grin
 
jimbbski said:
I wrote that just to see what reaction I would get. I do have two mounts so modified but they are not installed. If the rule being dicussed here is changed to make these legal then I will.
The allowance, if it happend, to legally install non OEM style motor mounts using non OEM materials it stand to reason that adding non OEM materials to OEM type mounts can be too. Or am I out in right field here?
Click to expand...

Then you're less a cheater than you are a smarty-pants. :happy204:

K
 
Lael Cleland said:
I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?
Click to expand...

So since:

9. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by​

similar items performing the same fastening function(s).

I can take a hole saw to my current mounts and insert my new similar hardware items in the middle that performs the same fastening function:happy204:

As for making racing more economical, preventing money shifts every third race thus making new valves and bearings neccessary. Then there's the safety aspect of avoiding the oil slick when my pan breaks on the crossmember.
 
Last edited:
I didn't increase the diameter of the hardware, just the length and went to 12.9 grade.... Unless you disassemble the mount, I looks stock..... And yes I did use a 3/4 in hole saw..... 30 degree 12mm & 8mm flush head counter sunk type bolt(the real name eludes me).. It may be too stiff, The shear loads there are huge.... I have broken blocks, bolts, Heim joints, you name it, trying stay bars....

Now if i went back to a stock type clutch disk with springs, ditch my 5 year old 4 puck, I may not brake mounts and things but I would be replacing the clutch twice a year...
Its yin and yang.....
 
So first of all I must say that it wouldn't matter to me which way the rule went.

My first thought is that I believe it fits the philosophy and purpose of the class. I do get a ton of movement with my engine and this is a cheap bolt on part that increases the reliability of my racecar. since it is FWD the only things that can really break are the exhaust and shift linkage. Exhaust now has a flex section at the start of it and luckily the linkage has enough play that it doesn't break until a motor mount actually breaks. Even then the engine usually just shifts and it gets stuck in a gear. I just dismiss it as a maintenance part and "that's racing" But if the rule did change I would clearly have an advantage in relation to reliability. So naturally I am in favor for selfish reasons :)

Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen
 
StephenB said:
Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen
Click to expand...

Read my summation again. The ITAC already voted in favor of the rules change, pending member support.
THEN, three months later, when OVERWHELMING member support showed a landslide in favor, the new ITAC inexplicably decided to re-vote, and this time, the vote was tied. The CRB decided a tie vote, in spite of the overwhelming member support, was not a positive vote, so they left the rule 'as is'.

To me, that is a disservice to the membership, who clearly made their desires known. It's my opinion that when the ITAC took it's second vote THAT was in error...they had already voted in favor pending the members response. I suspect a vocal member of the ITAC convinced the new guys (on their first or second call, I think) to vote his way.

To me, the whole thing is a travesty, it is a new calender year, and the issue needs to be reexamined, looking at it critically.

Essentially, I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership.
 
"I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership."
Click to expand...

Maybe we should appeal the decision rather than request the rule change again. I am honestly not sure how or if an appeal process exists but it should since it is a board that represents its members that overwhelmingly disagrees with their decision. After reading your request again I think your heading in the correct direction and asking them to discuss the decision again, I am just not sure if its going to work.

Stephen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm all for aftermarket mounts.

I sent a request for battery relocation...yours is much better written, you all don't bash me too hard. I just don't want to swap my battery to the front. LOL
 
Simon T. said:
I sent a request for battery relocation...yours is much better written, you all don't bash me too hard. I just don't want to swap my battery to the front. LOL
Click to expand...
I'm going to bash you. You'll have to determine whether it's too hard. :D

By writing the letter, you must have had one of two mindsets: either "screw y'all, I want this for me", or "I think this is best for the category".

If the former, shame on you. If the latter, then you have to think about the implications. Is there a performance advantage to moving 30 lbs from the left front to the right rear? Clearly yes for many cars. So if my arch-rival moves his battery I have to move mine or I'm screwed. Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.
 
It would be nice if we could move out of the 90's and at least allow AGM batteries in the stock location. Set a minimum weight to keep out the ultra expensive carbon jobs and they are no more expensive than a stock replacement in most cases. Would it help some cars to loose 10 pounds off the front--sure, but we do not use battery location in classing anyway.
 
Steve, why can't I use a different type of battery. I don't see anything in the rules that dis-allows it: What am I missing?

GCR:
9.3.9. BATTERIES
Battery location is unrestricted within the bodywork (except Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, Touring, and Improved Touring). If located in the
driver/passenger compartment, vented wet cell batteries shall be in a
nonconductive marine type container or equivalent. The hot terminal
shall be insulated on all cars. All batteries (on-board power supplies)
shall be attached securely to the frame or chassis structure independent​

of the marine type container.

IT Rules
9.1.3e
Batteries may be replaced with those of
alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour​

capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location.



 
I think the rule USED to say "Type" and maybe "group". Now it says 'similar", which is VERY open to interpretation.
Regardless, when I next do a race car battery, I'm going gel cel.
 
I have a Deka AGM battery, stock size, stock mounts, in the stock location. Didn't know think such a thing was illegal?
 
Eagle7 said:
I'm going to bash you. You'll have to determine whether it's too hard. :D

By writing the letter, you must have had one of two mindsets: either "screw y'all, I want this for me", or "I think this is best for the category".

If the former, shame on you. If the latter, then you have to think about the implications. Is there a performance advantage to moving 30 lbs from the left front to the right rear? Clearly yes for many cars. So if my arch-rival moves his battery I have to move mine or I'm screwed. Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

It's not just for me, my car won't be fast enough to even worry about the battery being in an illegal location. However many other series cars easily fit IT rules but have small things, one the battery relocated, which steers them away, sounds stupid but I've spoke to many who mention just that, the other little things can easily be swapped back and forth.

I mentioned that the batteries have to be mounted on the left side of the car (someone can easily swap sides if it was already on the right) and weight has to be added to that cars minimum competition weight. So really there wouldn't be any performance gains but there could be more cars on the grid.

It's my first time at this, so don't go TOO hard on me. :shrug:



;)
 
"Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location."

Are gel-cel or AGM batteries a "similar" weight as originally placed in the car? lol, I think we have a thread elsewhere just on batteries regarding "similar" agruements. I would keep it simple and hopefully less hassle for tech, keep the battery in stock location and let it be replaced with any size, amp-hour capacity, weight etc. A variation would state a 8 lbs minimum or whatever is commonly available yet light. IT should be cheap, simply, safe AND most importantly FUN.
 
mossaidis said:
Are gel-cel or AGM batteries a "similar" weight as originally placed in the car? lol ...
Click to expand...

Mine is. It's exactly the same size and 1 lb *heavier* than the original equipment battery that came out. You must all be thinking of those micro-batteries that are certainly not anywhere close to the same size. I replaced a Group 48 lead-acid wet-cell with a Group 48 AGM, and reused the stock mounting. Why would that be illegal?
 
Eagle7 said:
Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

You could always learn to drive a little better. :D
I would think that moving 30lb in the car will make a smaller difference in overall lap times than a driver improvement would make..


...just sayin... :)
 
JoshS said:
Mine is. It's exactly the same size and 1 lb *heavier* than the original equipment battery that came out. You must all be thinking of those micro-batteries that are certainly not anywhere close to the same size. I replaced a Group 48 lead-acid wet-cell with a Group 48 AGM, and reused the stock mounting. Why would that be illegal?
Click to expand...

Does not sound illegal to me (nor was I suggesting it was.) Read through the battery thread we have posted somewhere on it.com, perhaps i can find it myself and forward it to you. There was much speculation about what are the weights of original batteries. it's usually not listed in their handbooks and by the time we get our IT cars prepped, the original was been replaced 3 times over - so how can I prove that the current battery is same weight as the original? It's very hard to protest and/or defend against.
 
mossaidis said:
Does not sound illegal to me (nor was I suggesting it was.) Read through the battery thread we have posted somewhere on it.com, perhaps i can find it myself and forward it to you. There was much speculation about what are the weights of original batteries. it's usually not listed in their handbooks and by the time we get our IT cars prepped, the original was been replaced 3 times over - so how can I prove that the current battery is same weight as the original? It's very hard to protest and/or defend against.
Click to expand...

Go to NAPA etc. Take bathroom scale. Get battery book, look up car. Read listing showing stock group. Get the guy to bring stock group to the counter and weigh it. Soup.
if the car came with options (different groups) weight those. Choose lightest. Soup...and crackers.

Now find a AGM version (plenty to choose from) that is the same weight and get that. Soup and crackers, but served by a hot waitress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top