ITAC News.

[EV]

Originally Posted by lateapex911

I'm going to agree with Travis in principla, but EV and Ron in secific.

IF the members thought adding tubes from the front A pillar downtubes of the cage to the shock/spring/strut towers was a good idea, I'd still be skeptical. I'd want to know, "Do they REALLY understand the Pandoras box they are opening? " The chassis will get stiffer by a huge amount, spring rates can now go up and damper costs will double or triple .....the law of diminishing returns in damper choice will have shifted massively.

But, I really didn't hear ONE significant and legitimate across the board downside to this change. One guy on the iTAC is deadset that you just need a CHAIN to control the engine. (Which, illustrates that he thinks it is OK to control engine movement, so "rules creep" is out the window, even though that's what he fell back on) It IS possible that there are members who are more open minded/more integrated into the actual scene/or just plain sharper than committee members. (I was one, and I KNOW there are brighter members out there than me,).

So I don't for an instance subscribe to the "committee knows best" in all situations.

They certainly didn't in this case.

While I can appreciate your intent, your example poor. It's hard to argue that sort of cage mod would have a little impact on performance and costs.

A better example might be a request for input on washer bottle removal, or allowing race seat installation on the passenger side. Neither would provide any negative impact, nor improvements to performance. No one would be required to go out and get a spare seat to install on their cars, but it would be viewed as "rules creep" by some.

I am sorry, it's ridiculous.

[lateapex911]

The point is, that committees serve the membership, and SOMETIMES that means protecting the members.
Instances like yours are in my eyes, no brainers. They change the core values not a whit, and if I was on a committee that got the kind of input the mount issue gotv(40 for, 1 against? I think I heard), I'd vote with the membership.

Jimmy, I know of some tricky ways that could help, but nothing that would do the same thing as fully tying it all together with a cage. I'd love to see your methods NO idea what I'm looking at in that pic, sorry, LOL) And you're right, different chassis have different torsional rigidities. That's part of the "warts and all" aspect of choosing your ride, I guess.

[seckerich]

Originally Posted by tnord

disagree.

what's worse, an uneducated vote or no vote? the ITAC/CRB should be granted to freedom to do what's best for the category and the club as a whole, not necessarily what the members want.

if your kids got to vote on what they had for dinner, it'd be cookies and ice cream every day.

When the CRB is ELECTED I might agree with you. Until then I have to give the edge to the paying customer that asked for a reasonable request with easily managed downside. I understand it is not a dead issue, but the process to make the decision needs changed. 7 people should not deceide the destiny of all classes. Too much control. Cookies and Ice cream, NO, they asked for a simple glass of water that almost everyone that wrote in requested. Wacked system. CRB and ITAC asked for input, did not agree with their view, denied. Pretty simple. If 40 letters were against they would have touted how they went with member input. Any guess where future input will be directed to be placed??

[Ron Earp]

Originally Posted by tnord

i didn't say member input should be ignored. but you shouldn't have to follow lock-step with their input 100% of the time either.

PS - i AM the target demographic for both SCCA and NASA. moderate income, joined/started racing at the age of 24. turning 30 this year.

Glad to hear that your SCCA region is doing well and fortunate to have many younger members like yourself. Most regions are not that well off. I was one of the "young" guys in the NC region SCCA when I started racing at 37. I'd probably peg the average age of racers in the NCR SCCA somewhere in the mid-40s or slightly higher.

An SCCA that does what it pleases and ignores member input is going to run people off to NASA. I don't race NASA, but I have been to NASA events/races. The differences in attitudes are in stark contrast to the SCCA. Naturally, there are advantages and disadvantages to NASA, but one huge advantage with NASA is that they seemed to be focused on one thing - getting racers out on track; not telling racers "this is how we've done things and we're going to continue to do them in this fashion".

[JeffYoung]

This is the critical issue for me. When is a request asking for a "glass of water" or when it is cookies and ice cream?

To me, it is the difference between asking for a change to a "core IT value" versus something that is not. I understand there will be some gray area, but my guess is most of would agree on which is which.

Examples:

Core IT values

1. stock cam and pistons, and compression (except for .5 bump)
2. stock heads
3. stock brakes except for pads and ducting
4. stock suspension pickup points and "type" (coil over, a-arm, etc.) suspension
5. stock body panels
6. glass windows
7. stock trany ratios

Non-core IT values

1. WASHER BOTTLES
2. REar end ratios
3. shocks/struts
4. interior removal
5. splitters and air dams
6. bushings

If membership wanted to change a core IT value, it is our duty to say no. For non-core, it is our duty to listen and if at all possible respect membership input.

There are others, and some are gray areas. I'd allow replacement of the wiring harness, but that is certianly "me" driven since on older cars it gets harder and harder to keep the old crap working. But I realize that is a gray area.

Engine mounts? To me, that is a bushing. Members want to replace them with different materials? Have at it.

[tnord]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

This is the critical issue for me. When is a request asking for a "glass of water" or when it is cookies and ice cream?

To me, it is the difference between asking for a change to a "core IT value" versus something that is not. I understand there will be some gray area, but my guess is most of would agree on which is which.

Examples:

Core IT values

1. stock cam and pistons, and compression (except for .5 bump)
2. stock heads
3. stock brakes except for pads and ducting
4. stock suspension pickup points and "type" (coil over, a-arm, etc.) suspension
5. stock body panels
6. glass windows
7. stock trany ratios

Non-core IT values

1. WASHER BOTTLES
2. REar end ratios
3. shocks/struts
4. interior removal
5. splitters and air dams
6. bushings

If membership wanted to change a core IT value, it is our duty to say no. For non-core, it is our duty to listen and if at all possible respect membership input.

There are others, and some are gray areas. I'd allow replacement of the wiring harness, but that is certianly "me" driven since on older cars it gets harder and harder to keep the old crap working. But I realize that is a gray area.

Engine mounts? To me, that is a bushing. Members want to replace them with different materials? Have at it.

i mostly agree jeff, but to me the engine mount rule gave another handout to FWD cars. not to mention that many would disagree with the bushing rule as it is anyway, so using that to justify the engine mount rule change sounds a lot like creep/falling further down the rabbit hole.

just so nobody gets all huffy about this whole deal, i would support engine mounts if the same thing applied to trans and diff mounts in RWD cars.

[Chip42]

Originally Posted by tnord

just so nobody gets all huffy about this whole deal, i would support engine mounts if the same thing applied to trans and diff mounts in RWD cars.

by Jeff's rationale of mounts being bushings, all driveline mounts would fall under the rule. anyone who suggests otherwise is trying to bend the rules to their gain. because of the availability of aftermarket mounts, easily machined materials to fill factory mount metal, and simple gap filling of factory rubber pieces with 3M window weld or the like, the idea of stock only bushings is absurdly conservative. just write the damned rule to forbid engine position changes and be done with it. how can so many of the membership see this clearly and so many on the inside not??

[JeffYoung]

Travis, I agree with you on just allowing substitute engine mounts helping FWD cars more than RWD, which have driveline components the length of the car. However, I've always thought there was a creative, and legal, argument for changing diff and tranny mounts.

Here is the GCR definiton of subframe:


Sub-frame/Cross Member –

A component attached to the frame or structure

of a car in order to augment its strength while at the same time
serving as a platform for mounting suspension and drive train components.

And then here is the ITCS on bushings:

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension
subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted. This includes
the use of spherical bearings, so long as no suspension
component is modified to facilitate their installation. Retention
of spherical bearings by use of tack welds is allowed,

as long as the welds serve no other purpose.

On the TR8, the tranny bushing is held to the tranny, and then the body by a 10" or so long bar of metal that certainly seems to qualify as a "subframe" under the definition. I think that bushing is already free then under the rules.

For the diff, well, it's a live rear, so it is a suspension component and bushings are free.

On the 260z, the diff is held in place by some crazy bars and such (the "mustache" bar) that look like subframes under the rule to me, meaning the bushings are free.

So, basically, so long as the tranny/diff is being held in place by a separate piece of metal of some sort, I think you have a subframe and the bushings are free. Only those cars in whihc the tranny or diff bolts directly to the chassis would there be an issue.

[tnord]

i have a hard time with that one. i've heard that arguement before from baader (who does some other stuff i don't agree with as well). on the miata, in order to drop the pumpkin and swap FDs the bushings come out with it and to me that's a pretty big leap to using the whole subframe justification.

[JeffYoung]

Read my last sentence. If the bushings are in the pumpkin, yeah, I think the argument doesn't work.

If you have a big metal bar of some sort holding the tranny or diff to the car? I think the bushings that attach to the bar are free and I think that argument is pretty air tight.

That said, I didn't realize (despite owning 2 SMs) that there are more than a few cars out there with bushings "in" the pumpkin (and perhaps the tranny then too I guess).

Either way, I'm in favor of all driveline bushings being free, not just engine mounts.

[spawpoet]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Travis, I agree with you on just allowing substitute engine mounts helping FWD cars more than RWD, which have driveline components the length of the car. However, I've always thought there was a creative, and legal, argument for changing diff and tranny mounts.

Here is the GCR definiton of subframe:


Sub-frame/Cross Member –

A component attached to the frame or structure

of a car in order to augment its strength while at the same time
serving as a platform for mounting suspension and drive train components.

And then here is the ITCS on bushings:

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension
subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted. This includes
the use of spherical bearings, so long as no suspension
component is modified to facilitate their installation. Retention
of spherical bearings by use of tack welds is allowed,

as long as the welds serve no other purpose.

On the TR8, the tranny bushing is held to the tranny, and then the body by a 10" or so long bar of metal that certainly seems to qualify as a "subframe" under the definition. I think that bushing is already free then under the rules.

For the diff, well, it's a live rear, so it is a suspension component and bushings are free.

On the 260z, the diff is held in place by some crazy bars and such (the "mustache" bar) that look like subframes under the rule to me, meaning the bushings are free.

So, basically, so long as the tranny/diff is being held in place by a separate piece of metal of some sort, I think you have a subframe and the bushings are free. Only those cars in whihc the tranny or diff bolts directly to the chassis would there be an issue.

Then why wouldn't engine mounts also be considered suspension mounts?? At least on a Datsun the engine mounts to a subframe just like you described for the diff. The difference is that the GCR only opens up bushing material on suspension subframes, and not drivetrain subframes. Because of this the diff mounts bushing are NOT free (I wish they were). Diff mount bushings are attached to a drivetrain subframe, and the GCR only opens up bushings on suspension subframes.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, I would disagree. Here is the GCR definition of "subframe"

Sub-frame/Cross Member –

A component attached to the frame or structure

of a car in order to augment its strength while at the same time

serving as a platform for mounting suspension and drive train components.

Diff is a sdrivetrain component...I think the Z cars are good to go on the diff mounts actually.

HOnestly, for cars with engine subframes with the engine mounts attached as bushings, hell, we may be "free" already.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Chris, I would disagree. Here is the GCR definition of "subframe"

Sub-frame/Cross Member –

A component attached to the frame or structure

of a car in order to augment its strength while at the same time

serving as a platform for mounting suspension and drive train components.

Diff is a sdrivetrain component...I think the Z cars are good to go on the diff mounts actually.

HOnestly, for cars with engine subframes with the engine mounts attached as bushings, hell, we may be "free" already.

In my case, and all BMW's for that matter, the front subframe mounts the inner ball joint on the suspension arm as well as the motor mounts, so I suspose this could be considered a suspension sub-frame, but the transmission subframe only mounts the transmission. If the rules are changed, it should specifically only allow the oe mounts be replaced with mounts of any material that keeps the motor in the same position as came from the factory.

[spawpoet]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Chris, I would disagree. Here is the GCR definition of "subframe"

Sub-frame/Cross Member –

A component attached to the frame or structure

of a car in order to augment its strength while at the same time

serving as a platform for mounting suspension and drive train components.

First time I incorrectly read that as "suspension or drivetrain" seeing a differentiation between suspension subframes and drivetrain subframes. R.I.F. My bad. I prefer my crow poached. As such what your are saying below may be correct under IIDSYCYC.

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

HOnestly, for cars with engine subframes with the engine mounts attached as bushings, hell, we may be "free" already.

If the engine is mounting to the front subframe, any bushings are free, but would most motor mounts meet the GCR definition of a bushing? The definition being: A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing. Our (Datsun) motor mounts aren't tubular, so I don't believe they meet the def. of a bushing, though they are protective liners that cushion noise, friction, and movement. IMHO though any engine mount that secures the engine to the subframe, AND meets the definition of a bushing should already be free.

[chuck baader]

Under the definition of bushing: "Bushing/Bush – A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise,friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing."

None of the BMW motor/trans mounts on my car fall under the "bushing" definition because they are not " A sleeve or tubular insert,". However, most FWD motor/trans mounts are of this type and would be legal under this interpretation.Maybe I should build a FWD car so I can run spherical bearing motor mounts Chuck.

Oh yea, Travis...just because I mention something does not mean I do it.

[tnord]

i was thinking of the diff, not motor or trans.

[chuck baader]

The BMW rear subframe is attached to the chassis at three points. One on each side and one on the diff. Since the diff is attached to the subframe, the diff bushing (which is what BMW calls it) locates the subframe...ergo, bushings are free. Chuck

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally Posted by chuck baader

The BMW rear subframe is attached to the chassis at three points. One on each side and one on the diff. Since the diff is attached to the subframe, the diff bushing (which is what BMW calls it) locates the subframe...ergo, bushings are free. Chuck

Also, all three of these fit the definition of a bushing... cylindrical with a hole in the middle.

[JoshS]

They don't need to though, since they are subframe bushings, which are already legal. On these cars, the diff is a stressed member of the subframe assembly, not merely hanging from the subframe assembly.

Of course on a Z3, you'd be foolish to use a very stiff subframe bushing at the diff, since that's the best way to tear your trunk floor to pieces, and you can't fix it the right way in IT since you can't add metal.

[Z3_GoCar]

I think mine's the solid rubber unit from the e-30 325i as it's not the shaped rubber like on my 1.9 Z3. In my last race, I was having issues with shifting. It's almost like the rubber's already broken down( after 1 1/2 test and tune days, 100hrs at a track day, and 2 double regionals.) I really wish I didn't have to re-install new oe mounts.