Howdy,
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, James B Howell wrote:
> One of the issues overlooked in the "Neons should be able to use
> non-stock motor mounts for durability reasons" argument is the fact that
> a more solid motor mount can translate into a performance advantage, and
> if you do not require an OEM part number on the motor mount then it is
> going to be almost impossible to reasonably determine how much of an
> advantage is gained by the motor mount being used.
Then allow spec replacements. Btw, I've run my neon multiple times with a
stiff vs. stock motor mount. I can't tell the difference. I'd challenge
anyone to be able to tell the difference (without intentionally locking
the brakes to wreck the stock mount).
> If you allow just
> Neons to use motor mounts that enhance their performance, then you run
> the risk of upsetting the balance of competition in the class (plus you
> de facto require Nationally competitive Neon pilots to install the most
> competitive motor mounts whether they need to be replaced or not).
Yeah. Neons might start dominating DS & P6! The horror! And if you
think any neon driver would bitch about replacing the mount once vs.
multiple times, you're on crack.
> If you
> don't limit the allowance to just the Neons then you run the risk of
> upsetting all the classes and requiring everyone to spend the extra money
> for more solid aftermarket motor mounts.
Which is exactly why I recommend a specific exclusion list.
> These are not insurmountable issues, but once you take a step back from
> the details, it makes sense to leave drivers to make their own decision
> if they want to buy a car for autocrossing that requires frequent
> replacement of the motor mounts or if they want to buy some other car
> that does not.
Sure, that makes sense. Lets force everyone who's annoyed by this
to either live with it or buy a new car, rather then expend a little
effort to make the sport less costly.
Whatever. Gotta go order another stock mount that'll break in a month or
two.
Mark
|