Where would this engine motion damper fall in our rules?

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:40 am

http://www.ingallseng.com/parts/93023.htm

Basically, I'd like to fit one to my car to reduce powertrain thrashing. Cruising at light throttle can be quite irritating. I already have polyurethane engine mount inserts, but I'm not sure where these items fit in in the scheme of COM. Basically I don't want to bump myself from ST to SP or SM. Thanks!

Stynger · Post by **Stynger** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:19 am

"D. Any Motor Mounts, Shifter Bushings, and Suspension Bushings
maybe used. Bobble Struts used to damp motor movement are free."

Shouldn't be a problem for ST.

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:43 am

Oh, so this is a bobble strut? Thanks.

therooster · Post by **therooster** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:02 pm

This is an add on part correct? If it is then, I think that there is no allowance for it within the ST rules structure. The "Bobble Struts" allowance is for the replacement of an OEM part as far as I know. Further this part looks very much like a shock, not what you typically see as a bobble strut in cars.

I think it this type of mod was envisioned it would allow for the addition of a strut to limit engine movement. Bane of Tires I think you may have already thought this based on your response.("Oh, so this is a bobble strut? Thanks. ")

Again just my opinion.

Chris A.

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:11 am

therooster wrote:I think it this type of mod was envisioned it would allow for the addition of a strut to limit engine movement. Bane of Tires I think you may have already thought this based on your response.("Oh, so this is a bobble strut? Thanks. ")

I'm a bit confused. What are you trying to say here? OK, it's not a "bobble strut". So does that make it illegal for ST?

Grippy · Post by **Grippy** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:14 pm

I think Cris is incorrect here.
"Bobble Struts used to damp motor movement are free" seems pretty clear to me. I have never heard of a bobble strut but the device you showed looks like an engine movement damper to me so it is free.

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:10 pm

Well, worse comes to worst I can always remove it for track days. I notice engine movement a lot more on the street anyway.

therooster · Post by **therooster** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:43 pm

I do not think that this mod would be ST legal.

If you look at older front wheel drive cars, especially domestics from the late 1980's they had a OEM device that went form the motor to the frame (either firwall or radiator support) to control the torque movement of the engine. Another name for these devices was "dogbones". Like any other OEM part such as motor mounts they are free. I do not see, nor do I read into this rule, an allowance to ADD a torque limiting device to the motor. Remember ST is a restricted class, if it does not say you can then you can not. If it does not say you can ADD a whatever you want to add then you can not. If this case, it does not say you can add a booble strut. It say they are free, which I read in the context of the rule as meaning you can replace whatever it there with a similar design or modify what is there.

Stynger · Post by **Stynger** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:22 pm

Bane of Tires wrote:Well, worse comes to worst I can always remove it for track days. I notice engine movement a lot more on the street anyway.

Basically, you would only need to remove it for the time trial.....three laps.

HerbD · Post by **HerbD** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:46 pm

Starting in 1985, all front-wheel-drive Mopar models, except the Charger
and Omni (which used the dogbone-style mount that you cited),
used a "shock" style rear bobble strut. This has continued
through all the Neon models, and if you look at the back of the Neon
motor, the bobble strut looks exactly like the one pictured for that
Acura, except that it is black.

I would say that this mod is legal in ST.

therooster wrote:I do not think that this mod would be ST legal.

If you look at older front wheel drive cars, especially domestics from the late 1980's they had a OEM device that went form the motor to the frame (either firwall or radiator support) to control the torque movement of the engine. Another name for these devices was "dogbones". Like any other OEM part such as motor mounts they are free. I do not see, nor do I read into this rule, an allowance to ADD a torque limiting device to the motor. Remember ST is a restricted class, if it does not say you can then you can not. If it does not say you can ADD a whatever you want to add then you can not. If this case, it does not say you can add a booble strut. It say they are free, which I read in the context of the rule as meaning you can replace whatever it there with a similar design or modify what is there.

therooster · Post by **therooster** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:09 pm

Herb, I would not disagree that on a car with this type of strut OEM that you could modify or use this in place of. As far as I know Honda/Acura does not use this type of of system to limit torque, they build it into the motor mounting sytem. The original question was could he ADD this to a car with no existing torque limiting device. I do not think the rule allow the addition of such a part.

Chris

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:34 pm

Much as I hate to admit it, my car does not have a strut like this from the factory. No, Honda cheaped out and just used wimpy rubber bushings in the motor mounts. You know, so they can wear out in five years and allow your powertrain to thrash like crazy (and break your axles).

Crusin · Post by **Crusin** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:50 pm

Bane of Tires wrote: No, Honda cheaped out and just used wimpy rubber bushings in the motor mounts. You know, so they can wear out in five years and allow your powertrain to thrash like crazy (and break your axles).

Cheaped out? Five Years? Mopar owners should br so lucky. The front mount in my wifes STS class Neon ACR was replaced every year. The bobble strut did little under hard abuse.

HerbD · Post by **HerbD** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:16 pm

Bane of Tires wrote:Much as I hate to admit it, my car does not have a strut like this from the factory. No, Honda cheaped out and just used wimpy rubber bushings in the motor mounts. You know, so they can wear out in five years and allow your powertrain to thrash like crazy (and break your axles).

Oh, so there was NO motor mount where this bobble strut was going
to go? That's a different story. I thought you were replacing a dog
bone with a bobble strut, which I still think would be OK in ST. If
this is a completely new assembly where there wasn't a motor mount
before, then I don't think that fits the spirit of the rule.

Bane of Tires · Post by **Bane of Tires** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:55 pm

Crusin wrote:Cheaped out? Five Years? Mopar owners should br so lucky. The front mount in my wifes STS class Neon ACR was replaced every year. The bobble strut did little under hard abuse.

Five years was a guess. Still, it sounds as if I'm better off than Mopar owners...

HerbD wrote:Oh, so there was NO motor mount where this bobble strut was going to go? That's a different story. I thought you were replacing a dog bone with a bobble strut, which I still think would be OK in ST. If
this is a completely new assembly where there wasn't a motor mount
before, then I don't think that fits the spirit of the rule.

Oh, OK. I may not have to bother since I just discovered my idle speed was about 300 RPM too low. That might account for the hesitating and jerking at light throttle.

EDIT: also rough clutch engagement

COM Sports Car Club

Where would this engine motion damper fall in our rules?

Where would this engine motion damper fall in our rules?

Who is online