Updated Radius Rod Bushings [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Tom Blaney

02-14-2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by racer-025:
It looks good. How is the outer machined nut tightened on the radius rod shaft?

There is a second sleeve that is used to position the rod end that is the exact length of the first sleeve less the ball size. This sleeve is not seen in the picture but will be when they are back from the plate shop this week.

This second sleeve will be cut in 1/2 & 2 1/4's to allow for bulk repositioning of the rod end, then the threads and the front nut lock the position. The sleeve is internally threaded so that it can rotate for fine adjustment without taking it apart. Once the adjustment is made the original nut that hold the unit in place will lock the assembly down.

The unit will fit both Honda and Acura that use the 12 mm Radius Rod. If you have purchased the original unit in the past please let me know and I will apply a good customer discount.

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited February 15, 2005).]

Tom Blaney

02-26-2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by racer-025:
It looks good. How is the outer machined nut tightened on the radius rod shaft?

I finally got the parts back from the plating shop, and have posted them to my site. Here is a link to a detailed view of the assembly. I added flats on the front end of the center shaft to allow adjustment from the front of the car.

http://www.sbmsinc.com/photos/radius_0.JPG
http://www.sbmsinc.com/photos/radius_1.JPG
http://www.sbmsinc.com/photos/radius_2.JPG

Your comments are welcome

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited February 26, 2005).]

Banzai240

02-26-2005, 11:44 AM

Just have one question...

It appears that these are mounted by drilling 4 holes in the chassis mounting location for the bolts that sandwhich the units together...

Is this legal??? "Bushings" are free... but chassis mods are not... so, if this is indeed how they mount, how are you justifying the chassis mods required??

I'm assuming that the suspensions in question use a tension/radius rod similiar to the ones shown in this picture:

http://www.suspension.com/hondafront.jpg

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 26, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 26, 2005).]

Tom Blaney

02-26-2005, 06:53 PM

It passed the ARRC tech each year for the last few, so I think it is safe to assume that it will pass your tech.

Banzai240

02-28-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
It passed the ARRC tech each year for the last few, so I think it is safe to assume that it will pass your tech.

Passing "tech" does not make them legal... unless they were specifically addressed and torn down for inspection... which I'm assuming they were not...

You avoided the question... DO you have to drill holes in the chassis to mount them???

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 28, 2005).]

Tom Blaney

02-28-2005, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Passing "tech" does not make them legal... unless they were specifically addressed and torn down for inspection... which I'm assuming they were not...

You avoided the question... DO you have to drill holes in the chassis to mount them???

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 28, 2005).]

I am not avoiding questions, and yes they do require that 4 holes be drilled where the mount is made.

But very frankly this should not be an issue regarding the legality of the item. If this becomes a pissing contest as to how the rules are "interpreted" versus what makes strict logic and application sense than I am not interested.

Do we then also get into a situation where in the rules you may replace the passanger door panel with sheet metal, but because the rule does not specifically say that you can drill 6 holes 8.35" apart where you can use screws to attach the panel then we assume that it has to be magnetic or velcro'd.

The rule states that the bushing is legal, the actual mounting method is also assumed to be part of the process. If there is a performace gain because I drilled holes to lighen the chassis, it was lost because I had to put bolts into the holes to securly attach the approved device safely.

Banzai240

02-28-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
I am not avoiding questions, and yes they do require that 4 holes be drilled where the mount is made.

But very frankly this should not be an issue regarding the legality of the item.

...

The rule states that the bushing is legal, the actual mounting method is also assumed to be part of the process. If there is a performace gain because I drilled holes to lighen the chassis, it was lost because I had to put bolts into the holes to securly attach the approved device safely.

Tom,

No pissing contest here... The issue IS the mounting method, and whether or not it's "assumed to be part of the process"...

The rule states that bushing MATERIALS are unrestricted, but another rule says that mods, other than those specifically allowed, are not authorized... this would include drilling holes in the chassis for an alternate bushing design... which, frankly, is illegal as well...

The rule for bushings specifies that the "material" is "unrestricted"... it says NOTHING of a mounting method being assumed, nor of an alternate design being allowed, just that the "material" is unrestricted...

ITCS 17.1.4.D.5.d.6

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.

I still fail to see how these bushings are legal, per the ITCS... I would LOVE for them to be, because it would allow the rest of us a much simpler and less costly method of upgrading our suspensions... However, these are bushings of an "alternate design", and it seems a stretch to justify them, per the rules, as simply being "unrestricted bushing material"... especially considering that the chassis must be modified to install them...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 28, 2005).]

Tom Blaney

02-28-2005, 02:19 PM

Ok than answer this question, it says that alternate material can be used for the passanger door panel, since the original door panel was not held on with screws, and the replacement door panel is a flat sheet of the same thickness as the body panels, than how is it suppose to be attached?

It all comes down to common sense if we are going to nit pick the entire process down to how the parts are fastened, and effectivly waste everybody's time in tech studying the un-important concept of nut versus bolt, then the SOB who uses illegal pistons in a Honda can run most of the season as a cheating jerk while you and I determine if we should re-study the concept of is it legal to drill a hole or not.

THIS IS ONE OF THE DEFINING PROBLEMS WITH THE RULES PROCESS. It does not matter if it is a nut or a bolt, but it does matter that people are running illegal cams and pistons.

Banzai240

02-28-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
Ok than answer this question, it says that alternate material can be used for the passanger door panel, since the original door panel was not held on with screws, and the replacement door panel is a flat sheet of the same thickness as the body panels, than how is it suppose to be attached?

First, I don't see what door panels have to do with suspensions, but here is my answer to the question:

ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.f

"Door interior trim panels MAY BE REPLACED with 0.060" aluminum SECURELY ATTACHED TO THE DOOR."

The method is expressly left up to you... it essentially "says you can" use any method you wish... to "securely attach" the panel to the door... Screws, welding, pop-rivets, etc... I read it all as OK... so long as the panel is secure...

I see NO correlation between this, and a suspension rule which simply states that "bushing material" is "unrestricted"...

It all comes down to common sense if we are going to nit pick the entire process down to how the parts are fastened, and effectivly waste everybody's time in tech studying the un-important concept of nut versus bolt, then the SOB who uses illegal pistons in a Honda can run most of the season as a cheating jerk while you and I determine if we should re-study the concept of is it legal to drill a hole or not.

Just common sense... really???... OK, well then someone is going to have to make me a list of those rules which we can ignore simply because common sense says we should, because to me, if you have a handling advantage because you've broken a rule, I consider that every bit as much of an infraction as one who might use illegal pistons...

This is only my opinion, but to this point, I still see no justification in the rules that allows the kind of MODIFICATION to the suspension design... It does more than simply replace the bushing material... It's a competitive advantage obtained by illegally modifying the chassis, as well as an alternate bushing design that alters the basic design of the as delivered vehicle... A very far cry from simply replacing the material...

But, that's just my opinion, and you certainly don't have to justify what you do to me...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

SETUP

03-02-2005, 04:15 PM

it has been my opinion that these parts are illegal as well due to the drilling of the subframe. It is too bad as they are very effective in their intended use and a well made unit. I can only hope that further ingenuity will be applied at making them with a legal form of attachment. Just because a lot of Hondas with radius rods use them and have pasted tech at the ARC doesn't make them legal. Many a car has passed tech in the shed at the ARC but were still obviously illegal according to the rules. I remember seeing pictures of Bob Stretchs 240 sx up on jack stands in the tech shed , and visible plain as day were fully threaded AD aluminum shocks. Performance advantage..questionable, illegal at that time...You bet it was.

Greg Amy

03-02-2005, 04:59 PM

Swish on this one: bushing material is free, but where does it allow changes to the bushing dimensions?

Tom Blaney

03-02-2005, 05:39 PM

I disagree with your analysis of the legality of the product, and being that the item itself is free and the basic design is in align with the intent of the rules. The fact that the radius rod is not modified, and the suspension mount point is not relocated makes this a legal part in my mind.

So at this point I am going to agree that we disagree and until somebody with absolute authority can state catagorically that the design is illegal, I will continue to use the product.

metalworker

03-02-2005, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by SETUP:
it has been my opinion that these parts are illegal as well due to the drilling of the subframe. It is too bad as they are very effective in their intended use and a well made unit. I can only hope that further ingenuity will be applied at making them with a legal form of attachment. Just because a lot of Hondas with radius rods use them and have pasted tech at the ARC doesn't make them legal. Many a car has passed tech in the shed at the ARC but were still obviously illegal according to the rules. I remember seeing pictures of Bob Stretchs 240 sx up on jack stands in the tech shed , and visible plain as day were fully threaded AD aluminum shocks. Performance advantage..questionable, illegal at that time...You bet it was.

Sorry, threaded body shocks were never illegal. However, using the threads on the shock body for ride height adjustment was illegal. As long as you permanently locked some sort of perch to the body of the shock and then slid a coil-over sleeve over the body, it was perfectly legal.

SETUP

03-02-2005, 07:44 PM

The pickup point is actually relocated as this part changes the center of pivot of the radius rod. The sphereical bering is not located in the center of the hole in the subframe as is the stock bushing. Rather it sits to one side of the center changing the geometry of the radius rod, esentially changing the pickup point. Is this legal? Don't get me wrong. the Item is very well made and thought out... however it is not legal. Address the attachment and geometry issues. This kit is by far the best one on the market I only wish it were legal for IT. I have tested cars with similar kits and ones without. The ones with, perform noticebly better, and do have a performance advantage.

SETUP

03-02-2005, 07:50 PM

The picture I refer to was of an Advanced Design fully threaded aluminum body rear shock. not a threaded sleeve which at the time was legal. Please correct me if what I saw in the pic was indeed a sleeve and not as I stated.

metalworker

03-02-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by SETUP:
The picture I refer to was of an Advanced Design fully threaded aluminum body rear shock. not a threaded sleeve which at the time was legal. Please correct me if what I saw in the pic was indeed a sleeve and not as I stated.

Threaded body shocks have always been legal, but using the threads on the body for adjustment has not. So the car that you saw, just because it had threaded body shocks on it, doesn't make it illegal.

Banzai240

03-02-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
...and being that the item itself is free and the basic design is in align with the intent of the rules.

Again, I'll put it directly to you... WHERE is the rule in the ITCS that backs your case?

I've specifically quoted to you the rules that prove my point... You are modifying the chassis in order to install these, and you have gone WAY beyond using an "unrestricted material"... Unless you can quote me the specific rules that allow these parts, you can disagree all you want, you'll just remain wrong...

You show us a rule that proves me wrong, and I'll be happy to give you a full and humble appology...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240

03-02-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by metalworker:
Threaded body shocks have always been legal, but using the threads on the body for adjustment has not. So the car that you saw, just because it had threaded body shocks on it, doesn't make it illegal.

Guys... This is kind of off the topic, and it's irrelevent now anyhow... Coilovers are legal as of 2005... Bolt-on and enjoy...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Tom Blaney

03-02-2005, 09:13 PM

This is why I have stopped commenting on this site, it becomes nothing more than a pissing contest.

As far as the geometry goes, the stock rubber donuts are capable of flexing far beyond the range of the center line of the radius bushing.

As I stated before NOBODY here is the final word on this item, not me, and not Darian, so unless there is an official statement from SCCA stating that these are illegal, nobody here can make the statement that they are. And should such a statement be made, I will alter the design to accomidate the existing hole for a substantially higher cost, and everybody loses.

The club loses because now backyard innovation becomes frowned upon, and ITA becomes SPEC HONDA with all parts purchased from Enterprises. The drivers lose because they have to pay more for the same item, and you lose because the part will still exits and the individual who owns (or builds his own) will have an advantage over you.

Banzai240

03-02-2005, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As I stated before NOBODY here is the final word on this item, not me, and not Darian, so unless there is an official statement from SCCA stating that these are illegal, nobody here can make the statement that they are.

Tom,

This isn't a pissing contest... I've simply asked you to back your product's legality with the ITCS, and you haven't to this point... All it would take is for you to quote the pertinent rules from the ITCS...

And I don't think it's such a great way of going about things to assume that something is legal, just because the SCCA hasn't SPECIFIALLY addressed that ONE item directly...

The rules are pretty clear, and the ITCS is the final authority... All I've done is quote you the lines... You do the same to back up your case and I'll whole-heartedly appologize...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 02, 2005).]

Knestis

03-02-2005, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
...Your comments are appreciated.

I think Darin's making a comment. I think Tom's put in the position of having to defend a commercial venture. I think the whole issue is exactly that - the difference between two opinions - until such time that a protest gets made, appealed, and decided.

I also think that it's significant that the ITCS, where it talks about adding ARBs, Panhard rods, and the like, explicitly states that mounts can be welded or bolted to the body...

K

Banzai240

03-03-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Knestis:
I also think that it's significant that the ITCS, where it talks about adding ARBs, Panhard rods, and the like, explicitly states that mounts can be welded or bolted to the body...

K

Kirk,

If you are suggesting that a T/C rod is "any anti-roll bar(s), tracktion bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage", then frankly I'm suprised...

If THAT is what the supporting rule is that people believe supports the use of suspension components such as this, then I'm sure no one would have a problem with me replacing the T/C rods on my 240SX completely with a set of aluminium ones equiped with Heims?? After all, that rule does say "may be added or substituted..."

Based on the GCR glossery, a T/C rod is NOT a "roll-bar", "traction bar", "panhard rod", "watts linkage"...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis

03-03-2005, 08:28 PM

Why would you think that, D.? It doesn't say that at all. My point is that, where the book thinks it needs to make allowances to mount things to the tub, it seems to say so.

K

Joe Harlan

03-03-2005, 10:51 PM

Kirk, I had to read your response several times to get your meaning. I agree if bolting the carrier to the chassis was allowed the book would say so. I made these kind of carriers years ago for the 240z's but we quit using them because the rule really does not support them. I would suggest a request with photos and data. I like this kida of unit and it is very cost effective over the long run. At this time I am sure they don't meet the spec.

Banzai240

03-04-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Knestis:
Why would you think that, D.? It doesn't say that at all. My point is that, where the book thinks it needs to make allowances to mount things to the tub, it seems to say so.

K

Kirk,

If you read my response, you'll see that I really didn't think that was what you are saying... That's why I said I'd be suprised...

The rest of it was for the benefit of others, to see how twisting that rule would effect the class...

I agree completely with your take... And Joe's...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

iagreen

03-06-2005, 05:22 PM

Tom,

The pics are one shot shy of answering my questions. I'm assuming the long "hexed" sleeve is threaded internally to move for/aft on the radius rod? If so have you figured the amount of castor change possible? Unfortunatly I already have a similar take-apart-to-adjust set (legal or not) but might upgrade later if I see the need.

------------------
Ian
http://www.geocities.com/stscxr

Tom Blaney

03-06-2005, 08:53 PM

Yes that is correct; the internal thread is used to readjust the caster angle to within factory specifications.

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited March 07, 2005).]

Joe Harlan

03-06-2005, 09:58 PM

[quote]than the plates that the Nissan's use better find a way to create a new attachment method.
[quote]

Tom I think you better go read the ITCS again before you make a silly claim like this. The factory shock mount bolted into the top tof the strut tower to start with. Second it is allowed to remove or add material for a camber plate per the ITCS.
No where in the strut rod bushing rule is it allowed to change the method of attachment. It is allowed to change material and that's it. I would love to have you bushing kit approved and I will go back to selling them for Nissans also but at this point they aren't legal.

Tom Blaney

03-10-2005, 07:02 AM

As mentioned in a prior post, if push comes to shove, and in the drive for peace and harmony amoung the discenting camps, I have developed an alternate mounting method for my radius rod bushing assembly.

The new new assembly will use the majority of the old new assembly but will not make any modifications to the chassis. The original suspension geometry and functionaity has not changed.

The new new updated radius rod bushing and the new updated radius rod bushing will be available via my website. SBMS_Racing (http://www.sbmsinc.com/race_shop.html)

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited March 10, 2005).]

USGUYS

03-11-2005, 11:12 PM

The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free
As to the drilling the holes,
1. Fasteners are free. Including thoses that are need to mount any legal part.
Tom: How does the the alternate attachment work.

Joe Harlan

03-12-2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by USGUYS:
The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free

Yes bushing material is free

1. Fasteners are free. Including thoses that are need to mount any legal part.

Hardware items (nuts,bolts,ect.)may be replaced by similar items performing the same fastening fuctions(s).

Exact words from the ITCS. Please explain how you get to the same mounting function by drilling 4 new holes?

Banzai240

03-12-2005, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by USGUYS:
The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free

Nice try, but the ITCS says "MATERIAL" is free, not bushings themselves... You have to stretch things awefully far to make the case that those bushings in the picture represent simply an alternate material...

As for the fastener comment... see Joe's post above...

Is it REALLY that hard for you guys to just follow the rules like everyone else has to???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 12, 2005).]