Spherical "Bushings"

[Greg Amy]

As you are on doubt aware, the use of spherical bearings is a pet peeve of mine. To this very moment I am unconvinced that these items meet either the spirit or the letter of the rules.

So, really, why do we accept these things legal for Improved Touring?

Spherical bearings as suspension bushings are something that has been generally - and, I think, grudgingly - accepted in IT for a while. I do not know who did it first, or whether it went through any kind of approval process, but I strongly suspect that this may be a result of an "acceptance" mindset where 'it hasn't been protested so it must be legal' or 'that guy is doing it, so it must be legal'. I've heard rumors that someone sent a letter or email to the then-SCCA Technical Manager Sven Pruett and got a thumbs-up for it (but have never seen it). Regardless, as we all know a letter/email interpretation/approval from Sven Pruett (or Jeremy Thoennes) does not carry the weight of legality, it is simply an opinion, one that can easily change with the person occupying the staff position. It certainly does not carry the weight of a GCR 13.9 Rules Interpretation. I further suspect that based on this acceptance/approval more and more folks have been taking it as gospel that it's legal.

It would surprise no one to find that I strongly disagree. Let's talk about the referenced rule. It states,

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

Consider that in Improved Touring one cannot change anything unless specifically allowed, our standard IIDSYCYC ("if it doesn't say you can, you cannot".) Also consider that any part has multiple characteristics; these include primarily dimensional characteristics and material characteristics. This particular rule does not state that "bushings are unrestricted"; in point of fact, it specifically states that "Bushing material...is unrestricted". Given this, where does one find the supporting basis for changing the dimensional characteristics of suspension bushings? Where does one find the supporting basis for replacing solid bushings with spherical bearings?

So I ask again:why do we accept these things legal for Improved Touring? Just 'cause we want 'em? Not good enough.

It bothers me enough that I am planning on doing something about this in 2006. Because it is cheaper than a GCR 13.9 ($25 versus a $250 sunk cost), I am going to file a protest against a competitor - picked at random? - that is running spherical bushings in their suspension. I will file this protest with the hope that the competitor will lose and be forced to appeal to National for a final ruling. If my protest is denied, then I myself will file an appeal to National.

Note that new in the '06 GCR in 13.6 is the verbiage, "A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published." I will accept the results of the appeal(s) as de facto and dejure evidence of the legality of the rule.

I sincerely hope to do this in a non-confrontational way by finding someone willing to work with me, but I sinerely doubt that will happen. However, if you're interested in working with me, please let me know.

In the meantime, feel free to debate the rule here. See if you can make a reasonable, cogent, logical argument - without referring back to "that's the way it's been" - as to why spherical bushings are allowed in Improved Touring. - GA

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I thought that earlier in '05, there was a ruling in FasTrack, about spherical bearings being allowed. I just looked (briefly) through the '06 ITCS, and didn't see anything about it, other than the passage that you cited.

I'm inclined to agree with you, that they are beyond the scope of both the purpose, and the intent of IT racing. But, as I've said before, it seems that the PP&I (Philosophy, Purpose, and Intent) only get trotted out on occasion, and are not applied evenly. That being said, I think that things are probably a bit too far down the road, at this point in time, to take them away. And the only end that it would serve, would be to, ever so slightly, improve the alignment w/ the PP&I. Being as things are so far afield of the PP&I now, I really don't see the need to worry about it.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY how rules creep works!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

You can protest me this year - if you think it will work. Here is why I say that:

I do believe spherical bearings (SB's) as bushing's are not allowed as the rulebook reads. As you state, the rules say that bushing material is unrestricted. So I then go to the glossery and look up the defenition of bushing:

"A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole."

While a SB does this, it ALSO does much more (pivoting on virtually unlimited axis'). So I submit that they would be illegal under the 'an allowed modification can not perform a prohibited function'

So - my car will have offest bushings in the control arms in order to attain more negative camber than the stock range permitted by D.5.d.2 (the installation of eccentric bushings). I believe I am legal - do you think this crosses the line of 'changing the dimensional characteristics of suspension bushings?' An example can be seen here:
http://www.flyinmiata.com/Store/images/13-97911.jpg

AB

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 11:27 AM
I believe I am legal - do you think this crosses the line...
70030

Absent any other rule, I would consider this to be illegal. However,

17.1.4.D.5.d.2, "On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings."

[JeffYoung]

I agree. It also seems to me that under some formulations of the thinking allowing SBs, you can do some things that are in my view illegal, or at least not intended by the rules.

For example, as Greg points out:

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

Greg then goes on to say:

Consider that in Improved Touring one cannot change anything unless specifically allowed, our standard IIDSYCYC ("if it doesn't say you can, you cannot".) Also consider that any part has multiple characteristics; these include primarily dimensional characteristics and material characteristics. This particular rule does not state that "bushings are unrestricted"; in point of fact, it specifically states that "Bushing material...is unrestricted". Given this, where does one find the supporting basis for changing the dimensional characteristics of suspension bushings? Where does one find the supporting basis for replacing solid bushings with spherical bearings?

Since the "material" used isn't, under the line of thinking allowing SBs, dimensionally limited, what is to prevent me from making a 3" block of urethane as my "bushing" between the subframe and chassis when the stock bushing is only 1" thick?

This drops the subframe and motor lower in the car, lowers the CG, etc. and appears "legal" under the SB way of thinking.

Also, by making a suspension point pivot, as opposed to a static mounting, aren't you effectively changing a mounting point? The suspension piece attached to the SB will certainly load differently as it moves through the range of motion allowed by the SB (and that would not be present with a standard bushing).

I'm fairly new to IT but this is one of those things that really jumped out as a "huh? that's legal?" Up there with the no coil overs unless you use a threaded collar on the shock....which I know has know has been changed.

[Ron Earp]

Can someone post a picture of what we are talking about here with spherical bushings?

Do you mean heim (rose for UK folks) joint? Man, that would require some serious modification to fit and would not be legal for sure.

Ron

[handfulz28]

Look at remote resevoir shocks, is that not an example of taking something back? It can be done.

Exactly what are the "dimenional characteristics" of a suspension bushing? I'd say geometry and design dictate those, not material. Different materials permit varying amounts of compliance with design, so IMHO, a spherical does not add anything not previously designed in.
What types of solid bushings are being replaced with sphericals?

If we accept that the rubber material is unrestricted, we substitute the rubber with metal, while the metal takes in some instances a different shape, it does not perform a prohibited function.

Perhaps there are some installations where a spherical bearing allows something more than was designed (materials not withstanding), but I'm confident that in my installation, my metal bushings only serve the PURPOSE to allow the suspension geometry to perform to its design INTENT.

Thanks,
Michael
SEDIV ITA 240SX

[ddewhurst]

***Can someone post a picture of what we are talking about here with spherical bushings?***

Ron, you use the words spherical BUSHINGS. The conversation is about spherical BEARINGS.

A Heim joint has a male or female thread attached to the outer race. A spherical bearing/mono-ball has no male/female thread attached to the outer race. The outer race of a spherical bearing slip or press fits into another piece.

Example, where Andy is using his ecentric bushing he could if he chose use a spherical bearing IF it were legal. If he chose to use a sprerical bearing he in simple terms would loose his camber adjustment. I don't know what Andy's control arm looks like but he could also modify the inboard end of the control arm, & use a Heim joint with a pair of nuts & then he would have his some radial freedom & his adjustment for camber. Not legal IMHU of the rules.

[kthomas]

Protest me. This is BS. I'm willing to bet they find the intent of replacing suspension bushings is so that one can properly, and consistently locate suspension members. If you need a rule that says spherical bearings for said purpose are legal then maybe a protest will get them to clarify, but a phone call to Topeka would be easier....

And for the record- the banning of remote reservior shocks was a tax on rich people to make "have-nots" feel better. Nothing else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by handfulz28@Jan 4 2006, 01:32 PM
Look at remote resevoir shocks, is that not an example of taking something back? It can be done.

Exactly what are the "dimenional characteristics" of a suspension bushing? I'd say geometry and design dictate those, not material. Different materials permit varying amounts of compliance with design, so IMHO, a spherical does not add anything not previously designed in.
What types of solid bushings are being replaced with sphericals?

If we accept that the rubber material is unrestricted, we substitute the rubber with metal, while the metal takes in some instances a different shape, it does not perform a prohibited function.

Perhaps there are some installations where a spherical bearing allows something more than was designed (materials not withstanding), but I'm confident that in my installation, my metal bushings only serve the PURPOSE to allow the suspension geometry to perform to its design INTENT.

Thanks,
Michael
SEDIV ITA 240SX

70036


Michael,

I agree with what you are saying - to a point. Metal bushings are ok in my mind, but a SB - as a bushing - allows the mounted piece to pivot in ways that the stock - or replacement of different material - can not. So I do not believe it fits the definition of a bushing in the GCR because it works outside the stock range of functionality.

And we aren't debating putting this back in the box, just clarifying interpretations of an existing rule (see the piston thread).

AB

[ddewhurst]

When we look up the words bushing & bearing in the GCR glossary I would think we can agree that a bearing allows movement with minimal friction & that a bushing by the nature of the beast will not allow movement with minimal friction. With a bushing we must displace the bushing material to gain angular rotation.

Thoughts ?

Just trying to communicate on the subject towards Greg's question.


***but a phone call to Topeka would be easier....***

A phone call to Topeka or the $250.00 deal is NOT the final word on rules.

[Knestis]

I'm having trouble with this one, I confess...

For example, in what kind of application could a spherical bearing provide motion that wasn't already allowed by flexion of the OE material?

We had this conversation here a few years back and, after the dust settled, I admit that i had got to the point where I couldn't find a bright line anywhere between "must be stock" and "spherical bearings," looking just at the logic and attributes of the parts involved.

If you can change the material, it's - as far as i can tell - necessary that changes in dimensions be allowed, too. Am I wrong?

Short of writing a dissertation about the different types of bushing (there are two different ones in each of my Golf A-arms), and what can and cannot be changed, how would the interpretive distinction be made, to allow dimensional differences, multi-material options (e.g, urethane-only vs. rubber-on-metal), or design differences short of "spherical-ness" without crossing the line?

K

EDIT - the GCR glossary def of "bushing" is also problematic. The rear "bushing" on my A-arms is a rubber donut, with a steel sleeve in the middle, and a metal ring around the periphery. It presses into the arm, and a bolt goes vertically through its middle, through the subframe and into the chassis. By the strict definition, it's NOT a bushing, becuase the absolutely necessary flexion of the part is a "purpose" beyond that described by the definition ("to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole") - so I can't change it? Is that the intent?

[joeg]

What does this mean to all of us who have spherical bearings in the camber plates for their struts?

While I cannot get that excited about this, I believe a lot of this goes back to RX7 rear suspension work...from a historical perspective.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by rlearp@Jan 4 2006, 02:01 PM
Can someone post a picture of what we are talking about here with spherical bushings?

Do you mean heim (rose for UK folks) joint? Man, that would require some serious modification to fit and would not be legal for sure.

Ron

70035


Ron - here are some examples; the top photo is a simple spherical bearing, followed by a few examples of types of control arm bushings available for my 240SX. They are, in order, a Nismo high-durometer rubber bushing (nearly identical to the stock bushing), SPL Parts spherical bushings, and Whiteline polyurethane bushings.

[attachmentid=234]
[attachmentid=235]
[attachmentid=236]
[attachmentid=237]

The biggest problem I see with the whole "dimensional characteristic" argument is that if you look at the poly bushings, which nobody seems to have a problem with, they are least like the OEM bushings dimensionally (IMHO).

Also, Andy's comment about the spherical bearing allowing for movement outside the range of other bushings makes sense at first, but then when you consider that all bushings allow for some movement outside of the primary axis (isn't that what the rubber is there for?), it becomes a question of whether the spherical bearing is doing something the others can't, or just does the same thing that much better.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing this protest upheld, it would save me about a grand in build costs, but I think you're peeing into the wind on this one (again, JMHO :D )

edit: I have to clarify my comment about the poly bushings; in the photo I used here the assembled poly unit would not be all that dissimilar to the OEM unit. However, many of the poly bushings (including the ones for the rear of my 240) do not use the outer sleeve, instead the poly bushing presses directly into the bare control arm. This is what I was referring to. Sorry.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 4 2006, 02:39 PM
***Can someone post a picture of what we are talking about here with spherical bushings?***

Ron, you use the words spherical BUSHINGS. The conversation is about spherical BEARINGS.

A Heim joint has a male or female thread attached to the outer race. A spherical bearing/mono-ball has no male/female thread attached to the outer race. The outer race of a spherical bearing slip or press fits into another piece.


I suppose what I am asking is the following - is a spherical bearing placed inside the tube where the rubber bushing would have been? Maybe a nice picture of a spherical bearing/bushing or whatever you wish to call it would be worth 1000 words.

I know what a heim joint is and I suppose I've got this picture in my mind of people somehow putting the the working parts of a heim joint, the ball and race, into their control arm holes? Is this correct?

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 4 2006, 02:23 PM
I'm having trouble with this one, I confess...

For example, in what kind of application could a spherical bearing provide motion that wasn't already allowed by flexion of the OE material?


70044


Sway bar end links.

http://www.iscracing.net/images/17895_miata_links.jpg

Lower control arms. This allows the car to be lowered beyond what the stock geometry would permit given 'fixed' bushings.

http://www.iscracing.net/images/12_eplowerca.jpg

AB

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 12:27 PM
So I then go to the glossery and look up the defenition of bushing:

"A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole."

While a SB does this, it ALSO does much more (pivoting on virtually unlimited axis'). So I submit that they would be illegal under the 'an allowed modification can not perform a prohibited function'


70030


I understand Greg that you do not think this should have happened but refering to the definition why can't my sleve or tubular insert be a cartridge of a bearing with a metal shell that replaces the original metal and rubber cartridge.

By the way my sperical cartridge allows the same or less pivoting that the foam bushing i use.

then i need to know where it says that "pivoting on virtually unlimitied axis" is a prohibited function.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 4 2006, 02:46 PM

then i need to know where it says that "pivoting on virtually unlimitied axis" is a prohibited function.

70054

You quoted me on this but Greg may answer anyway.

Dick - that point is one I had issues with as well in my thought process in this debate. How about this:

The use of a SB as a bushing allows for and performs funtions not originally intended.

If your fuel lines are free, are you allowed to have an in-line 1-gallon 'tank' that you may use excusivly for qualifying - or as extra gas for enduros? Probably a poor example but...

I think the point that people are polarized on is the definition of the bushing. I read the function in the definition and I beleive the SB as bushings to go beyond that definition in terms of functionality.

No real benfit in my car because there is limited (if any) bind in a double wishbone suspension as you lower the car. The Gen 1 RX-7 and the 240SX's come to mind in cars where this would be very prevelent.

Again, this is a simple debate. I don't see that much of a benefit to getting them outlawed...just silly season talk. Greg may have other motivation, I do not know.

AB

[handfulz28]

Katman, interesting point of view. No agreeing or disagreeing, but it still serves as an example where a rule change required a significant change.

Andy-I guess that's where part of the disagreement with the use of SBs stems from. If you accept that at least part of an OEM suspension bushing's purpose is to limit suspension movement, then you'll have a hard time with SBs.

I think you have to reasonably accept that's not their purpose, but instead a result of material dexterity, or lack thereof.

I'll try to use an example from my car (ITA 240SX): front lower ctrl arm. The inboard mounting point (MP) is a bolt/bushing running in the longitudinal axis of the car, plus or minus some fudge for caster/camber/toe, providing for a nearly vertical single axis of movement. Connected (by fixed bolts) to the ctrl arm near the outboard end is a tie rod, fixed at an approx angle of 45 degrees, said rod being connected to a forward MP using a bolt/bushing, aligned such that the tie rod also rotates through an approx vertical single axis.

Now it's been awhile since I've practiced my analytical geometry, but would you agree that at a static point, the OEM rubber bushings are not deflected in any way? But as the connected suspension pieces move throughout a range of motion, said pieces are limited in their movement by the compliance of the rubber, not by their design or geometry. In fact, wouldn't you agree that the very design and geometry REQUIRES movement outside of the single axis plane, and therefore compliance at the MP/bolt/bushing of multiple planes/axis'?

In this installation, a spherical bushing simply allows a bit more compliance for the suspension assembly to move throughout its designed range. No MPs have been relocated, nothing moves that didn't move before, nothing is fixed that wasn't fixed prior.

Thanks,
Michael

[ddewhurst]

***By the way my sperical cartridge allows the same or less pivoting that the foam bushing i use.***

Dick, most times when we talk about foam it has to do with beer. ;) If you are refering to the foam bushings in the rear of 1st gen RX-7 the rule that allows foam bushings is rule 14.1.4.D.5.c.1. Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added or substituted, bla bla bla. The word ANY being key. Kind of the same as the word alternate.

To others, if I were to protest someone who had used the rule "Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted" I would open the GCR glossary to the definition of bearing & bushing, then I would with my fingers rotate the inner race of the spherical bearing relative to the outter race of the spherical bearing with MINIMAL FRICTION (words from the GCR glossary) & everone would see/feel MINIMAL FRICTION. Then I would ATTEMPT to with my fingers rotate the inner race of the bushing (rubber/metal) to the outter race of the bushing & all would see/feel that the rotation angle did not change with MINIMAL FRICTION. The key is the words MINIMAL FRICTION in the GCR glossary with the definition of bearing.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 4 2006, 04:30 PM
The key is the words MINIMAL FRICTION in the GCR glossary with the definition of bearing.

70060


David, you're absolutely corrrect if you are debating whether a spherical bearing is in fact a bearing. However, I think the debate here is whether a spherical bearing can be used as (or a component of) a bushing. The GCR definition of a bushing is "A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole" (didn't someone already post that... sorry). There is nothing in that definition that says a bushing cannot pivot freely. Looking at the pictures I posted above, doesn't the pic of the spherical bushing accomplish the task of reducing the dimension of an existing hole? Note that I used the word bushing, as the bearing is only one component of the bushing.

Wow, this thread has all the markings of a 5-pager :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by handfulz28@Jan 4 2006, 03:25 PM
Katman, interesting point of view. No agreeing or disagreeing, but it still serves as an example where a rule change required a significant change.

Andy-I guess that's where part of the disagreement with the use of SBs stems from. If you accept that at least part of an OEM suspension bushing's purpose is to limit suspension movement, then you'll have a hard time with SBs.

I think you have to reasonably accept that's not their purpose, but instead a result of material dexterity, or lack thereof.

I'll try to use an example from my car (ITA 240SX): front lower ctrl arm. The inboard mounting point (MP) is a bolt/bushing running in the longitudinal axis of the car, plus or minus some fudge for caster/camber/toe, providing for a nearly vertical single axis of movement. Connected (by fixed bolts) to the ctrl arm near the outboard end is a tie rod, fixed at an approx angle of 45 degrees, said rod being connected to a forward MP using a bolt/bushing, aligned such that the tie rod also rotates through an approx vertical single axis.

Now it's been awhile since I've practiced my analytical geometry, but would you agree that at a static point, the OEM rubber bushings are not deflected in any way? But as the connected suspension pieces move throughout a range of motion, said pieces are limited in their movement by the compliance of the rubber, not by their design or geometry. In fact, wouldn't you agree that the very design and geometry REQUIRES movement outside of the single axis plane, and therefore compliance at the MP/bolt/bushing of multiple planes/axis'?

In this installation, a spherical bushing simply allows a bit more compliance for the suspension assembly to move throughout its designed range. No MPs have been relocated, nothing moves that didn't move before, nothing is fixed that wasn't fixed prior.

Thanks,
Michael

70058


We would just disagree on 'designed range' then. If a factory setup allows 10 inches of travel and a SB-equipped bushing allows 11 inches of travel (or travel on an axis not possible with the fatcory stuff in there), then I believe it to outside the parameters. Poly or solid bushings would actually limit range of motion even more than compliant rubberized ones with no compression...but that is picking nits and a possible result.

There is nothing in the rules that say you can change the DESIGN of a bushing. If that was the case, the rules would read; "Suspension bushings are free provided they fit in the unmodified and original location" - or something like that...not "Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted."

I don't see how we can get away from that.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 04:09 PM
There is nothing in the rules that say you can change the DESIGN of a bushing.
70062


So, wouldn't the use of a strictly traditional bushing change the design of a stock suspension bushing that relies on angular as well as axial movement. In that case a spherical bearing is truer to the original design and therefore "more legal" than just a change in bushing material that results in no angular motion. IMHO using the idea of the design or functionality of the stock piece only strengthens the idea that spherical's are allowed, at least in cases where the stock bushing acts as a cheap spherical.

[handfulz28]

Yeah Andy, but I think we are picking nits here, those nits being the strained use of GCR defined "bushing" in a suspension application, and the GCR defined "bearing" as it applies to the use of sphericals in the suspension.

I don't see how you can disagree that a suspension "bushing" isn't inherently also a "bearing". I think Matt points it out more eloquently than I.

You have a point about not changing the design, I'll grant you that. But you're still relying on the OEM material to define your suspension and its relative movement. By pointing out that poly or solid bushings would FURTHER restrict movement, you're actually making the case there needs to be an allowance for different materials to affect suspension movement to varying degrees, solely on the difference between the materials' properties.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by handfulz28@Jan 4 2006, 04:43 PM
Yeah Andy, but I think we are picking nits here, those nits being the strained use of GCR defined "bushing" in a suspension application, and the GCR defined "bearing" as it applies to the use of sphericals in the suspension.

I don't see how you can disagree that a suspension "bushing" isn't inherently also a "bearing". I think Matt points it out more eloquently than I.

You have a point about not changing the design, I'll grant you that. But you're still relying on the OEM material to define your suspension and its relative movement. By pointing out that poly or solid bushings would FURTHER restrict movement, you're actually making the case there needs to be an allowance for different materials to affect suspension movement to varying degrees, solely on the difference between the materials' properties.

70068


Let me write this using another car part:

"Hoods: Hoods may be replaced with those of alternate material."

Does this allow you to design in fuctionality that didn't exist on the stock unit? Of course not.

The rules say you MAY replace. You don't have to if you don't think there is an advantage. If the allowance restricts performance in some way and improves it in some other way, you have to weigh the plusses and minuses and make a choice. You can't go outside the rules to have the cake and eat it to.

Bushing material is unrestricted. Bushing design is restricted because is doesn't say it isn't!

AB

[Bill Miller]

Sorry Andy, but I think you've out-smarted yourself on this one. IF bushing design isn't allowed to be changed, that means you can't replace a compliant stock bushing w/ one that is not compliant. In other words, you can't replace the stock rubber one, that's all squooshy, w/ a metal one that allows for no out-of-axis motion. THAT is a design change. If you're going to use the 'bushing material is free' arguement, the counter to that is 'no allowed modification shall perform a prohibited function'. So, while you can use a metal bushing, if it changes the design from a compliant to a non-compliant configuration, that's a prohibited function.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 4 2006, 05:14 PM
Sorry Andy, but I think you've out-smarted yourself on this one. IF bushing design isn't allowed to be changed, that means you can't replace a compliant stock bushing w/ one that is not compliant. In other words, you can't replace the stock rubber one, that's all squooshy, w/ a metal one that allows for no out-of-axis motion. THAT is a design change. If you're going to use the 'bushing material is free' arguement, the counter to that is 'no allowed modification shall perform a prohibited function'. So, while you can use a metal bushing, if it changes the design from a compliant to a non-compliant configuration, that's a prohibited function.

70070


I disagree. That is sooo tortured IMHO.

A change in material is allowed - and it's associated results. A change in design is not. Sorry - not buying. No way, no how.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 05:00 PM
Bushing material is unrestricted. Bushing design is restricted because is doesn't say it isn't!

70069


Okay, but if the original design depends on angular and radial motion then the use of metallic spherical bearing has changed only the material, not the design. Unless you are trying to base design on strict dimensional standards in which case you are going to effectively make most replacement bushings as illegal as the sphericals as many stock suspension bushings have multi piece designs with cast in air gaps and so on that are not replicated in replacement bushings. I doubt that National is going to go for that strict an interpretation. Whether any of us think it meets the letter or the rule or not.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, not to pick a fight, but focus on Andy's example. I think his concept is correct.

"Hoods may be replaced with hoods of an alternate material."

Take that statement within the context of the remaining IT ruleset as it stands.

1. Would you consider a stiffer, but identical in all other dimensional respects, legal? I think we would.

2. Would you consider a hood that was made of a different material and formed with a scoop in the middle for cold air induction legal? I think we would not.

I agree that it a spherical bearing's ability to control and modulate the movement of the suspension and the loading on various suspension pieces via the fact that the sphere rotates with little friction is less clear of a "design change" than the scoop, but I think the principle is correct.

Full disclosure -- this is coming from someone with an IT car that doesn' thave them, and would have to spend a boatload of dollars to get them. So in some respects, Katman is right about the reasoning behind the reasoning for those of us who think this is a gray area that should be kicked over to the black.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 4 2006, 05:26 PM
Bill, not to pick a fight, but focus on Andy's example. I think his concept is correct.

"Hoods may be replaced with hoods of an alternate material."

Take that statement within the context of the remaining IT ruleset as it stands.

1. Would you consider a stiffer, but identical in all other dimensional respects, legal? I think we would.

2. Would you consider a hood that was made of a different material and formed with a scoop in the middle for cold air induction legal? I think we would not.


70073

Thanks for the help Jeff but lets use an example that fits the rules. Cold Air Induction is specifically called out as prohibited so we can refer back to an 'authorized mod may not perform a prohibited funtion'.

What if the hood had to reverse NACA ducts that allowed heat to escape out the back side of the hood? Nothing specifically called out on that as illegal but yet a modification where it says 'replacement of alternate material' as the only allowable change. I see this as the same thing.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 4 2006, 05:23 PM
Okay, but if the original design depends on angular and radial motion then the use of metallic spherical bearing has changed only the material, not the design. Unless you are trying to base design on strict dimensional standards in which case you are going to effectively make most replacement bushings as illegal as the sphericals as many stock suspension bushings have multi piece designs with cast in air gaps and so on that are not replicated in replacement bushings. I doubt that National is going to go for that strict an interpretation. Whether any of us think it meets the letter or the rule or not.

70072

I have made my point and don't need to reiterate it over and over. Frankly, you guys are getting way too technical for me now.

A spherical bearing as a bushing (where one did not exist prior) is not simply a 'change in material'. I can't see how anyone could argue that.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Hmm...how about this one:

Brake pad material is free. Does this mean you can fit a bigger pad (assuming it fits in the caliper)?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 4 2006, 04:30 PM
***By the way my sperical cartridge allows the same or less pivoting that the foam bushing i use.***

Dick, most times when we talk about foam it has to do with beer. ;) If you are refering to the foam bushings in the rear of 1st gen RX-7 the rule that allows foam bushings is rule 14.1.4.D.5.c.1. Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added or substituted, bla bla bla. The word ANY being key. Kind of the same as the word alternate.


70060


actually david I disagree. i am refering to the upper link. the rule you sight allows me to put in the tri link and panhard and toss the watts link but the upper control arms do not fall under that, the stock bushings are replaced with foam as a alternate bushing material. if these parts fell under you cited rule i could just throw the links away.

[DavidM]

It seems everyone agrees that a stock rubber bushing allows some flexing. Is the arguement that spherical bearings are a design change because they allow greater "flexing" than the stock bushing or beause they allow easier flexing (i.e. less friction)? I'm having a hard time seeing how easier flexing is considered a design change. Using that argument you'd have to outlaw any bushings other than stock because the type of material used would almost always change the amount of flexing possible. I can almost see the allows greater flexing argument, but see how you could argue against it as well.

David

[erlrich]

I think Andy and Jeff have a good point. If you interpret the rule about bushing material strictly, and on its own, that would imply to me that only the material the bushings are made from may be altered. In all other aspects the bushings would have to be identical to the OEM units, including design, dimensions, range of motion, etc. That interpretation, IMO, would render illegal almost all alternate bushings on the market, including spherical, poly, and even some of the high-durometer rubber pieces, if they were not identical to the OEM units in every other way.

If, that is, you interpret this rule all on its own. But what happens when you take 17.1.4.D.5.d.1., 2., or 3. into account? For instance, d.2. says "On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings". Now, I am willing to bet not all car makers offer OEM eccentric bushings, and yet the rule says nothing about the bushings having to be OEM, so I would take that to imply any type of eccentric bushing is legal, as long as it meets the general definition of a bushing. Or did I miss something? That then begs the question, why would the writers of the GCR allow us to use any type of eccentric bushing, yet restrict us to exactly equivalent (except for material) non-eccentric bushings?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DavidM@Jan 4 2006, 06:29 PM
It seems everyone agrees that a stock rubber bushing allows some flexing. Is the arguement that spherical bearings are a design change because they allow greater "flexing" than the stock bushing or beause they allow easier flexing (i.e. less friction)? I'm having a hard time seeing how easier flexing is considered a design change. Using that argument you'd have to outlaw any bushings other than stock because the type of material used would almost always change the amount of flexing possible. I can almost see the allows greater flexing argument, but see how you could argue against it as well.

David

70080


Because a SB as a bushing does not flex. It allows the bolt that passes through it a range of motion that was not available stock - or in a stock replacement of alternate material. A change in DESIGN.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by erlrich@Jan 4 2006, 06:29 PM
I think Andy and Jeff have a good point. If you interpret the rule about bushing material strictly, and on its own, that would imply to me that only the material the bushings are made from may be altered. In all other aspects the bushings would have to be identical to the OEM units, including design, dimensions, range of motion, etc. That interpretation, IMO, would render illegal almost all alternate bushings on the market, including spherical, poly, and even some of the high-durometer rubber pieces, if they were not identical to the OEM units in every other way.

If, that is, you interpret this rule all on its own. But what happens when you take 17.1.4.D.5.d.1., 2., or 3. into account? For instance, d.2. says "On other forms of suspension, camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings". Now, I am willing to bet not all car makers offer OEM eccentric bushings, and yet the rule says nothing about the bushings having to be OEM, so I would take that to imply any type of eccentric bushing is legal, as long as it meets the general definition of a bushing. Or did I miss something? That then begs the question, why would the writers of the GCR allow us to use any type of eccentric bushing, yet restrict us to exactly equivalent (except for material) non-eccentric bushings?

70081


The same rule on material applies to this design - it isn't specific to strut-type cars. Actually, I think you make my point...material is free for all types of designs, yet on non-strut cars, a non-stock DESIGN change is specifically mentioned.

You write:


In all other aspects the bushings would have to be identical to the OEM units, including design, dimensions, range of motion, etc.

Replacement poly bushing from an 'off the shelf' supplier should fit your requirements. The OD would have to be the same in order to fit the given hole, the ID of the tube should be the same to utilize the OEM bolt, and the design should be the same - placement in the bushing material so that there is no static bind, and the range of motion - what range of motion? There is a big difference between material COMPLIANCE and full-blown range of motion designed into the product.

Where-the-F is Greg? :)

AB

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by erlrich@Jan 4 2006, 07:29 PM
I think Andy and Jeff have a good point. If you interpret the rule about bushing material strictly, and on its own, that would imply to me that only the material the bushings are made from may be altered....

70081

That's my read, also.

YMMV.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 07:46 PM
You can't use this as a comparison. This rule is for non-strut-type cars that can not adjust camber through camber-plates.
70083


But Andy, that's just d.2; d.1 allows MacPherson strut type cars to alter camber by use of eccentric bushings at the control arm pivot points, the strut-to-bearing-carier point, or with camber plates. Rule d.3 allows all cars to adjust caster with eccentric bushings. I apologize, I should have been more clear, but the point was that the GCR allows any car with any type of suspension to use eccentric bushings to adjust camber or caster. And as I think we would all agree not all car makers offer eccentric bushings (or do we?), that would tell me that any eccentric bushing is legal. So, as long as they were eccentric wouldn't spherical bushings be legal under this rule.

I think we would probably agree on the intent of the bushing rules, however I firmly believe the way the section on suspension mounting points is written leaves the bushing design wide open. JMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by erlrich@Jan 4 2006, 07:04 PM
But Andy, that's just d.2; d.1 allows MacPherson strut type cars to alter camber by use of eccentric bushings at the control arm pivot points, the strut-to-bearing-carier point, or with camber plates. Rule d.3 allows all cars to adjust caster with eccentric bushings. I apologize, I should have been more clear, but the point was that the GCR allows any car with any type of suspension to use eccentric bushings to adjust camber or caster. And as I think we would all agree not all car makers offer eccentric bushings (or do we?), that would tell me that any eccentric bushing is legal. So, as long as they were eccentric wouldn't spherical bushings be legal under this rule.

I think we would probably agree on the intent of the bushing rules, however I firmly believe the way the section on suspension mounting points is written leaves the bushing design wide open. JMHO.

70085


You are correct on the strut-stuff, my error. Dang!

I do still believe that the allowance for a SPECIFIC design of bushing is testiment to what IS legal. I understand the thought process you are going through but a eccentric bushing is an offset tube, not an offset spherical bearing!

We will agree to disagree. It has been a healthy debate. Thanks.

AB

[Greg Amy]

Just to clarify: I have no hidden agenda, no motivation other than I truly do not believe spherical suspension bearings meet either the letter or the spirit of the rules. I can find no redeeming value in these parts within the philosophy of Improved Touring.

Please note that I'm reading all these responses, but I have nothing further of value to offer. Andy, Jeff, and Earl are doing a fine job of expressing my sentiments exactly.

Try this: clear your mind of what you know and what you've seen. I tell you that bushing material is free, and you cannot change anything unless it's specifically allowed. How can you possibly justify spherical bearings?

In listening to those trying to support it, I remain unconvinced; this is a classic case of incrementalism, of "just one small step past one small step past one small step". Of the classic Dewhurst rules CREEP. - GA

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 05:39 PM
I have made my point and don't need to reiterate it over and over. Frankly, you guys are getting way too technical for me now.

A spherical bearing as a bushing (where one did not exist prior) is not simply a 'change in material'. I can't see how anyone could argue that.


Yeah but...

...this isn't a yes-no, same-different kind of question. Your point - which is reasonable, certainly - requires as its basis an argument that there is a DEGREE of "differentness" that is no longer OK. Isn't a bushing that has three parts like the one in the pic above (metal, urethane, metal) a different design than a one-piece rubber thingie? If the flanges that keep the soft bit inside the bracket are thicker, is it different? Where is the line?

http://img.thepartsbin.com/live/L203093240CFW.JPG

^^^ This is a stock rear, inboard "bushing" from my front A arm. First, would you consider this a bushing? How about if we recognize that to work, it MUST flex such that the axis of the inner and outer holes are no longer aligned - in direct violation of the only purpose in the GCR definition. Am I allowed to even change it? Or, since it isn't a "bushing" by the GCR, does IIDSYCYC kick in?

http://img.thepartsbin.com/live/L203028834OEA.JPG

^^^ This is the front, inboard bushing for the front A-arm - same questions. If the replacement piece doesn't have these sexy curves, is it illegal?

Now, I haven't extended the questions above to explicitly ask about the things that we call "spherical bearings" rather than bushings. Is the different name enough to make them different for the purposes of this rule? What if their designs are radically different but they function in an identical fashion, in terms of axes of motion for example, to the OE parts?

I honestly cannot define a place in the continuum between "stock" and "spherical" that leaps out at me as being a natural, bright line between OK and not OK, that isn't arbitrary and based on what I want or don't want, rather than on intellectual honesty.

K

Edit - all three of these things are called "bushings" in the parts catalogs.

Edit edit - I had a sway bar bushing in the examples, which makes no sense since they are free under a different rule.

[kthomas]

This one has to be argued on what the intent was. I doubt anybody's replacements are legal according to the verbage in the rulebook whether they're a spherical bearing or not (no "dimensional" allowance). The rule needs clarified or rewritten. I'm willing to bet the intent was to allow them. Go forth with the protest.

[JeffYoung]

Katman -- were you around when the rule was written? I'm curious if it was just to allow the poly bushings you can get for any car or if the idea was to allow sphericals. You know anything about the genesis of this?

I agree on one thing -- healthy debate. Interesting topic too.

[ddewhurst]

Healthy debate is GOOD.

Dick, you are correct about the foam bushings. <_< BUT, your foam bushing is tublar or a sleeve.

Now back to the spherical bearing that is a bushing. :119:

K, or anyone else, if you can find an OEM bushing that has the parts of a spherical bearing design (per the GCR glossary, one part concave & one part convex that allow angular displacement) then you have convinced me that a bearing is a bushing.

By definition a bushing is tublar or a sleeve, the GCR don&#39;t spec one part of a bushing is a convex shape & the other part of the bushing is a concave part that allow angular movement.

The rule spec is bushing material is unrestricted. The rule don&#39;t say the bushing design is unrestricted.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 11:44 AM
Metal bushings are ok in my mind, but a SB - as a bushing - allows the mounted piece to pivot in ways that the stock - or replacement of different material - can not. So I do not believe it fits the definition of a bushing in the GCR because it works outside the stock range of functionality.

70039


I don&#39;t see that. Rubber bushings allow movement in all directions.

[Knestis]

Hmmm.

Okay - I&#39;m seeing something now that I completely overlooked, but has been right there the whole time: The fact that the glossary actually defines "spherical bearing" makes it unnecessary to infer the differences between the two. I concede what might be an important point to DD.

That doesn&#39;t however answer the question of "how different is different?"

If the argument is that the rules don&#39;t say "spherical joints are OK," and further define "spherical joints" clearly, as the things that some people are using where "bushings" used to be, then OK - a nice, self-contained argument that could be the basis of a protest. Those are, by GCR definition, spherical joints and there is no provision to put them there. Sorry May-beee.

If however the protest moves forward on the proposition that the only allowable change is MATERIAL, then ANY change in design - even the most piddly dimension - would logically be equally illegal. You got harder rubber bushings that protrude farther beyond the bracket than the stock pieces? Bzzzrrt. Sorry - your outta here, too.

Kirk (who&#39;s really trying to understand)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:00 PM
I don&#39;t see that. Rubber bushings allow movement in all directions.

70097


Rubber bushings allow FLEX in all directions. They are &#39;compliant&#39;. SB&#39;s allow pivoting on a fixed axis. There is a designed range of movement. They are not compliant. Very different in my eyes.

Kirk,

I have been working on the assumption that everyone knew that both were defined in the glossary. Eccentrics specifically allowed, no mention of sphericals. To me, this is classic IIDSYCYC stuff.

Trying to define why I think a SB is not a bushing as defined by the GCR and not doing a good job.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 4 2006, 09:02 PM
Hmmm.

Okay - I&#39;m seeing something now that I completely overlooked, but has been right there the whole time: The fact that the glossary actually defines "spherical bearing" makes it unnecessary to infer the differences between the two. I concede what might be an important point to DD.

That doesn&#39;t however answer the question of "how different is different?" If the argument is that the rules don&#39;t say "spherical joints are OK," and goes on to define them clearly as the things that some people are using where "bushings" used to be, then OK - a nice, self-contained argument that could be the basis of a protest.

If however the protest moves forward on the proposition that the only allowable change is MATERIAL, then ANY change in design - even the most piddly dimension - would logically be equally illegal.

Kirk (who&#39;s really trying to understand)

70098


Kirk, you lose a rules nerd point for not knowing (and using) the spherical bearing definition. It is an important point, especially when many suspension now use "bushings" similar to the first picture you showed. That design clearly is not a bushing per the GCR definition and is indeed a spherical bearing, per the GCR. So, if that is the case and only bushing material may be changed then anyone with non-oem parts for that type of "bushing" is illegal. Not even a material change is allowed as they don&#39;t fall under the bushing material rule so you couldn&#39;t even use an energy suspension kit or something similar.

Really, did we need to rehash this argument again? Has anything new been said that wasn&#39;t put forth before? The best bet would have been to file the protest and let the chips fall as they will. It does have the potential to suddenly make a LOT of cars clearly illegal with a LOT of expense to convert back. Is that a good reason to allow it to continue? Maybe or maybe not, but we aren&#39;t going to be the ones to decide that.

But just as a reference point I don&#39;t see sphericals being any more expensive than the alternative. A set of front a-arms for a neon (the only way to get stock bushings) is $472. The costs to put a set of spherical&#39;s in was $120 and it will be $45 dollars to replace the bearings, or antoher $472 to put new arms in when the bushings wear out at a faster rate. So the cost issue doesn&#39;t fly with me.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 04:35 PM
Because a SB as a bushing does not flex. It allows the bolt that passes through it a range of motion that was not available stock - or in a stock replacement of alternate material.

70082


Incorrect. If anything a spherical bearing/bushing would limit the range of motion.

[Geo]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 4 2006, 05:49 PM
This one has to be argued on what the intent was. I doubt anybody&#39;s replacements are legal according to the verbage in the rulebook whether they&#39;re a spherical bearing or not (no "dimensional" allowance). The rule needs clarified or rewritten. I&#39;m willing to bet the intent was to allow them. Go forth with the protest.

70090


I don&#39;t know the original intent, but I could conceive of how they could very well be the original intent depending upon when the rule was made to allow alternate material.

Huh, you say?

Well, urethane bushings are common today, but were they when the rule was changed. Perhaps they were allowed because only a handful of cars had urethane bushings available? If that was the case, SBs would be one way to make an allowance for all cars that would be relatively equal.

Greg and I have discussed this privately before and I know he thinks I&#39;m nuts (hi Greg :006: ). For the record, I do think they are legal. I&#39;m not so sure they should be, but like Kirk, I don&#39;t see how to define a line between stock and SBs. Also for the record, I would like nothing better than to not have to spend the cash on SBs if they are illegal.

Lastly, I am the one who wrote to Sven quite some time about about SBs and he stated that they are in fact legal. As Greg and others have noted, this is not the definitive ruling, so take it for what it&#39;s worth. I can try to find the e-mail, but I think it goes back so far that it must be on my old computer.

I&#39;m OK with it if they are illegal and I&#39;m OK with it if they are legal. Just so we all have the same interpretation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:22 PM
Incorrect. If anything a spherical bearing/bushing would limit the range of motion.

70102


I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my statement. A SB has a defined range of motion. That range of motion is DIFFERENT than what a standard bushing would provide. It is, in 99.99% of the cases, MORE than stock. SO what? It is a different technology alltogether and not specifically allowed by the rules from what I can see.

Frankly, I don&#39;t even know why we are comparing the two. Traditional bushings provide INSULATION between bolts and mounting holes. Poly bushings provide that same insulation, in a much less compliant way - inherantly better for racing as well all know. SB&#39;s typically are used to provide the bolt that runs through it a range of motion on different axis&#39;, eliminating inherant bind, it didn&#39;t have to begin with, no?

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:49 PM
I&#39;m OK with it if they are illegal and I&#39;m OK with it if they are legal. Just so we all have the same interpretation.

70104


I am with you there 100%.

AB

[erlrich]

This has been an interesting debate, and if nothing else it shows that reasonable people (an I use that term very loosely :D ) can and usually do disagree when it comes to rules interpretations. I think the one thing we can agree on, however, is that none of our opinions mean squat unless and until the Court of Appeals rules on the issue. With that in mind, I have to wonder aloud if there are 9 of us who would be willing to toss $25 into Greg&#39;s hat and send this question to the Court (assuming of course Greg would be interested in going this route)? Admittedly this issue is probably more important to me than many of you, since I was (and am) just about ready to dump a bunch of $$$ into sphericals for my car, but I would hope anyone who feels strongly either way would want to get a definitive answer.

So, how about it? I&#39;m in, any other takers? Greg, would you be willing to file the request?

[JeffYoung]

In. Far preferable to me (and definitely for Greg) than an at-track protest.

Let me know where to send the $25.

[Bill Miller]

Because a SB as a bushing does not flex. It allows the bolt that passes through it a range of motion that was not available stock - or in a stock replacement of alternate material. A change in DESIGN.


Sorry Andy, you can&#39;t apply one standard to the spherical bearing, and not apply it to alternate material bushings.

Let&#39;s go through this stepwise.

1) It&#39;s a given that a stock, rubber bushing, similar to the ones that Kirk has provided pictures of, will flex and deform, under load, allowing the item that is attached to it (for purposes of this discussion, a control arm), out-of-axis movement.

2) It&#39;s generally accepted that a spherical bearing will allow out-of-axis movement, of the the item that is attached to it.

3) An alternate material bushing, made of some non-compliant material (e.g. billet aluminum, brass, Delrin, etc.) will not allow out-of-axis movement.


You contend that a spherical bearing, as a replacement for a stock bushing, is illegal, because not only does it constitute a change in material, it constitutes a change in design. You further claim that a spherical bearing will provide a differnt (you claim greater) range of motion than provided by the stock bearing. You state that this allowance of a different range of motion, constitutes a design change.

Well, that&#39;s exactly what the bushings mentioned in 3) above do. It is a design change that provides a different range of motion than the stock bushing (in this case, no out-of-axis movement). That constitutes a different design, and by the standard that you have applied, would also be illegal.

Like George, I&#39;m not convinced that a spherical bearing will necessarily provide a great range of out-of-axis movement, than a stock, rubber bushing. But, if a different range of out-of-axis movement, over stock, is your criteria, than any alternate bushing material, that provides a different range of out-of-axis movement, over stock, is illegal. It doesn&#39;t matter if if that range is great than, or less than stock.

I think what is bothering people about this, is how a spherical bearing works. A stock, rubber bushing, will give you in-axis movement (i.e. rotation, a good thing), out-of-axis movement (probably a good thing), and also deflection, a change in the relationship of the axis to the mounting point (probably not what you want). So, w/ a stock bushing, you get two good things, and a bad thing. With a non-compliant bushing (made of say Delrin, or aluminum), you get in-axis rotation, but no out-of-axis movement. You also get no deflection. So, you get 1 good thing and no bad things. With a spherical bearing, you get both in-axis and out-of-axis movement, but no deflection (2 good, no bad).


Here&#39;s a scenario for you. On an A1 VW chassis (i.e. Rabbit or Scirocco), the spherical bearing design is as follows: For the front control arm bushing (Kirk&#39;s 2nd picture, on his car), the spherical bearing solution is essentially a cartridge, that has two bearings connected by a metal sleeve, that the mounting bolt goes through. This cartridge slides into the control arm in the same manner that a stock bushing, or aftermarket delrin or urethane bushing does. It allows no out-of-axis movement at all. The rear spherical bearing is essentially a pillow block. Like the aftermarket delrin, or urethane bushings, it provides no out-of-axis movement. The only difference in the design of the spherical bearing solution, over the aftermarket delrin or urethane bushings is, that it ha ball-bearing races, to facilitate a lower friction coefficient for the in-axis movement (rotation).

Even by your standards, these should be legal, as they don&#39;t offer any different range of out-of-axis movement, than the aftermarket delrin/urethane/aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

[Bildon]

I admit I have not read every post. But in all seriousness, what is the concern over spherical bearings? Does somebody think they are an unfair advantage such that without them you&#39;ll never win a race?

Because from what I&#39;ve read, we&#39;re still doing a great job of chasing people away with all this negative nit-picking. Again I didn&#39;t read every post so I may have missed the "killer con argument"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 4 2006, 10:29 PM

Here&#39;s a scenario for you. On an A1 VW chassis (i.e. Rabbit or Scirocco), the spherical bearing design is as follows: For the front control arm bushing (Kirk&#39;s 2nd picture, on his car), the spherical bearing solution is essentially a cartridge, that has two bearings connected by a metal sleeve, that the mounting bolt goes through. This cartridge slides into the control arm in the same manner that a stock bushing, or aftermarket delrin or urethane bushing does. It allows no out-of-axis movement at all. The rear spherical bearing is essentially a pillow block. Like the aftermarket delrin, or urethane bushings, it provides no out-of-axis movement. The only difference in the design of the spherical bearing solution, over the aftermarket delrin or urethane bushings is, that it ha ball-bearing races, to facilitate a lower friction coefficient for the in-axis movement (rotation).

Even by your standards, these should be legal, as they don&#39;t offer any different range of out-of-axis movement, than the aftermarket delrin/urethane/aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

70110


This is a great example. You are right in that I believe the functionality of this scenario to be within the intent. It&#39;s the out-of-axis movement that I have trouble with.

Having said that, just because your example &#39;works&#39; like a traditional bushing doesn&#39;t stop you from designing a single-bearing unit that does provide that out-of-axis movement. Maybe not that application - but there are some that certainly could.

If one is legal, so is the other - I don&#39;t think either are because of the componentry involved. I stick by the definitions in the GCR and what is written as allowed. Just because they function as they should doesn&#39;t mean they are legal. If a full-prep E36 325 motor puts 205hp to the ground and a 3.0L E36 M3 motors puts down the exact same number - FUNCTIONALLY the same, does it make it legal?

If a GTI gets a weight-break in the woods, and nobody is there to build one, will it get faster? :)

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 09:51 PM
This is a great example. You are right in that I believe the functionality of this scenario to be within the intent. It&#39;s the out-of-axis movement that I have trouble with.

Having said that, just because your example &#39;works&#39; like a traditional bushing doesn&#39;t stop you from designing a single-bearing unit that does provide that out-of-axis movement. Maybe not that application - but there are some that certainly could.

If one is legal, so is the other - I don&#39;t think either are because of the componentry involved. I stick by the definitions in the GCR and what is written as allowed. Just because they function as they should doesn&#39;t mean they are legal. If a full-prep E36 325 motor puts 205hp to the ground and a 3.0L E36 M3 motors puts down the exact same number - FUNCTIONALLY the same, does it make it legal?

If a GTI gets a weight-break in the woods, and nobody is there to build one, will it get faster? :)

AB

70112



Yeah Andy, but you only seem to have issues w/ the out-of-axis movement, in one direction. How is it ok to provide less (no?) movement, but not ok provide more (if that&#39;s even possible)? Like I said, if that&#39;s going to be your standard, you&#39;ve got to apply it across the board. A bushing that provides more, or less, out-of-axis movement, than a stock bushing, is a different design, period.

And please stop w/ examples like the BMW one, they make you look desperate. That logic fails, becuase they&#39;re both not prepared to the same level. You&#39;re a smart guy Andy, you don&#39;t need to do that.

You&#39;re arguing this one based on emotion, not on the facts at hand. You&#39;re not even sure if spherical bearings will provide a greater range of out-of-axis movement over stock.

To Andy and the rest of the ITAC folks, why not just ask the CRB what the interpretation is on this? This is going to go the same way as the forged piston debate. Reasonable people will disagree, and we will need a definative ruling in the ITCS.

Like George, I don&#39;t care if they are or they aren&#39;t legal, but there&#39;s too much difference of opinion to just leave it open.

[tderonne]

An alternate to a protest, or rules clarification, ask for them.

Write a letter to the CRB and ask for spherical bearings on IT cars. Yes, no, rules sufficient as is, are a couple answers you could get. Should be pretty clear what the CRB thinks.

And while you&#39;re at it, ask to be able to tack weld sleeves to control arms to make it easier to put them in.

[lateapex911]

I&#39;m making my "bushings" out of metal. You all don&#39;t mind if the metal is in two peices, with zero tolerance?

Andy, I think you have been appointed the King of the rules nerds! ;)

Greg is veeery close, but you posted on this a dozen times....slow day at work?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 4 2006, 11:20 PM
Yeah Andy, but you only seem to have issues w/ the out-of-axis movement, in one direction. How is it ok to provide less (no?) movement, but not ok provide more (if that&#39;s even possible)? Like I said, if that&#39;s going to be your standard, you&#39;ve got to apply it across the board. A bushing that provides more, or less, out-of-axis movement, than a stock bushing, is a different design, period.

What I have issues with is *DIFFERENT* movement. You know that a SB can provide movement that is totally different than a stock DESIGN. In your example the application may be the same but I am arguing that in some cars (the 240SX is a perfect example) the use of SB&#39;s provides a non-stock range of motion to the suspension. Some cars, when lowered, develop bind in the suspension. When you are able to use SB&#39;s, that bind can be eliminated. But AGAIN, let&#39;s stop debating specifics on cars...a SB is a SB and a bushing is a bushing as defined by the GCR. A bushing of any material may be used, not of any design.


And please stop w/ examples like the BMW one, they make you look desperate. That logic fails, becuase they&#39;re both not prepared to the same level. You&#39;re a smart guy Andy, you don&#39;t need to do that.

You&#39;re wrong Bill. You were arguing that, because the functionality was the same as the stock bushing (and it just made it more efficient), it was legal. My example brings to the extream that just because something functions as stock, doesn&#39;t make it legal.


You&#39;re arguing this one based on emotion, not on the facts at hand. You&#39;re not even sure if spherical bearings will provide a greater range of out-of-axis movement over stock.

Wrong again. You are looking at it from a VW view. You have to see all the possibilities, applications and potential inequities from allowing this DESIGN. SB&#39;s CAN provide more, less or similar range of motion - it just depends on the design.

OK, this is a dead horse. I will put it on the next agenda for discussion. It see this one as two factions reading the rules two different ways. I will discuss it with the CRB. The piston debate is different IMHO, the rules are clear and the perceived original intent is mucking up the works.

Regardless, decent debate. Winter sucks. See my washer bottle thread later today. :P And thank God I found a source for OEM Mazda air for my tires this fall - phew! :lol: :lol:

AB

[ddewhurst]

***It does have the potential to suddenly make a LOT of cars clearly illegal with a LOT of expense to convert back.***

***But just as a reference point I don&#39;t see sphericals being any more expensive than the alternative. A set of front a-arms for a neon (the only way to get stock bushings) is $472. The costs to put a set of spherical&#39;s in was $120 and it will be $45 dollars to replace the bearings, or antoher $472 to put new arms in when the bushings wear out at a faster rate. So the cost issue doesn&#39;t fly with me.***

Matt, ya been spending way to much time on the Production site. I beleive they started this cost saving CREEP logic & look where they are today. :D :D :D

My 1st gen RX-7 has a Tri-link with spherical bearings & the rear lower control arms also are different than OEM & have spherical bearings. BUT, IMHU the spherical bearings are legal per rule 17.1.4D.5.c.1. "may be added or substituted"

***with zero tolerance***

Jake, I have known all along that your really special. BUT, zero tolerance. Anyone who would write zero tolerance looses NERD points. :P

ps: My bet is that the bushing rule in the glossary is NOT ment to define suspension bushings. But, it&#39;s the only rule in the glossary for bushings. :o

[Bill Miller]

Actually Andy, I&#39;m looking at it from a pretty generic point of view. I see it as this, you&#39;ve got an attachment point, that incorporates a stock bushing (most likely rubber). You can&#39;t change the attachment point, or what attaches to it, only the bushing. I&#39;ll admit that I don&#39;t know all the suspension designs, for all the cars in the ITCS, but most of the control arms we&#39;re talking about, attach at 3 points (sometimes 4). Without changing those points, I just don&#39;t know how much MORE range of motion you can get.

I included the VW example because A) I know the cars, and B) it is an example where there is no different out-of-axis movement, over a solid bushing. Let me ask you this, if I made the previously mentioned &#39;cartridge&#39;, using a sleeved bearing (similar to a wheel bearing), would you consider that legal? There certainly is no opportunity for out-of-axis movement.

I agree that suspensions will bind when cars are lowered. That even happens on a VW. But, you could use that as justification for the allowance of spherical bearings, as bushings. We will let you lower your car, we know that it will bind the suspension, so, you can use this alternate bushing to help minimize/eliminate this bind.


What I have issues with is *DIFFERENT* movement. You know that a SB can provide movement that is totally different than a stock DESIGN.

Again, how can you only have issue w/ one type of &#39;different&#39; movement? A solid delrin/urethane/aluminum bushing provides totally different movement than a stock design. It provides NO out-of-axis movement, whereas the stock design, due to the compliance of the rubber bushing, does provide out-of-axis movement. No matter how you slice it, THAT is a different design.

If allowing differnt than stock movement is the test, neither the spherical bearing solution OR the solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution are legal. I&#39;m sorry, but you&#39;re not being objective about this one Andy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 5 2006, 09:38 AM
Actually Andy, I&#39;m looking at it from a pretty generic point of view. I see it as this, you&#39;ve got an attachment point, that incorporates a stock bushing (most likely rubber). You can&#39;t change the attachment point, or what attaches to it, only the bushing. I&#39;ll admit that I don&#39;t know all the suspension designs, for all the cars in the ITCS, but most of the control arms we&#39;re talking about, attach at 3 points (sometimes 4). Without changing those points, I just don&#39;t know how much MORE range of motion you can get.

I included the VW example because A) I know the cars, and B) it is an example where there is no different out-of-axis movement, over a solid bushing. Let me ask you this, if I made the previously mentioned &#39;cartridge&#39;, using a sleeved bearing (similar to a wheel bearing), would you consider that legal? There certainly is no opportunity for out-of-axis movement.

I agree that suspensions will bind when cars are lowered. That even happens on a VW. But, you could use that as justification for the allowance of spherical bearings, as bushings. We will let you lower your car, we know that it will bind the suspension, so, you can use this alternate bushing to help minimize/eliminate this bind.
Again, how can you only have issue w/ one type of &#39;different&#39; movement? A solid delrin/urethane/aluminum bushing provides totally different movement than a stock design. It provides NO out-of-axis movement, whereas the stock design, due to the compliance of the rubber bushing, does provide out-of-axis movement. No matter how you slice it, THAT is a different design.

If allowing differnt than stock movement is the test, neither the spherical bearing solution OR the solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution are legal. I&#39;m sorry, but you&#39;re not being objective about this one Andy.

70138


I don&#39;t think you understand my point. Just because something holds something else in place better (solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution) does not CHANGE it&#39;s movement, it limits the original movement. If you want to call that a change, then we will agree that it&#39;s symmantics we are arguing.

SOME SB designs allow a bolt to pivot in ways not designed for originally. This is EXACTLY why people use them as bushings. You brushed off my BMW example but you didn&#39;t get it. Just because your new VW set-up FUNCTIONS as originally intended, doesn&#39;t mean I have to agree it is legal because I feel the parts you used to do so are not legal. We disagree on WHY I think it is illegal, but you get my point.

You could use any &#39;improvement to a difficiency&#39; as the justification for an allowance - and that is how we CREEP! Hell, we just got a request to allow alternate connection rods!!!

Done.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Wow, a long one for a simple discussion. Seems illegal to me but I&#39;m still not even sure exactly why I&#39;d use them. Just my 0.02 cents.

I wonder if it has reached this stage yet?
http://www.gt40s.com/images/damn.gif

Just kidding!!! It&#39;ll be interesting to see what the CRB or a protest situation produces.

[Bill Miller]

I don&#39;t think you understand my point. Just because something holds something else in place better (solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution) does not CHANGE it&#39;s movement, it limits the original movement. If you want to call that a change, then we will agree that it&#39;s symmantics we are arguing.


Like I said Andy, you&#39;ve lost some of your objectivity on this matter. To say that limiting (or eliminating) movement, over the original design, is simply a symmantical change shows one of two things, either you don&#39;t understand the situation (which I highly doubt), or that you don&#39;t want to acknowledge it, because it doesn&#39;t support your arguement. It&#39;s ok if I limit (eliminate?) my out-of-axis movement, but it&#39;s not ok if I improve my in-axis movement (through reduced friction/binding)? Once again, you can&#39;t apply the standard to only the parts that you want to. It&#39;s all about internal consistency.

And you just don&#39;t understand my point. Anything that changes the amount or degree, of motion, over stock, is a change in design, period.


SOME SB designs allow a bolt to pivot in ways not designed for originally. This is EXACTLY why people use them as bushings.

Gee Andy, in the VW example, they&#39;re used because they lower the rotational friction of the control arm. Has absolutely nothing to do w/ the bolt pivoting in ways it was not designed to (unless you mean eliminating deflection, but that&#39;s the same as w/ a solid bushing, so it&#39;s a non-issue).

Also, you didn&#39;t comment on the wheel bearing-like scenario.

BTW, the piston debate I was referring to, was the forged vs. cast one, not the most recent one.

But, since you brought it up, the "improvement to defficiency" arguement is essentially what&#39;s being used to justify an 0.040 over piston for cars that never had them available from the factory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 5 2006, 10:44 AM


But, since you brought it up, the "improvement to defficiency" arguement is essentially what&#39;s being used to justify an 0.040 over piston for cars that never had them available from the factory.

70146


Yup, and I don&#39;t believe in either allowance as the record will show.

We don&#39;t agree. Oh well.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

So let me ask this, if a specific car has a suspension "bushing" that meets the GCR definition of a spherical bearing would you (Greg and Andy) still say that using a metallic spherical bearing in that instance is illegal? The functionallity is not altered as the original design depends on it acting as a spherical AS DEFINED BY THE GCR. And because it also meets the GCR definition of a bushing a material change is allowed. And Greg, based on your past racing history and my signature you should be bale to figure out the design I&#39;m referring to.

[bldn10]

After this came up in a previous thread and I was appalled to hear that a SB was deemed a bushing, I e-mailed Jeremy and asked about it. He confirmed that his/SCCA&#39;s opinion was that it was a bushing because it reduces the dimension of an existing hole.

I think that&#39;s crap. What is being missed here for the most part is the entire definition. The purpose is one thing but the first requirement is that is be a "sleeve or tubular insert." It is not either/or it is both/and. To me that means a solid cylinder (of any material) whose outside diameter is roughly the same as the "existing hole" and that has a hole bored or molded in through the length of the cylinder (i.e. a tube). There is nothing in the rule about a ball or spherical joint or anything else inside the cylinder. You can argue all you want that a SB only performs the same function as an OEM bushing, but that can win you only half the argument - you still have a piece that is something more than a "sleeve or tubular insert."

As to intent of the rule, I think it was clearly to allow different material only, primarily for durability under the extreme conditions of racing w/ use of stiffer springs, etc.

Frankly, I&#39;m not sure if my car has SBs or not, but that does not matter one iota to me - the rule is the rule and I interpret it the way I think it was meant to be - not how it might benefit me.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 5 2006, 10:37 AM
After this came up in a previous thread and I was appalled to hear that a SB was deemed a bushing, I e-mailed Jeremy and asked about it. He confirmed that his/SCCA&#39;s opinion was that it was a bushing because it reduces the dimension of an existing hole.

I think that&#39;s crap. What is being missed here for the most part is the entire definition. The purpose is one thing but the first requirement is that is be a "sleeve or tubular insert." It is not either/or it is both/and. To me that means a solid cylinder (of any material) whose outside diameter is roughly the same as the "existing hole" and that has a hole bored or molded in through the length of the cylinder (i.e. a tube). There is nothing in the rule about a ball or spherical joint or anything else inside the cylinder. You can argue all you want that a SB only performs the same function as an OEM bushing, but that can win you only half the argument - you still have a piece that is something more than a "sleeve or tubular insert."

As to intent of the rule, I think it was clearly to allow different material only, primarily for durability under the extreme conditions of racing w/ use of stiffer springs, etc.

Frankly, I&#39;m not sure if my car has SBs or not, but that does not matter one iota to me - the rule is the rule and I interpret it the way I think it was meant to be - not how it might benefit me.

70151


Ok Bill, does that mean that you can&#39;t put a metal sleeve inside that solid delrin/urethane bushing you&#39;re using? Even the OEM rubber ones come w/ a metal sleeve inside the rubber (well, maybe not all of them, but several of the ones I&#39;ve seen have).

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by erlrich@Jan 4 2006, 10:10 PM
Greg, would you be willing to file the request?

70107

Of course. My interest is in getting the issue put to bed in the most expeditious and least expensive way possible. Since I am currently willing to "invest" at least $75 ($25 protest plus $50 appeal) I&#39;ll start with that into the pot. Anyone that submits will also be involved in writing the request, both pro and con.

A related question: does anyone know how, once the decision has been made, this decision is posted/saved for future "generations"? IOW, how does the membership as a whole find out?

Greg

On edit: I&#39;m reading with interest the debate of decreasing or increasing movement, vis-a-vis a prohibited function. I would suggest this is a red herring: given what I know from days gone by, the original intent of alternate bushing material was likely to allow Delrin and/or poly bushings to replace the crappy soft rubber ones (remember, this was back in the days of cushy econosheisboxes, not sporty cars). Given that, the intent of the rule is apparently to restrict the movement of the suspension, make the car "tighter" (no arguments - Geo - about my not knowing the true intent &#39;cause I wasn&#39;t in the meeting. I understand that, but I was part of the club - and racing - when these rules were written; I think I understand the hitorical context.)

So, if one were to accept that the intent of the rule was to change the limitations within the bushing, it is not a stretch to assume that allowing more movement is also acceptable (e.g., RX7 rear suspensions.)

I do not dispute this point. What I do dispute is that the rule says alternate "material" is allowed, not alternate designs, and no matter how many times you quack it, a spherical bearing is not a suspension bushing, and its design is significantly different than probably any factory suspension or crossmember bushing ever installed on a passenger car. You can increment yourseld to anywhere you want, but when you put one in your left hand and one in your right hand, no one can possibly confuse the two... - GA

[Greg Amy]

edit: double post.

[Knestis]

I THINK that the only way that a finding can "stick" is for it to be translated into expansion/explanation/etc. in FasTrack and subsequent GCRs. Seems that the only sure way is to first get a ruling, then request a rule change to make things "clearer."

Now, we all know that more verbage ain&#39;t necessarily going to make things clearer but...

K

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 12:32 PM
I do not dispute this point. What I do dispute is that the rule says alternate "material" is allowed, not alternate designs, and no matter how many times you quack it, a spherical bearing is not a suspension bushing, and its design is significantly different than probably any factory suspension or crossmember bushing ever installed on a passenger car.

70156


From the GCR:

Spherical Bearing - A load-bearing connector in which the central portion is convex and the outer portion is concave, allowing both angular displacements of the axes and relative rotation.

The design (sorry I can&#39;t find a pciture) I am thinking of is both load bearing, with a central convex and outer concave portions. It allows angular displacement of the bolted axes and rotation. Per the GCR by definition it IS a stock OEM equipped spherical bearing. It just happens to be partly made out of rubber. So I&#39;ll ask again Greg, would you consider it illegal/legal to use a metal spherical and why based on the rulebook? If it&#39;s meets the GCR definition of a spherical that&#39;s what it is, at the same time it meets the definition of a bushing and therefore material changes are allowed. We allow for substituing shocks which have different designs because they are all shocks so the concept of different design doesn&#39;t apply if the function of a component is the same, right?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 5 2006, 07:01 AM
The piston debate is different IMHO, the rules are clear and the perceived original intent is mucking up the works.

70134


Not to rehash that here, but I disagree on this point as well. Forged pistons require different clearances and that muddies the waters IMHO.

I only bring this up because we can find conflicts in all sorts of rules if we nit pick and read literally enough.

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 10:32 AM
Given that, the intent of the rule is apparently to restrict the movement of the suspension, make the car "tighter" (no arguments - Geo - about my not knowing the true intent &#39;cause I wasn&#39;t in the meeting. I understand that, but I was part of the club - and racing - when these rules were written; I think I understand the hitorical context.)

So, if one were to accept that the intent of the rule was to change the limitations within the bushing, it is not a stretch to assume that allowing more movement is also acceptable (e.g., RX7 rear suspensions.)

70156


Hey Greg, I wouldn&#39;t give you ANY grief for the above because:

1. You modify your statement with "apparently" an I can certainly accept that as an opinion.

2. Given no. 1 above, I think your statement about historical context is germane.

3. You further continue your discussion with "if one were to accept..."

Not that my opinioin matters, but it would be easier if people would just do this more often. Statements without modifiers appear to many as facts. However, something like the above quote is clear that it&#39;s an opinion. As such as newbie won&#39;t search and take such statements as gospel fact. It also makes further discussion on the topic more rational.

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

If you file a 13.9 then you get the results and may or may not share them at your will. Obviosly if others join in the investment then I think that you would share with the rest of the people who invested. If everyone that invests wants to share with the world then post it here. If you want to keep it a secret for yourselves then don&#39;t share it.

Someone on the Spec Miata site sent in a 13.9 on a radiator issue, which I had to deal with twice when acting as an SOM. I was happy to see that the person posted thier 13.9 results on the web for all to share (although I might not have done that) and I was correct in my opinions when I was on the SOM :)

Anyway other than a 13.9 I am not sure if you could just write a letter to SCCA? I was thinking that we should write to the powers that be for clarifications on this rule along with the .040 rule as they seem to be "hot topics" with very rational arguments either way. I think a "free" responce would be for the good of its members and the integrety of the rules. I think requiring a 13.9 to resolve issues that a large number of members has is a bit rediculouse, but at the same time it is a lot better than ruining the Stewards day by dealing with a protest that will just get appealed anyway.

If you do file a 13.9, send me a PM of what sort of financial investment you would want, I would be glad to invest in a copy of the results for myself as a steward and as a compeditor.

Raymond

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 5 2006, 01:22 PM
Per the GCR by definition it IS a stock OEM equipped spherical bearing. It just happens to be partly made out of rubber.
70164

Matt, if I understand what your saying, then you&#39;re trying to take a GCR definition of a spherical bearing and apply it to a bushing, thus allowing you to use one in place of your control arms bushings (for example.) Sorry, it doesn&#39;t fly with me. If SCCA considered them one and the same part, why offer two separate and distinct definitions? Further, I can probably find a lot of items that meet the GCR "definition" of shperical bearings but that you would laugh at me for saying it&#39;s a suspension bushing (like maybe an ice cream scoop?) What you&#39;re trying to do here is reverse logic, where you&#39;re trying to fit a definition to an item, rather than defining the item itself; that&#39;s not what definitions are for.

Sorry to be redundant, but I&#39;m pointing right back to the ITCS allowance that "alternate material" is allowed and nothing else. No one has yet to sufficiently support how this allows spherical bearings in lieu of suspension bushings.

Raymond: OF COURSE I would want to publish the results; what would be the point of keeping it secret (except to use as ammo in a protest, which is childish)? In fact, I would submit the results of that 13.9 - pro or con - to request a change in the verbiage of the rules to fit the ruled intent.

Having had a day or so to think about it, I&#39;ll take the plunge and file a 13.9 on it rather than taking the contentious route. Anyone that wishes to contribute should send me a PayPal to grega(a)pobox(d)com (cash/checking account only please; I cannot accept credit cards). I&#39;ll hold the money in the account until we file the request, and if for whatever reason it doesn&#39;t happen you&#39;ll get it back. Any overage will be refunded pro-rata. Further, anyone that contributes will have full input into the submission; I sincerely hope someone who believes these are legal gets involved as well so your position is represented.

Keep the debate going; this is very good useful info. - GA

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

Not sure how to respond or thank you... I was not excited about having to deal with this protest (from the Stewards side) this season to clarify this issue (I don&#39;t like to be the bad guy, and I think that no matter how a ruling would be made, someone would be upset) This will sureley be a more impartial and "true" answer to our question.

I think that it is increadably awsome that you are doing this!!! Once I figure out the PayPal thing I will be sending you something... not sure what (as I am a poor young boy), but something :)

Raymond

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Jan 5 2006, 02:09 PM
Greg-

Not sure how to respond or thank you... I was not excited about having to deal with this protest (from the Stewards side) this season to clarify this issue (I don&#39;t like to be the bad guy, and I think that no matter how a ruling would be made, someone would be upset) This will sureley be a more impartial and "true" answer to our question.

I think that it is increadably awsome that you are doing this!!! Once I figure out the PayPal thing I will be sending you something... not sure what (as I am a poor young boy), but something :)

Raymond

70178



Not offering an opinion either way but I would suggest that this has been ruled on in the past for IT or maybe Prod back in the day. The obviously is a precedence for them from somewhere.

[Joe Harlan]

.....

[latebrake]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 5 2006, 05:38 PM
.....

70180


Lets see..... All toads are frogs but not all frogs are toads. Is that right? :lol: :)

[stevel]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 5 2006, 02:01 PM
What I have issues with is *DIFFERENT* movement. You know that a SB can provide movement that is totally different than a stock DESIGN. In your example the application may be the same but I am arguing that in some cars (the 240SX is a perfect example) the use of SB&#39;s provides a non-stock range of motion to the suspension. Some cars, when lowered, develop bind in the suspension. When you are able to use SB&#39;s, that bind can be eliminated. But AGAIN, let&#39;s stop debating specifics on cars...a SB is a SB and a bushing is a bushing as defined by the GCR. A bushing of any material may be used, not of any design.
You&#39;re wrong Bill. You were arguing that, because the functionality was the same as the stock bushing (and it just made it more efficient), it was legal. My example brings to the extream that just because something functions as stock, doesn&#39;t make it legal.



Again, Andy I completely disagree with you here as far as your range of movement argument. The SB&#39;s providing a non-stock range of motion is, IMHO, incorrect. A poly or delrin bushing will cause bind. So people put the SB&#39;s in to get rid of that bind and usually the travel or axis of movement is the SAME as with the rubber in there that is compliant enough. And, on some cars the rubber is in there to allow a range of motion in multiple axis as intended and putting in a delrin or poly bushing actually will hamper that function. So, people will put in a spherical bearing to get back the ORIGINAL range of motion, even at a stock ride height.

So, I disagree with your argument about allowing movement outside of the stock range. Usually the only way to maintain the stock range of movement is with a spherical bearing. The only thing I would agree on is that a bearing is not a bushing, maybe. I&#39;m not so convinced of that either. But, your range of movement outside of stock doesn&#39;t hold water in all cases.

steve

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 03:52 PM
Matt, if I understand what your saying, then you&#39;re trying to take a GCR definition of a spherical bearing and apply it to a bushing, thus allowing you to use one in place of your control arms bushings (for example.) Sorry, it doesn&#39;t fly with me. If SCCA considered them one and the same part, why offer two separate and distinct definitions? Further, I can probably find a lot of items that meet the GCR "definition" of shperical bearings but that you would laugh at me for saying it&#39;s a suspension bushing (like maybe an ice cream scoop?) What you&#39;re trying to do here is reverse logic, where you&#39;re trying to fit a definition to an item, rather than defining the item itself; that&#39;s not what definitions are for.

70177


Greg, if we can&#39;t use the GCR definitions to define what a part is then what do we use? Commonly accepted terminology and parts books listings have been thrown out in the past in favor of the definitions clearly stated in the rulebook. I agree that the glossary is poorly worded (although I don&#39;t think an ice cream scoop fits the definition) but poorly worded is all we have in print. You can&#39;t selectively decide what you do and don&#39;t take literally. I&#39;m not trying to fit a definition to an item, I am trying to show that item X is more accurately defined by definition A (SB) than by definition B (bushing).

As for the SCCA never using multiple definitions for the same part try looking up aerodynamic device and then air dam, airfoil, spoiler and so on. I lost count of the number of different glossary entries that apply to the same part.

Keep in mind I am not arguing intent, I am arguing the literal interpretation of what is printed. You may not like it, but I could make the case for it. Of course, building the piece without illegal modifications to the a-arm or subframe is another matter.

[DavidM]

I&#39;ve been trying to read this thread somewhat objectively, but I bought my car with a complete spherical bearing set-up so I have a vested interest in seeing that spherical bearings are allowed. It seems, to me anyways, that the rules are currently gray enough that you could argue for or against them as evidenced by this discussion. Many racers have apparently taken advantage of this gray area (as racers will do) to equip their cars with said "bushings" for whatever reasons. It also seems that some informal letters/e-mails have been exchanged with various SCCA officials on the topic where those officals said spherical bearings were legal.

My proposal would be (if people think this is a big enough deal) to have the verbiage of the rule clarified so that it is clear spherical bearings are *allowed*. Most people have said they don&#39;t care whether they&#39;re allowed or not, they just want the rule to be clear. So I&#39;m suggesting, for obvious reasons, that the rule be clarified allowing spherical bearings.

I can already hear the rules creep people jumping up and down. I don&#39;t disagree. However, I don&#39;t think you can let the cat out of the bag, let him run around for a few years, and then try to stuff him back in. I don&#39;t know how long this bushing gray area has existed, but I get the impression it&#39;s at least a few years. It&#39;d be one thing if the rule was modified to explicitly not allow spherical bearings as soon as it was realized people were starting to use them. It&#39;s another thing to let it go on for a long time and then one day decide they&#39;re illegal. Call it apathy or whatever, but it seems that up to this point this has not been a big enough deal for somebody to file an official protest, rules clarification request, or other paperwork. IMO (admittedly biased) I think it&#39;s too late to go back.

Anybody ever wonder what F1 or LeMans rules debates are like? You&#39;ve got hundreds of people on each team attempting to exploit every gray area in the rules they can find. We&#39;re just a bunch of guys who race on the weekends and don&#39;t even get paid for it.

David

[Geo]

Originally posted by DavidM+Jan 5 2006, 03:55 PM-->
I don&#39;t know how long this bushing gray area has existed, but I get the impression it&#39;s at least a few years.
70192
[/b]

Actually, whether or not it&#39;s even a grey area is in debate. I&#39;m not so sure it is.

<!--QuoteBegin-DavidM@Jan 5 2006, 03:55 PM
Anybody ever wonder what F1 or LeMans rules debates are like? You&#39;ve got hundreds of people on each team attempting to exploit every gray area in the rules they can find. We&#39;re just a bunch of guys who race on the weekends and don&#39;t even get paid for it.

70192


In some ways F1 and to a lesser extent, LeMans rules debates are much easier because the population of competitors is significantly smaller and the sanctioning bodies have professional staffs to cater to this sort of thing. Of course, teams in F1 have been known to get Charlie Whiting&#39;s blessing only to have someone squack and protest and have the World Motorsports Council declare it illegal anyway, so even the FIA has the same problem.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 5 2006, 05:33 PM
The only thing I would agree on is that a bearing is not a bushing, maybe.
steve

70187

Then guess what side of the arguement you fall on.

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp@Jan 5 2006, 08:19 AM
Wow, a long one for a simple discussion. Seems illegal to me but I&#39;m still not even sure exactly why I&#39;d use them. Just my 0.02 cents.

70144


Ron, since nobody has responded yet.....

The reason to use spherical bearings is two-fold.

1) The spherical bearings have significantly less friction and even bind in them then almost all other types of bushings. By removing the friction, changes in spring rates and swaybars will react more like one would expect. Introduce friction and the bushings develop a pseudo spring rate.

2) Spherical bearings have no defelction under load so the suspension alignment stays put and the car reacts more predictably.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 5 2006, 06:35 PM
Ron, since nobody has responded yet.....

The reason to use spherical bearings is two-fold.

1) The spherical bearings have significantly less friction and even bind in them then almost all other types of bushings. By removing the friction, changes in spring rates and swaybars will react more like one would expect. Introduce friction and the bushings develop a pseudo spring rate.

2) Spherical bearings have no defelction under load so the suspension alignment stays put and the car reacts more predictably.

70203



Geo, your forgeting one thing. We race these cars, The binding in some applications actually causes failures on the mounting point from the extreme loads we put them through. Again I am not speaking one way or the other on the legality.

[mowog]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 5 2006, 06:41 PM
Greg, if we can&#39;t use the GCR definitions to define what a part is then what do we use? Commonly accepted terminology and parts books listings have been thrown out in the past in favor of the definitions clearly stated in the rulebook. I agree that the glossary is poorly worded (although I don&#39;t think an ice cream scoop fits the definition) but poorly worded is all we have in print.

Matt and all others who refer to the glossary as some body of work written to completely define any and all items, I would like to let you in on some little known facts (not secrets). Many years ago a BOD member and a close friend of mine (names withheld) were discussing how a glossary could help others, particularly non-technical Stewards, better understand some terms used in the GCR and class specific rule books. My friend decided to start this by writing down all words in the SCCA rule books he found weren&#39;t defined in a standard dictionary, or had a different meaning when used in the specific context involved. He then attempted to give each a clear definition. This was submitted with the intent it would be proof-read, modified as appropriate, etc. What was not expected is that it would be published intact. Since that time, a few changes and additions have been made to the original. Also since that time, the glossary has become a source of pride and occasional amusement because of discussions like the above. You might also note GCR page 129 (beginning of glossary) and the reference to conflicts between terms and rules. If you think you can do better, or you think some of the definitions are incorrect, please feel free to submit your version of a glossary. I&#39;m sure the CRB and BOD would take a look at it when they have time.

Cheers, and by all means continue on with your debate....

[Matt Rowe]

I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if that truly is the origin of the glossary. But like it or not if that is the only place a part is defined in the rules than that is what we must use. Remember we aren&#39;t supposed to base interpretations of the rules on intent? So you can&#39;t say a definition doesn&#39;t apply because what meets the definition is not what was intended.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by mowog@Jan 5 2006, 10:58 PM
Matt and all others who refer to the glossary as some body of work written to completely define any and all items ...

Oh, I can COMPLETELY see how this is plausible.

K

[mustanghammer]

Forgive me if this was covered or mentioned earlier, but this "allowance" has been in place a REALLY long time.

In 1993 or 94 I installed spherical bearings on a ITA RX7 for Charlie Clark at KC Raceware. He had designed and built a bolt in kit for every pickup point on the car and my job was to make the spacers and install the kit. Basically it was a test to see if a below average mechanic (and believe me I was) using homeowner type tools could install it. I believe that car is still allive in CA although I don&#39;t know the status of the bearings!

Since that time every car that rolled out of the shop at KC Raceware for Charlie&#39;s use has had spherical busings installed. Most of the customer cars have received this treatment as well. They work, last a really long time, require no maintenance and are legal in our opinion.

My car has them too. Installed in 2000. :023:

So guys, the horse it out of the barn. It won the triple crown and was retired to stud. After passing it was made into glue. A little late to be shutting the barn door? :unsure:

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 6 2006, 02:16 PM
Forgive me if this was covered or mentioned earlier, but this "allowance" has been in place a REALLY long time.

In 1993 or 94 I installed spherical bearings on a ITA RX7 for Charlie Clark at KC Raceware. He had designed and built a bolt in kit for every pickup point on the car and my job was to make the spacers and install the kit. Basically it was a test to see if a below average mechanic (and believe me I was) using homeowner type tools could install it. I believe that car is still allive in CA although I don&#39;t know the status of the bearings!

Since that time every car that rolled out of the shop at KC Raceware for Charlie&#39;s use has had spherical busings installed. Most of the customer cars have received this treatment as well. They work, last a really long time, require no maintenance and are legal in our opinion.

My car has them too. Installed in 2000. :023:

So guys, the horse it out of the barn. It won the triple crown and was retired to stud. After passing it was made into glue. A little late to be shutting the barn door? :unsure:

70235


Oh, and is this an example of Rules Creep? Yes.

Rules Creep by definition is the unintended result of GOOD or BAD intentions that are exploited by creative SCCA members. If spherical bearings weren&#39;t the intended result of the bushing rule then make the rule say so......in 1992.

Because this much foresight is generally beyond most everyones thinking - I mean really, would you have caught the spherical bearing "allowance" way back then - rules should be left along as much as possible. This is the best justification for washer bottles and T/S stalks.

Why do I have spherical bearings in my car if I don&#39;t wnat rules creep. See my earlier post. I everybody is doing it........ B)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

We are debating the legality of a commonly accepted (by some) INTERPRETATION of a rule - not a specific allowance. It&#39;s not something that is specifically called out as legal in the rules, so just because it is being done doesn&#39;t mean it is legal.

It could be mind you, but people are disagreeing. What is your interpretation of the rule - seeing as how you did it to your car?

AB

[stevel]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 6 2006, 01:27 AM
Then guess what side of the arguement you fall on.

AB

70202


I said maybe. I&#39;m still on the fence. I have to look into it more.

s

[cherokee]

IMHO these are the kind of things that put newbe&#39;s off. When I was building my car I had thaught about installing SB&#39;s in my car. At the time I had too many other fish to fry so I passed. It is on the list of things to do. This seems like a big deal over not a very big deal.
BTW:
My car could realy bennifit from them, my front susp. realy does bind when lowered.
But I will wait and see what the fallout is from all of this.

[Knestis]

For the sake of discussion, the VWs benefit from bushings or bearings in the LCAs in terms of increased toe control. They are typically at a ride height close enough to stock that binding isn&#39;t an issue.

K

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 6 2006, 02:35 PM
Chris,

We are debating the legality of a commonly accepted (by some) INTERPRETATION of a rule - not a specific allowance. It&#39;s not something that is specifically called out as legal in the rules, so just because it is being done doesn&#39;t mean it is legal.

It could be mind you, but people are disagreeing. What is your interpretation of the rule - seeing as how you did it to your car?

AB

70239


Let me be Chris. Normally I like to be Frank but I can be flexible. :)

Yes Spherical Bearings are bushings. I have no problem with the interpretation that put 14 of them in my car before I bought it (note, I am counting the panhard bar and the tri-link). If I started an IT project car today I would install them.

[dickita15]

This was already an old interpretation when I bought by car in 98. form what i was told then from multiple sources it had been resolved a year or two before then.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 12:27 PM
So I then go to the glossery and look up the defenition of bushing:

"A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole."

While a SB does this, it ALSO does much more (pivoting on virtually unlimited axis&#39;). So I submit that they would be illegal under the &#39;an allowed modification can not perform a prohibited function&#39;
70030


That definition is completely inadequate for any automotive suspension - all vehicles have suspension bushings which do considerably more than that definition.

An SB does no more in an automotive suspension than any other suspension bushing - the only difference among any of them is compliance.

Typical definitions of "bushing" all include the word or notion of "bearing" because a bushing is a simple bearing.

Also I was IM&#39;d by someone on this topic in another thread that one of their additional objections was that IT modifications should be standardized street tuning aftermarket type modifications. I don&#39;t know if that is a valid basis for a rule being allowed or not (certainly not for legaility). On my car there is not a single joint component of the suspension that isn&#39;t available with a SB from at least three manufacturers.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 4 2006, 11:39 AM
I sincerely hope to do this in a non-confrontational way by finding someone willing to work with me, but I sinerely doubt that will happen. However, if you&#39;re interested in working with me, please let me know.

70022


That is going to be tough to do nonconfrontationally. Consider that illegal pieces are taken away never to be returned - if the initial ruling at the track is illegal, someone is at the track and has every joint of their suspension removed, that is hardly anything if not confrontational. Forget about oh my motor won&#39;t run so I have to hoist the car on the trailer - the car can&#39;t be moved without significant damage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, the line to too fine to have any concensus. What else can we debate while the snow is on the ground, the engine is at the builder and the car is out to paint?

:P

I will take the contrary opinion that any newbies who read this stuff, if they have the stomach to be making big piles of money into small piles of money doing this rediculous sport, would benefit from &#39;Rulebook Interpretation 101".

The answer to the Final exam is simple. Read the GCR, know the GCR, love the GCR. People can - and will - see two sides to different rules. Tread lightly and be prepared to defend how you have prepared your car when you present it as legal. I have ultimate respect for people who are willing to defend a modifciation as legal (like this calm debate) as opposed to people who exploit a known loophole and then bitch and moan when it gets tightened or clarified.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 6 2006, 02:43 PM
The answer to the Final exam is simple. Read the GCR, know the GCR, love the GCR. People can - and will - see two sides to different rules. Tread lightly and be prepared to defend how you have prepared your car when you present it as legal. I have ultimate respect for people who are willing to defend a modifciation as legal as opposed to people who exploit a known loophole and then bitch and moan when it gets tightened or clarified.

70277


Hmm, can we have the forum automatically insert this into every rules debate? Simply stated, Andy is flatout right. :happy204: Interpretations vary but as a driver you&#39;re responsible for knowing why everything on your car is the way it is. If it&#39;s stock you need to be able to show documentation that is how the factory made it, if it&#39;s modified you need to know where the rulebook allows the change. Putting a part on your car just because everyone else is doing it is asking for trouble unless you can logically explain why the rules allow it.

Now, I will to attempt to use the glossary definition of "breather vent" to explain why I can remove the washer bottle from my car. ;) :blink: :o :D

[ddewhurst]

*** I have no problem with the interpretation that put 14 of them in my car before I bought it (note, I am counting the panhard bar and the tri-link). If I started an IT project car today I would install them.***

Scott, your car is a ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 correct. IMHU of the rule for addition or substituted of panhard bar & traction bar 8 are legal in the rear of the car. Please explain where the remaining 6 are located that had OEM rubber bushings ?

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 6 2006, 08:18 PM
*** I have no problem with the interpretation that put 14 of them in my car before I bought it (note, I am counting the panhard bar and the tri-link). If I started an IT project car today I would install them.***

Scott, your car is a ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 correct. IMHU of the rule for addition or substituted of panhard bar & traction bar 8 are legal in the rear of the car. Please explain where the remaining 6 are located that had OEM rubber bushings ?

70283


Sure, they are in the front suspension:

Lower Control arms = 2
Strut rods =2
Camber Plate = 2

All of them are Aurora spherical bearings in bearing cups. The bearings are retained by snap rings in the cups. The bearing cups are welded into the control arm or suspension location on the body where appropriate.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 6 2006, 03:46 PM
The bearing cups are welded into the control arm or suspension location on the body where appropriate.

70287

So, let me get this straight: not only are you installing - IMO - illegal parts, you&#39;re making illegal modifications to the car in order to do so? :018:

This is quickly becoming...well I don&#39;t know how to describe it. We&#39;ve got a lot of people trying to call bearings bushings (or is it bushings bearings?), some who say they heard from the grapevine it was legal (but offer no supporting documentation or references), only ONE person that has received a semi-official - yet totally unbinding - opinion from someone who no longers works at National, some that say (or imply) they heard it was officially approved but can&#39;t support that either (despite the rule never being changed to accomodate it), more that figure it must be legal &#39;cause other people are doing it and have been doing it for years, yet another person that figures you can modify your car in any way to install them (&#39;cause that&#39;s the way it&#39;s been done for a long time), and yet nobody - NO ONE - has made a reasonable, cogent, logical case for their being a reasonable modification to the letter or spirit of the rules, instead relying on a distorted, tortured discussion regarding the GCR definitions to circularly support the use of the products.

Am I in an alternate IT universe or something...?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 6 2006, 03:55 PM
yet nobody - NO ONE - has made a reasonable, cogent, logical case for their being a reasonable modification to the letter or spirit of the rules, instead relying on a distorted, tortured discussion regarding the GCR definitions to circularly support the use of the products.

Am I in an alternate IT universe or something...?

70290


Greg, just because you don&#39;t agree with a viewpoint doesn&#39;t mean that a reasonable, cogent, logical case hasn&#39;t been presented. It&#39;s just hard to see thru all the crap flying around. :D

And if you expected anything different when you started this cluster@#$& than you are definitely in an alternate reality. This is pretty much par for the course for ANY rules discussion. :bash_1_:

Now if you want to start another debate, something came up on the production car forums that got me thinking with regards to the forged piston debate here. Generally when running forged pistons you run full floating pins for a number of good reasons. Many stock rods rely on pressed fit pins though and off the top of my head IT doesn&#39;t allow a change. How many people are illegally converting the rods over to full floating when they drop in forged pistons?

[JamesB]

Well I think in the response to GA, do we know when the rule on busing material changed? If we know when that change went into effect, that could it not be possible that one of our very own IT.com packrats might be able to dig out their monthly fasttracks and scan for the published decisions? At least that would clarify where the precidence came from.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 6 2006, 03:55 PM

Am I in an alternate IT universe or something...?

70290


Some would say this is the &#39;same old&#39; universe!

B)

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 6 2006, 05:19 PM
And if you expected anything different when you started this cluster@#$& than you are definitely in an alternate reality. This is pretty much par for the course for ANY rules discussion. :bash_1_:
70296
Which is why I&#39;m staying out of it. :)

As an aside, wasn&#39;t the original intent of the rule to allow people to substitute poly bushings for the OEM rubber versions, hence the reference to "material"?

Just asking.

[Knestis]

<redherring> There&#39;s an IT BMW in the SportsCar classifieds this month that specifically lists "plexiglass rear windows" among its features. </redherring>

I&#39;m tending, having given it a good thinkin&#39;, to lean toward Greg&#39;s position. It kind of comes down to what "rule of law" is being applied:

Does the rule, including present definitions of "bushing" and "spherical bearing," allow SBs to replace rubber suspension bushings, where another rule doesn&#39;t specifically do so? I don&#39;t think so.

Is it a common, current interpretation that it IS allowed? I DO think so.

I&#39;ll bet you a cookie that if asked, the folks in the Club Racing office are going to be of the opinion that this is okay but not because that&#39;s what the rule says. They will be loathe to piss off a bunch of people who have been doing this for years and, if followed to its full conclusion, this pursuit will result in the current, looser interpretation being codified as legal.

Now - does this mean I can weld (or cut, machine, reinforce, or otherwise diddle) my A-arms? That&#39;s a whole &#39;nother question, isn&#39;t it? It should be asked at the same time as the former.

K

EDIT - it&#39;s my recollection that the alternate bushing material allowance has been on the books for EVER. The problem is that technology - in the form of readily available SBs for normal people - makes it way easier to do now, than when the rules were written. This is like the coilover rule, wherein when the first ruleset came out, NOBODY thought of putting "real" race springs on an IT car.

[gsbaker]

It must be winter. :lol:

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Jan 6 2006, 09:30 PM
Which is why I&#39;m staying out of it. :)

As an aside, wasn&#39;t the original intent of the rule to allow people to substitute poly bushings for the OEM rubber versions, hence the reference to "material"?

Just asking.

70299


I wish I had stayed out of it :119:

If they wanted to allow POLY bushings and only POLY bushings then why didn&#39;t they spec it that way?

[mustanghammer]

EDIT - it&#39;s my recollection that the alternate bushing material allowance has been on the books for EVER. The problem is that technology - in the form of readily available SBs for normal people - makes it way easier to do now, than when the rules were written. This is like the coilover rule, wherein when the first ruleset came out, NOBODY thought of putting "real" race springs on an IT car.

70301
[/quote]


Agreed. I have set this up on a Solo II car (C Prepared - a Solo II GT1 car) in the past and it is not hard or expensive. And it needs to be both of these things for me to do it.

[evanwebb]

Hi, I realize I&#39;m coming to this party really late, but anyway... Without venturing much else of an opinion, I&#39;m afraid I have to disagree with Greg&#39;s original line of reasoning that implied that a material change is not a design change. Generally a design of a part like a bushing is a dimensioned drawing with callouts for the materials and other relevant design information. If you want to change the material you make a change to the drawing, and therefore the design has been changed. I am not saying that by implication from that allowance any other changes are thereby explicitly allowed, just that whenever you change a material you are in fact changing the design.

As an aside, good design practice would require you to go back and re-analyze your margins and factors of safety on your part after you make a material change, and it is possible that by changing the material you are now required to make other design changes in order to maintain the original design margins.

Now, I think this is just another case of the GCR having a sloppy wording that ends up causing controversy, and I believe the rule should be changed to say the bushings are free provided they fit in the stock location. The interpretation that allows spherical bearings as bushings I think has been let to stand for a decade or so at this point and we should simply recognize this fact by explicitly codifying it...

[handfulz28]

Why is this any more difficult than writing a letter asking for either a clarification or rules change? What does it take to add/delete/change a definition in the GCR? Which type of letters/requests go out to the membership for comments versus letters/requests that just get accepted or denied?

If I write a friggin letter requesting a definition of a suspension bushing that includes a reference to the word bearing and any other syntax that literally, spiritually, intentionally, philosophically allows SBs in the suspension, how would that go over?
I can also write the letter for the specific allowance of SBs in an otherwise unmodified part (no welding, etc...).

Instead of freezing your arses off in the cold, take a trip down here to sunny & warm south florida and enjoy some good National and regional racing. I miss my days racing T1/T2...

Now where do I send these letters?
Thanks,
Michael

[B90278]

Greg, I&#39;d like to see the written protest how you plan on demonstrating that a monoball doesn&#39;t perform the same function as a stock suspension bushing. The definition&#39;s in the Glossary don&#39;t mention material at all, material is unrestricted, a monoball meets the criteria of a bushing by the glossary&#39;s definition, and a monoball doesn&#39;t perform a function that the stock bushing can&#39;t perform.

My post is not an attack or meant to be taken in a sarcastic tone.

bernardo martinez

[Greg Amy]

If they wanted to allow POLY bushings and only POLY bushings then why didn&#39;t they spec it that way?
"They" did exactly that: "they" said alternate material was allowed, encompassing polyurethane, Delrin, plastic, what-have-you. How else would you suggest it be worded if the actual intent was to allow a material change, and a material change only? How about "Bushing material...is unrestricted"?

Alternatively, if the intent was to allow anything, including spherical bearings, wouldn&#39;t it make a hell of a lot more sense to state "Bushings are unrestricted"?


Generally a design of a part like a bushing is a dimensioned drawing with callouts for the materials and other relevant design information.
Evan, you&#39;re over-thinking this like the superb NASA engineer you are. The rule doesn&#39;t say "there&#39;s been a blueprint supercession", it says you can make the same part out of any substance you want.

In addition, is it your implication that wherever a "material" change is allowed, the entire part is thus unrestricted?


Originally posted by B90278@Jan 6 2006, 09:49 PM
...how you plan on demonstrating that a monoball doesn&#39;t perform the same function as a stock suspension bushing.
I hate to get led off these irrelevant red herring yellow-brick-road sidetracks, but if you truly believe they are the same part, then you should be able to demonstrate that a stock suspension bushing performs the same function as a monoball. Because, if A equals B, then B must equal A...I sincerely doubt you can do that.

And - again - the rule states nothing about allowable change in form or function of the part. All it says is material is unrestricted. You want to play semantics? Then look up the definition of the word "material". Here&#39;s the first one from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material):

"The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made."

I&#39;m still looking, but I can&#39;t seem to find anything anywhere in regards to form, function, dimensions, sizes, shapes, or anything like that. Do please let me know if you find it... - GA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 6 2006, 03:46 PM
Sure, they are in the front suspension:

Lower Control arms = 2
Strut rods =2
Camber Plate = 2

All of them are Aurora spherical bearings in bearing cups. The bearings are retained by snap rings in the cups. The bearing cups are welded into the control arm or suspension location on the body where appropriate.

70287


By "strut rod" do you mean the rods that bolt to the out end of the control arm, and pivot on bushings that are sandwiching a fram bracket in the front? AKA, "drag rods" or "control arm locating rods"?

If so, I would be interested in HOW you have converted those to Aurora (or any make) of SB???? I can&#39;t see that in my minds eye at all!

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 6 2006, 11:58 PM
Alternatively, if the intent was to allow anything, including spherical bearings, wouldn&#39;t it make a hell of a lot more sense to state "Bushings are unrestricted"?

70329


You have made that statement alot but we would have the exact same thread as you have also said that a bushing isn&#39;t a bearing - this alternative wording still wouldn&#39;t have satisfied you. I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

A spherical bearing fits in the same space, having the same OD and ID as the OEM part (hence serving the function of reducing the dimension of the existing hole), it locates pivot points of the suspension, it reduces compliance, it focus the most movement along a single plane with compliance in other planes and reduces friction - all the same things that any other aftermarket replacement of OEM bushings does. Just because they do it better and you don&#39;t want to use them doesn&#39;t make them illegal - I haven&#39;t found your arguments that they are illegal to be compelling. I look at the OEM, the suspension techniques poly, and sphericals and I see the same part serving the same function made out of different materials. They each have an outer race for the OD and inner race for the ID and different materials between them that reduces the dimension of the existing hole as an SCCA defined bushing should and they perform no other prohibited function in any of the cases put forth. Resistance to rotation, binding or friction whatever you want to call it can be improved with any material, there is nothing in the rule preventing the use of the material that imrpoves these characteristics the most.

[B90278]

"I hate to get led off these irrelevant red herring yellow-brick-road sidetracks, but if you truly believe they are the same part, then you should be able to demonstrate that a stock suspension bushing performs the same function as a monoball. Because, if A equals B, then B must equal A...I sincerely doubt you can do that."

Well, GA, I&#39;m sorry that I took such a fantasy approach to trying to understand your question in your thread. I was curious how you were going to write the protest. I gather from your response to me that your going to just submit the definition of Material. I think I could show that a Monoball does meet the definition of a bushing in the GCR, and does perform the same function on my car. But judging by your response you don&#39;t really care.

good luck

b.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by B90278@Jan 7 2006, 02:56 AM
... if A equals B, then B must equal A. ...

Point of order here - you might have the wrong logic rule going on. Instead, you might think of this as, "while a square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square."

The way I&#39;m reading the GCR def&#39;s, a case can get made that a spherical bearing IS a bushing, but it&#39;s a MUCH harder proposition to suggest that a bushing is a spherical bearing - necessary to install an SB where a bushing used to live? The spherical bearing does serve the defined function of a bushing but adds some other functions - again, per the GCR if we accept that we are stuck with those terms for the sake of this argument. If your car came with spherical bearings, it might logically be OK to replace them with bushings, but the other way &#39;round?

I&#39;m reminded that the question might have been posed, "Do you think we should be allowed to replace rubber suspension bushings with spherical bearings?" and the results here would be pretty much exactly the way they are today.

K

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE
I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

Take it easy on the ad hominum attacks, Ed. If the rules state that spherical bearings are allowed, then I&#39;m fairly confident (damn near 100%) that I&#39;d agree they were allowed.

Ed, it&#39;s simple: our rules state IIDSYCYC. The only change the rule allows is material. Period. You can try and twist it into anything you want, but that don&#39;t make it so.


Originally posted by turboICE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(turboICE)</div>
A spherical bearing fits in the same space...blah, blah, blah.[/b]
Just &#39;cause a spherical bearing fits in the same space and can perform the same function (along with additional functions), does make it the same part. OPen your mind: the only allowed change it in material.


Originally posted by turboICE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(turboICE)</div>
Just because they do it better and you don&#39;t want to use them doesn&#39;t make them illegal...[/b]

By the same leap of logic, just because your original bushings aren&#39;t as good and you have SBs in your car (or want to) doesn&#39;t make them legal.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278@
I was curious how you were going to write the protest.[/b]
B, as noted before, everything I write and submit will be posted publicly.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278
...your (sic) going to just submit the definition of Material.

Uh, is this a trick question? Of course I&#39;m going to ask for a clarification on "material"; that&#39;s the whole point of the debate in question! The rules say you can change the material and we got folks out there replacing their bushings with spherical bearings; I see that as exceeding the definition of "material", plain and simple.


Originally posted by B90278+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B90278)</div>
I think I could show that a Monoball does meet the definition of a bushing in the GCR...[/b]

...but can you show that this change from a rubber bushing to a metallic monoball/shperical bearing is fully allowed under a rule that states only a material change is allowed?

You see, this is where I feel like I&#39;m banging my head against a brick wall: No one seems to disagree that the rule allows material change in the common sense of the word, yet everyone who supports using spherical bearings starts going off on sidetracks about form, function, does the same thing, can be defined as the same part, so forth and so on. The rule states nothing about all that. It states...oh, never mind.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278
But judging by your response you don&#39;t really care.
Oh, don&#39;t be an ass. Read the whole damn topic; I&#39;ve made it clear I&#39;m looking for input on both sides of the debate, and if you&#39;d take a moment you&#39;ll see I&#39;ve specifically stated I plan to make both viewpoints available as part of my submission. - GA

[Greg Amy]

I want to address the underlying financial arguments that people are bringing up as yet another red herring for supporting SBs, that being the cost to the competitors. These are typically described as "genie out of the bottle" or "cat out of the bag" and such. The latent issue is that this "will be an enormous expense" to the club if people have to convert their cars back to factory suspension bushings. This is false economy and nonsense. The cost to "the Club" for such an action is exactly zero. Nil, nada, nothing. Any expenses due to a specific limiting of the rules to a change in material only will be borne by each individual competitor that has chosen beforehand to convert their car, and this cost will be limited to their one car. Further, had they done this change with no other modifications to their car (and they should have) the switch should be at least as easy as the initial installation.

So let&#39;s address the costs of pro and con. What percentage of our IT "fleet" do you figure is using SBs? 10%, 20%, 50%? I ahve no clue. However, I&#39;d wager that it&#39;s certainly a minority of the cars out there. Given that we - especially on this forum - browbeat people into "100% prep" before we give them the benefit of the doubt on relative car performance, allowing SBs effectively makes them a requirement. So, if we were to compare the cost to the few that have already done it, versus the cost to those that have not, which oen do you think would be a bigger economic impact? Next time you want to wave your hand and complain that it would cost "the club" or competitors too much money to change back, don&#39;t forget how much it would cost the community if we specifically allowed them... - GA

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 7 2006, 08:22 AM
Point of order here - you might have the wrong logic rule going on. Instead, you might think of this as, "while a square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square."
70340

You are absolutely correct, Kirk; I have been keeping that exact same logical argument in my mind throughout this debate. It is, in fact, the only logical argument that the pro-SB can make (and have been in a roundabout way). It works only if one accepts that a SB is a bushing. My point above is that a lot of folks *are* contending that A=B and B=A, that these parts are interchangeable.

However, let&#39;s put your above logical argument in context: if I gave you a specific rectangle (of different H:W ratio) in black and told you to draw the rectangle in any color would it be acceptable to present to me a blue square? Would my art teacher flunk me because I did not draw that rectangle properly?

The core of the pro-SB camp is that a spherical bearing is a bushing. I don&#39;t dispute that point though I don&#39;t necessarily agree with it. However, my position is that this argument of A=B - whether correct or not - is irrelevant, because the only allowed change to our suspension bushings is...<all together now>...

We&#39;re getting redundant now, and we&#39;re repeating ourselves, too. Looks like an impasse. I&#39;ll submit my position; no one yet has offered to write a counterpoint, so we&#39;ll see how it goes. - GA

[ddewhurst]

IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are UNRESTRICTED. Adjustable SPHERICAL BEARINGS or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

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

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. ;) Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings.

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_< :D

[erlrich]

Greg - sorry I haven&#39;t gotten back to you, I&#39;ve had a couple of crazy days. In fact, I&#39;ll have to keep this short as I need to get out and finish putting the engine on the 240 back together. I&#39;ll work on a detailed counterpoint this evening; trying to incorporate the arguments presented in this thread (well, the cogent ones anyway :D ). A couple of points I did have though, and you guys in favor of SBs can rip them apart or endorse them as you see fit:

1. the GCR definition of &#39;bushing&#39; is not really relavent here; I don&#39;t believe it was intended to define suspension bushings, rather just as a broader general definition of bushings (e.g. "holes drilled in the roll cage shall be properly bushed..."). If you do a google or yahoo search you&#39;ll find that at least half of the definitions from automotive glossaries define bushings as &#39;a type of bearing&#39;.

2. if you&#39;re going to stick with the strict, literal interpretation that only the material may be changed, you&#39;re not only going to rule out SBs but also many other types of bushings commonly used, effectively defeating the intent (as I understand it anyway) of the rule. For example, the stock suspension bushings on my 240SX are all basically the same; a solid (steel in this case) outer cylindrical sleeve, a solid inner cylindrical sleeve, and a compliant (rubber) &#39;filler&#39; material between the two, all bonded together to create a single part.

Now look at the spherical bushings available from SPL Parts: they consist of a solid outer sleeve, a solid inner sleeve, and a spherical bearing attaching (between) one sleeve to the other, also allowing one part of the assembly to rotate independently (which the OEM bushing does not) of the other. Obviously not just substituting one material for another, but changing the design of the bushing. No disagreement there.

But, now let&#39;s look a the Whiteline polyurethane bushings for my car, which I believe are similar to many, if not most, of the poly bushings made for other cars. They have NO outer sleeve, a solid inner sleeve, and a compliant filler material between the inner sleeve and the control arm. Furthermore, the bushing is designed so that the inner sleeve is free to rotate independently of the polyurethane. Same design as the OEM units? Not even close IMO.

The point I&#39;m trying to make is it would appear to be generally accepted that in order to incorporate different materials into suspension bushings there will naturally be some changed in the design of the bushings, either to a) accommodate the needs of the new material or b ) take advantage of the strengths of the material. The question then becomes not whether we will accept some change in the design, but how much change in design we are willing to accept.


As I said, I&#39;ll try to send you something this evening. If anyone here has anything they would like included in the pro-SB side, you can pm or e-mail it to me and I&#39;ll add it to the response. I think once the entire letter is ready we should probably post it here, not so much to invite debate on the subject, but to allow for critique of the content and ensure we are presenting both sides fairly.

edit: damn, and I said I was going to keep this short!

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 10:15 AM
IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are UNRESTRICTED. Adjustable SPHERICAL BEARINGS or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

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

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. ;) Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings.

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_< :D

70351


David,

You need to emphasize ALL the important words. Or, if you&#39;re going to look at the Prod rule, since it clerarly says ADJUSTABLE spherical bearings or rod ends are permitted, how would you justify using a non-adjustable spherical bearing? I&#39;m pretty sure that it falls under the &#39;suspension bushings are unrestricted&#39; section.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by turboICE
I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

Originally posted by GregAmy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregAmy)</div>
Take it easy on the ad hominum attacks, Ed. If the rules state that spherical bearings are allowed, then I&#39;m fairly confident (damn near 100%) that I&#39;d agree they were allowed.[/b]Greg, I made no attack on you rather than the arument central to the debate. I made no comment claiming an invalid position or argument due to any characteristic of you as the arguer on the opposite side of a debate. I identified a flaw in comments made by you which is not an attack on you. I would have to object to the claim that I have fallen subject to the logic fallacy trap of ad hominum.

You have said repeatedly that you wouldn&#39;t have a complaint if they had said unrestricted. My response whether taken in its entire context or even just the snippet you quoted, was that your complaints would not be satisfied with the simple change to unrestricted language since it is your belief that SBs in no way can be bushings. As a result, I said any language lacking SBs specifically would not satisfy your complaint. Your argument that SBs are not bushings would remain even if bushings were unrestricted. Read the the entire section that you quote from me again or even just the quote.
<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy
Just &#39;cause a spherical bearing fits in the same space and can perform the same function (along with additional functions), does make it the same part.(I took your comment to be "doesn&#39;t" rather than does.) Again what are these additional functions that they perform when installed in suspension arms not performed by a part you deem legal?

Originally posted by GregAmy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregAmy)</div>
Open your mind:[/b]Talk about attacking the person rather than the argument, accusing those on the other side of a debate of being closed minded and not capable of independent thought. I hardly think the definition of a closed mind is disagreeing with you - I don&#39;t think my mind is closed nor that my conclusions regarding the part are unreasonable. My mind is just as open to SB being illegal as yours is to them being legal. I have considered the written words and the presented interpretations and made a decision with an independent and open mind - a different conclusion than you doesn&#39;t make it otherwise.

Originally posted by GregAmy@
By the same leap of logic, just because your original bushings aren&#39;t as good and you have SBs in your car (or want to) doesn&#39;t make them legal.I never made any argument that they were legal for this reason, then again you didn&#39;t make the argument that they were illegal for the reason I had listed - you could have pointed out a logical fallacy here on my part rather than inverting it. ;) I believe them to be legal for the reasons I have previously listed - the material has been changed legally and no additional function is performed.
<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy
Read the whole damn topic; I&#39;ve made it clear I&#39;m looking for input on both sides of the debate, and if you&#39;d take a moment you&#39;ll see I&#39;ve specifically stated I plan to make both viewpoints available as part of my submission.I will accept that you sought debate, but in your first post you dismissed all prior arguments as lacking either reasonableness, cogency, or logic. So I find it unlikely you sought any of the prior arguments to be put forth or that you were at all inclined to accept any prior argument at inception of this thread. Your mind was made up based on both sides being presented several times before and I don&#39;t see anyone on either side, including myself, changing their mind as a result of the rehashing of the same items again.

On a separate issue, it is a shame that such a debate can&#39;t be held without leaving with a feeling that people veiw the otherside harshly at a personal level over these debates on this forum.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 12:15 PM
IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are UNRESTRICTED. Adjustable SPHERICAL BEARINGS or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

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

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. ;) Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings.

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_< :D

70351

I have found no internal consistency in the rules such as internal reference elsewhere can be applied reliably as a basis for conclusion. In rulings I have never seen cross reference for judgments. By all appearances protested rules are judged in isolation the same way they have been included. As a codification of a set of rules the GCR is a poor example of internal consistency IMO.

[kthomas]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 7 2006, 01:47 PM
Next time you want to wave your hand and complain that it would cost "the club" or competitors too much money to change back, don&#39;t forget how much it would cost the community if we specifically allowed them... - GA

70343


Uh, nothing. Just because a rule allows you to do something doesn&#39;t mean you have to do it. Same BS "logic" was used in the remote reservior shock arguement. The rules allow you to run a new set of tires every session- doesn&#39;t mean you have to spend the money to do that.

Now I don&#39;t really have a vested interest in which way this particular rule goes, and I&#39;m not saying in this case spherical bearings are legal, but the cost to me personally for changing rules from something clearly legal to something no longer allowed has been one shortblock and one set of shocks. Not trivial. Meanwhile, the cost to me for changes in rules that allow me to do something I don&#39;t chose to do has been zero. Don&#39;t they teach logic in colleges anymore?

[dickita15]

I must admit Greg you do seem a little more close minded that usual on this one. Not typical for you. While there have been quite a red herrings and drifts off point I do believe that it is legal to remove a stock bushing and replace it with a cartridge that has a bearing as part of that assembly. It still meets the definition of a bushing in the GCR, it requires no modification of any stock component to install and it performs no prohibited function.

I wish I knew when exactly this was decided and how. I thought it had to do with the rx7 work done by Jim Susko ten years ago.

And yes I have a vested interest in this. Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. If you are successful maybe I will try to get my car moved to ITC. :o

[ddewhurst]

***Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. ***

Dick, talk me through this deal why you would have to raise your car 2 inches.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 03:34 PM
***Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. ***

Dick, talk me through this deal why you would have to raise your car 2 inches.

70362


I would think that without SB &#39;technology&#39; as bushings, a car with a certain type of suspension would develop binding when lowered beyond "X" point. Bushings of alternate MATERIAL ONLY, would not fix this. Bushings of any material and design, would. :P

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me ask this question:

If you accept that SB&#39;s are allowed under the "Bushings of alternate material are allowed" premise, what COULD you do with these rules?

1. Valve guide material is unrestricted.

2. Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and
crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used.

Is it wrong of me to assume that those that are willing to accept a SB as a "change in material" over a rubber bushing would or could do just about ANYTHING with their valve guide or pulleys - including changing the technology in some way? Not sure what you would do, but I would think those &#39;pro SB&#39; people would effectivly say that these are now free and wide open, no?

Just coming at it from a different point. I don&#39;t believe Bushings are "free", I believe that you can simply change the material - like the rules seem to state - and those who believe SB&#39;s to be legal, I think you think they are &#39;free&#39;. Again, no?

AB

[turboICE]

Yes I believe if I was of a mind and desire to do so I could make the pulleys in such a way as to be vaned for instance which would result in air movement that wouldn&#39;t have otherwise occured in building a set of pulleys of alternate material and diameter. But I fail to see any additional functions performed by SB when used as joint bushings in multi-link suspensions.

I am still trying to get an answer as to what it is about SBs that are more than:

A sleeve or tubular insert (whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole) material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.

That also isn&#39;t the exact same thing OEM and poly bushings do? They all play the same compliance, locating and friction/binding reducing roles. Some just better than others. What is the additional objectionable function that SBs have? The role of OEM bushings is that of a simple bearing in every engineering sense.

An SB is a tubular insert which reduces the dimensions of an existing hole made from a material that is unrestricted. What are SBs doing within their use in the suspension that are additional functions to OEM or any other aftermarket part?

[Geo]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 6 2006, 12:25 PM
Typical definitions of "bushing" all include the word or notion of "bearing" because a bushing is a simple bearing.

70274


Correct.

This was the answer from a person in the bearing industry who is on Rennlist (Porsche forum/mailing list). I&#39;ll try to find the post.

[Geo]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Jan 6 2006, 02:30 PM
Which is why I&#39;m staying out of it. :)

As an aside, wasn&#39;t the original intent of the rule to allow people to substitute poly bushings for the OEM rubber versions, hence the reference to "material"?



70299


Gregg, I don&#39;t think anyone involved with that original decision is posting here, so nobody knows the intent. We can all make assumptions. The above is a valid assumption. But so is assuming that the rule was changed specifically to allow SBs. Again, nobody knows.

[64oeg]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 4 2006, 09:14 PM
But just as a reference point I don&#39;t see sphericals being any more expensive than the alternative. A set of front a-arms for a neon (the only way to get stock bushings) is $472. The costs to put a set of spherical&#39;s in was $120 and it will be $45 dollars to replace the bearings, or antoher $472 to put new arms in when the bushings wear out at a faster rate. So the cost issue doesn&#39;t fly with me.

70100



BZZZZZZT Wrong answer Matt. I just picked up a set of front control arm bushing, (stock-oem) from the dealership just last week for a 1st gen Neon. And I also know that they are available for 2nd gens.

Sorry for the thread Hi-jack. And IMHO, SB as bushings are legal. Cool thread.

George

[dickita15]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 04:34 PM
***Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. ***

Dick, talk me through this deal why you would have to raise your car 2 inches.

70362

David
When I wrote that and even when I first read your reply I was pretty sure of myself but now I am having second thoughts. I bought my car in 98. It had stock upper links and spherical bearings replacing the rear bushings in the lower links. It also had illegal coilovers in the rear. I replaced the improper springs and started racing the car. With my level of talent I could not sort the car. It would understeer and then snap oversteer. I learned it was a suspention bind problem. I then put in a Susko trilink, two more bearings and foam bearings in the uppers. My assumption is that if I gave up the bearings the bind would return but now that I think about it I have never run the car with the tri link and a stock style lower link bushing so I am not sure. Have you.

thanks for keeping me honest

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 7 2006, 05:16 PM
Let me ask this question:

If you accept that SB&#39;s are allowed under the "Bushings of alternate material are allowed" premise, what COULD you do with these rules?

1. Valve guide material is unrestricted.

2. Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and
crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used.

Is it wrong of me to assume that those that are willing to accept a SB as a "change in material" over a rubber bushing would or could do just about ANYTHING with their valve guide or pulleys - including changing the technology in some way? Not sure what you would do, but I would think those &#39;pro SB&#39; people would effectivly say that these are now free and wide open, no?

Just coming at it from a different point. I don&#39;t believe Bushings are "free", I believe that you can simply change the material - like the rules seem to state - and those who believe SB&#39;s to be legal, I think you think they are &#39;free&#39;. Again, no?

AB

70368


Andy, great question.

Let be take a shot at this. For the valve guides I would think that they would have to be of the same dimension as the original, just as my bearing cartridges are. But it would certainly open the door to a valve guide that had say different heat conducting properties.

For the pulleys it seems to me to be even more open, as long as it does not perform a prohibited function. I think for instance you could probably change to a serpentine belt. I do not think you could change to a chain drive because they would not be pulleys anymore.

I will concede the the bushing must be made of material, so I guess anti matter is out. :)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE
...what are these additional functions that they perform when installed in suspension arms not performed by a part you deem legal?
I don&#39;t believe I invoked the "prohibited function" clause, however the answer seems intuitive: there are functions that a spherical bearing offers that a simple bushing does not. If they did not offer improved function, why are you and others so adament about using them? If you believe they do not offer any additional function and thereby improve your performance, why did you spend the money on them?

My core argument is, and always has been, that the only change allowed to suspension bushings is "the substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made."


Originally posted by turboICE
...your complaints would not be satisfied with the simple change to unrestricted language since it is your belief that SBs in no way can be bushings.

That is not central to my argument (see above). If the rule read "bushings are unrestricted" rather than "bushing material...is unrestricted" and you can make a reasonable argument that spherical bearings are bushings, then you&#39;d have a leg to stand on. But that ain&#39;t what the rule says, is it...?


Originally posted by turboICE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(turboICE)</div>
I hardly think the definition of a closed mind is disagreeing with you...[/b]
Nor did I intend it to mean that. What I mean is that I see folks such as yourself that have long ago convinced themselves that these things are legal and can&#39;t seem to see this from any other perspective, especially one that reads the rules as they are written.


Originally posted by dickita+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dickita)</div>
I must admit Greg you do seem a little more close minded that usual on this one. Not typical for you.[/b]
Why, Dick? Because I&#39;ve yet to read an argument that changes my mind? I&#39;ve simply not heard any argument compelling enough to change my mind. In fact, the vast majority of the arguments have further convinced me of my position.

If that&#39;s the standard, doesn&#39;t that apply across the board?

<!--QuoteBegin-dickita@
(SBs) still meet the definition of a bushing in the GCR...
Even if we were to accept that argument, bushings are not unrestricted, therefore you do not have carte-blanche to replace your bushings with anything you want. Only the material they&#39;re made of is unrestricted.

<!--QuoteBegin-dickita
Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot.
I understand your plight, but how is that germane to the discussion? We all have limitations we must work around; my McPherson strut suspension design sucks so bad that I basically cannot lower my car much less than stock ride height; do I get to use some technology to accomodate that so I can lower my car as much as the multi-link Acuras can?

Interesting sidebar: I met with several car and flying friends this afternoon, guys that know cars but who have no association with our racing of any kind. I asked each of them, "if the rule states that &#39;suspension bushing material is unrestricted&#39; what would that mean I could do to my car?" Each of them - to a person - responded with answers like &#39;poly bushings&#39; or &#39;Delrin replacement bushings&#39; or &#39;solid steel bushings.&#39; When they ran out of other ideas I mentioned to them that there are persons within our organization that believe it is legal to replace factory bushings with cassette-type or spherical bearings; to a person they looked at me like I had two heads. They all thought the idea was way out of bounds and one guy that races local asphalt roundy-round even said something to the effect of &#39;try that (stuff) at our local track and you&#39;ll get asked to go home and never show up again - if you&#39;re lucky.&#39; What I find really ironic is one guy actually used the words "tortured interpretation"!

It just seems ridiculous that a simple allowance in material has resulted in folks totally redesigning their suspension bushings. If you think that&#39;s OK, then there&#39;s really nothing left to discuss; you will never convince me otherwise. - GA

[pfcs]

ask Dick Rutan.

[lateapex911]

Dick, right, the tri link SBs are completely legal. And the upper "air bearings" are fine too, LOL. But the lower longitudinal arms locating the axle are the "issue".

In theory, you really shouldn&#39;t have to raise the car 2" if the SBs were removed, but you might get some extra compliance that would be undesired if you went to a stock rubber type of bushing, OR, you could go to a polyurethane/delrin type that would of course, increase wear and maintenance.

Now, there is a Porsche company that makes a product called "Polybronze", which is great. I use them on my 911, and the bushing includes a grease channel and zerk fittings. Much more expensive than the SBs, LOL, but equally effective...

But....would the polybronze solution be legal?? It uses TWO materials...and is a design change.

A general comment:
I have done prototype work that used what the engineeer spec&#39;ed as "Lord bearings". They are basically a torsion spring. Think of a cylinder 1.5" x 1.5", in metal. then the core is filled with rubber. The center has another metal sleeve running through it, splined in certain cases. The outside can be splined as well. They are available in different rates.

When I saw them, I commented to the design engineer, "Hey, these look EXACTLY like automotive suspension bushings, except for the splines"

"Bingo" he said.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy
I don&#39;t believe I invoked the "prohibited function" clause, however the answer seems intuitive: there are functions that a spherical bearing offers that a simple bushing does not. If they did not offer improved function, why are you and others so adament about using them? If you believe they do not offer any additional function and thereby improve your performance, why did you spend the money on them?There is a huge difference between improved function and additional function. I have stated several times that SBs function better than OEM or poly replacement bushings. I am equally certain that poly functions better than OEM rubber. So I go back to our discussion before: Is your objection that SBs perform the function of a suspension bushing in the best way available? You had said no - but you are back to the improved function being part of the problem. The objective behind any aftermarket replacement part is because it is an improvement either in performance or cost. Improved function is not illegal and improved function is not an addtional function - it is the objective of most of the modification rules in improved touring.

What do SBs do in suspension link usage that rubber and poly bushing do not do? If SBs meet the definition of a bushing and if they are made of a material alternate to the original bushings and if they perform only the functions of original bushings but in a significantly improved manner - is it their improved function that makes them illegal? That can&#39;t be the objection.


That is not central to my argument (see above). If the rule read "bushings are unrestricted" rather than "bushing material...is unrestricted" and you can make a reasonable argument that spherical bearings are bushings, then you&#39;d have a leg to stand on.You have said that SBs are not bushings. So even if I make the argument, which I have, that they are bushings then you still would not deem them legal even if bushings were unrestricted. Am I mistaken in my understanding that you do not view SBs as bushings?

If you were to agree that SBs are bushings then they would be bushings of an alternate material as I have stated. Whether bushings or bushing materials are unrestricted - such language wouldn&#39;t matter. In either wording whether or not the reader believes SBs are bushings would result in the same conclusion on legality in both wordings.

SBs are bushings - both wordings make them legal.

SBs are not bushings - both wordings absent specific mention of SBs make them illegal.

My argument that they are bushings has the same leg to stand on whether it is bushings or bushing material that is unrestrected.

PS whether I spend money on them or not is not relevant - just as whether they have been used in perpetuity is not relevant (an argument I have NEVER made not that you said I had). If they are illegal they are illegal - technically I spent money on the short shifter I removed when I bought the car - I still removed it even though I spent money on it just as I had spent money on everything else installed on (or removed from) the car. I spent considerable time and money making damn sure the car (with a 9 year history in the log book and several ARRCs and not less than a few ARRC tear downs) was legal and that I lose my races legally and based on my lack of driving skill.

[Greg Amy]

Ed, you&#39;re makin&#39; my head spin. As simply put as I possibly can:

If your suspension bushings differ from stock in any way other than the substance of which they were originally made, they are illegal.

Greg

[ddewhurst]

Posted by Dick

***My assumption is that if I gave up the bearings the bind would return but now that I think about it I have never run the car with the tri link and a stock style lower link bushing so I am not sure. Have you.***

Posted by Jake

***But the lower longitudinal arms locating the axle are the "issue".***

Dick & Jake, with my 1st gen RX-7 when I implemented the Tri-link (added), implemented OEM upper links with foam bushings (bushing material unrestricted) I also implemented lower links (subsitituted) made of male Heim joints (Spherical bearings) & steel tie rods. ALL ALLOWABLE & LEGAL because of the rule 17.1.4.D.5.c.1. added or subsitituted traction bars, Panhard rod or Watts linkage. I agree with Greg on the unrestricted bushing material rule & if someone had a desire to protest my lower links please have at it. :D :D :D Because my lower link bushings (spherical bearings) are allowed by a seperate rule as stated above.

Yes, using the Tri-link with foam bushings in the upper links & OEM bushings in the lower links there would be an effect of binding with the lower link OEM bushings as the chassis rolled but not nearly as great of bind as with all four links with OEM bushings. Also the upper links length is angled maybe 3 inches inward at the front mounting compared to the rear mounting position causing bind.

Posted by Andy

***I would think that without SB &#39;technology&#39; as bushings, a car with a certain type of suspension would develop binding when lowered beyond "X" point. Bushings of alternate MATERIAL ONLY, would not fix this. Bushings of any material and design, would.***

Andy, that&#39;s the fun part of rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6. unrestricted material & 17.1.4.D.5.c.1. added or subsitituted traction bars, Panhard rod or Watts linkage allows bushings of any material and design for the 1st gen RX-7. ;) :P :P Dick is ok with spherical bearings in his 1st gen RX-7 lower links.

ps: If you folks have not seen the movie "Rummor has it", take your other & see it. :D :blink: :happy204: :unsure:

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 7 2006, 11:06 PM
If your suspension bushings differ from stock in any way other than the substance of which they were originally made, they are illegal.
70389


They don&#39;t (in all 28 links just in the rear) so all is good. :happy204:

[theenico]

At some point someone asked for input.

I vote for spherical bearings/bushings (does the teflon liner make them more like a bushing ? :rolleyes: ).

I like them because they last forever and help the car respond consistently.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 11:06 PM
Dick & Jake, with my 1st gen RX-7 when I implemented the Tri-link (added), implemented OEM upper links with foam bushings (bushing material unrestricted) I also implemented lower links (subsitituted) made of male Heim joints (Spherical bearings) & steel tie rods. ALL ALLOWABLE & LEGAL because of the rule 17.1.4.D.5.c.1. added or subsitituted traction bars, Panhard rod or Watts linkage. I agree with Greg on the unrestricted bushing material rule & if someone had a desire to protest my lower links please have at it. :D :D :D Because my lower link bushings (spherical bearings) are allowed by a seperate rule as stated above.


70390


david, that interpretation revolves around the lower control arms be defined as a traction control bar. I would not bet the bank on it going that way.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 7 2006, 11:06 PM
If your suspension bushings differ from stock in any way other than the substance of which they were originally made, they are illegal.
Greg

70389


There in lies my problem with your position Greg now that you have stated it in the simplest terms. Any change in material will bring with it other changes in some other way, whether that is function compliance or even appearance. Your statement is very definantive.

The fact the words “bushing material” rather than “bushing” is used is relevant and I think that it prevent us from changing the dimensions of the bushing as in the case someone sited before about subframe mounts.

By the way my previous comments about the effect on my car of changing this 10 year old interpretation are not germane and were added as a throw away line. I am sorry if that detracted from the more serious discussion.

[ddewhurst]

***david, that interpretation revolves around the lower control arms be defined as a traction control bar. I would not bet the bank on it going that way.***

Dick, if the lower links are not traction bars the manufacture would have eliminated them in a cost savings effort because one set of links at the vertical center of the rear axle would provide longitude location. The workshop manual refers to them as upper & lower links. Remove one set of links & see how much traction you have. :o What hypothesis have the third link manfactures used to add the third link ?

Rule 17.1.4.D.5.c.1. allows added or subsitituted traction bars, Panhard rod or Watts linkage. We know the third link is not a Panhard rod or a Watts linkage which leaves us with the third choice to call the third link. The third link is an added traction bar. If the upper links are traction bars then the lower links are also traction bars. Counter point please............... ;)

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 7 2006, 08:06 PM
If your suspension bushings differ from stock in any way other than the substance of which they were originally made, they are illegal.


70389


That would render a great many aftermarket bushings illegal.

I personally think that would be an onerous rule. Bushings that are not solid (such as the trailing front lower control arm bushing on an NX2000) would take some serious effort to reproduce. Probably a lot more cost than SBs.

[dickita15]

David,
We agree that the third link is a traction bar. But you are suggesting all 4 stock links are as well. I can see you point but if that were true would it not be generally accepted that you could just remove the upper links instead of rendering them inoperative with foam and leaving them in place.

I think that we are on the same page in that it all depends on the stock links being defined as traction bars. They seem to meet the glossary definition of both traction bars and trailing links.

[Greg Amy]

Dick, I&#39;m a bit confused; I agree with what you&#39;re saying but I think we still disagree on the main result. I want to reorganize your points a little bit...


Originally posted by dickita15
The fact the words “bushing material” rather than “bushing” is used is relevant...

I absolutely, positively, completely agree; it&#39;s what I&#39;ve written several times and is the main point of my argument. If the rule stated "bushings are free" then we&#39;d have no disagreements.

I was tempted to try one of my old Elementary School sentence structure breakdowns, but I figured that would rile the troops even more. Needless to say, I believe that the word "unrestricted" is the object of the word "material", not the word "bushing". I further suspect that many of those that disagree with me believe the word "unrestricted" is the object of the word "bushing"; that is incorrect.

Thus, the material is free; nothing else.


Originally posted by dickita+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dickita)</div>
I think that (the words “bushing material” rather than “bushing”) prevent us from changing the dimensions of the bushing as in the case someone cited before about subframe mounts.[/b]

I agree. So, if that&#39;s the case, are you arguing that a conversion to spherical bearings from rubber bushings is NOT a change in dimensions...? If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, then there&#39;s the core of our differences: I don&#39;t see how any person can reasonably argue that there is no dimensional differences between a rubber bushing and a spherical bearing; they&#39;re just two totally different animals, FAR and above a simple change in &#39;what they are made of&#39;.

<!--QuoteBegin-dickita
Any change in material will bring with it other changes in some other way, whether that is function compliance or even appearance.
I again agree with you, however exploiting that change to a degree such as you describe in regards to spherical bearings is the whole reason we have the "tortured interpretations" and "unintended function" clauses in our rules.


Originally posted by Geo
I personally think that would be an onerous rule (re: limiting dimensions).
But, George, isn&#39;t that the way the rule reads? If you believe that an allowance (or restriction) in material allows (or restricts) dimensional changes as well, why did you - as part of the current ITAC - recommend the following words in ITCS 17.1.4.C in regards to aftermarket replacement parts? Why qualify the difference if there is none?

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I believe the ITAC/CRB mentions both material and dimensional because they believe - as I do - that there is a distinct difference. Given that, the implication vis-a-vis suspension bushings is clear.

GregA

[dickita15]

Originally posted by GregAmy+Jan 8 2006, 12:24 PM-->
I agree. So, if that&#39;s the case, are you arguing that a conversion to spherical bearings from rubber bushings is NOT a change in dimensions...? If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, then there&#39;s the core of our differences: I don&#39;t see how any person can reasonably argue that there is no dimensional differences between a rubber bushing and a spherical bearing; they&#39;re just two totally different animals, FAR and above a simple change in &#39;what they are made of&#39;.

70406
[/b]

Well that is what I am saying. In my case, and I have not worked on enough different types of IT cars to know how this affects other, the bearing cartridge in my car is the same od, the same id and the same length as the stock ones I replace. It requires no modification of the stock parts and located the stock part in the same way as the stock bushing. Does it change the range of motion because of this material change? Of course.

Now I know if you accept this the next argument that will be made is that some of the material can be replace with air but that is not my argument.


<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy@Jan 8 2006, 12:24 PM
But, George, isn&#39;t that the way the rule reads? If you believe that an allowance (or restriction) in material allows (or restricts) dimensional changes as well, why did you - as part of the current ITAC - recommend the following words in ITCS 17.1.4.C in regards to aftermarket replacement parts? Why qualify the difference if there is none?

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I believe the ITAC/CRB mentions both material and dimensional because they believe - as I do - that there is a distinct difference. Given that, the implication vis-a-vis suspension bushings is clear.

GregA

70406



Greg, now I think maybe you can be accused of the use of red herrings. Just because in today’s climate the ITAC wants to be more specific in language in order to be more clear does not cause a change in existing rules.

[Bill Miller]

I again agree with you, however exploiting that change to a degree such as you describe in regards to spherical bearings is the whole reason we have the "tortured interpretations" and "unintended function" clauses in our rules.


And there&#39;s the rub Greg. Kirk&#39;s pointed it out before, where do you draw the line, in terms of &#39;exploiting the change&#39; in design, before if becomes illegal?

I&#39;m still trying to figure out where that line is, with you. Is it when you reduce the friction coefficient to a ceratin level? I&#39;ll go back to my VW example. You said (at least I think it was you, maybe it was Andy), that a bearing cassette, used in place of the front and rear control arm bushings, would not be legal. But if I used something similar to the &#39;polybronze&#39; bushing that Jake mentioned, would I then be legal? Neither one provides any out-of-axis motion, and both would probably provide the same level of reduced friction coefficent. Both are clearly different designs than a stock bushing. You used to race one of these cars Greg, you know what I&#39;m talking about.

If you&#39;re going to hang your hat on the design change criteria, how do you say that it&#39;s ok to exploit the design change of a solid bushing (and I would say that eliminating deflection is a pretty significant exploitation of that change), but not ok to exploit the design change of a spherical bearing, as it not only eliminates deflection, but also reduces the rotational friction coefficient?

[Dave Zaslow]

This is indeed a most ineresting debate. Now I can show my ignorance ;)

The OEM bushing allows compliance in three dimensions, x, y, and z. Changing the material to a solid metal must lead to zero deflection in at least two dimensions, most probably until the pickup point is ripped out of the car. Making them from delrin does the same to a slightly lesser degree. This is done in the name of improved transient response as well as eliminating or reducing unwanted suspension movement.

Going back to Kirk&#39;s pictures of some OEM VW control arm bushings, they allow all three dimensions of deflection.

http://img.thepartsbin.com/live/L203093240CFW.JPG

http://img.thepartsbin.com/live/L203028834OEA.JPG

Now compare these to the attached photo (from Shine Racing) of their spherical bearings for the same purpose. Both Shine pieces allow two dimensions of movement.

I think we can agree that all of the bushings/bearings we are talking about do not relocate suspension pickup points or geometry. Indeed I think the points made above regarding the difference in IT vs. Production rules are good ones. Adjustable spherical bearings are a whole &#39;nother animal.

So is a bushing a bearing?

Let&#39;s look at some glossary definitions again:

"Bearing - A mechanical component provided to allow connected parts to
move with respect to one another in a manner consistent with durability
and minimal friction."

Certainly this describes the bushings we are discussing.

"Bearing Carrier - A housing in which the bearings carrying a shaft are
mounted."

Again using Kirk&#39;s photos, we have rubber bonded to metal in a one piece design. Most &#39;high performance&#39; replacements are two or three piece designs that do not need to be pressed in to their respective holes. This

"Bushing/Bush - A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the
dimension(s) of an existing hole."

Every piece described, OEM or not, does this. If its non-OEM construction is of differing design, including multiple pieces rather than one piece, it is of debatable legality.

"Spherical Bearing - A load-bearing connector in which the central portion
is convex and the outer portion is concave, allowing both angular
displacements of the axes and relative rotation."

This seems not to perform any function different than that of the three piece bushings we are conjecturing are perfectly legal to use.

So I posit a bushing must be a bearing, although a bearing may not be a bushing.

Dave Zaslow

Feeling very bush league amongst this learned group.

[ddewhurst]

***I can see you point but if that were true would it not be generally accepted that you could just remove the upper links instead of rendering them inoperative with foam and leaving them in place.***

Dick, as I read/understand the dictionary meaning of the word "added" one wuld implement something extra such as the third link is "added" while leaving the 2 OEM upper links in place witrh foam bushing material. As I read/understand the dictionary meaning of the word substitute one would replace something with another something such as I did with the lower control arms. I substituted the OEM rubber bushed lower links with tie rods with Heim joints.

[dickita15]

David,
Ok I get it, you believe that “adding or substituting” would not allow you to remove the two upper “traction bars” and substitute the third link. Interesting perspective thanks. :)

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Dave Zaslow@Jan 8 2006, 12:21 PM
... So I posit a bushing must be a bearing, although a bearing may not be a bushing.


...so if you can replace a bushing with another bushing, you can only replace it with a bearing that&#39;s a bushing? Why am I beginning to feel like the guy in that Dr. Seuss story:

When the tweedle beetles battle with their paddles in a bottle full of water on a noodle-eating poodle, it&#39;s a tweedle beetle noodle poodle water bottle paddle battle. ...

K

[lateapex911]

So.....

IF we accept that we can change the material ONLY, that means that we can take out a suspension bushing that is, say, metal sleeved in and out and rubber in between, (aka metal/rubber/metal) and replace it with....SOMEthing else...of the exact same size, and design.

So, that could be what...metal/rubber/and metal, right?

Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.

Right?

Seems to me the entire rule is a catch 22.

(I think/know this has been written here in earlier posts, but I just needed to sum it up.)

It seems to me that what we have is merely a poorly written rule that has issues under a microscope. Essentially, it is a rule, that, if followed to the letter of the law, allows you to do.......nothing.

[theenico]

I&#39;ll go ahead and build my next car with metal/teflon/metal bushings. :birra:

[Bill Miller]

Why am I beginning to feel like the guy in that Dr. Seuss story:


Well Kirk, you are the one w/ the One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish hat! :o :023:


Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.


Jake,

That&#39;s pretty much what I&#39;ve been saying since the beginning. If you are using the "can&#39;t change the design" as the test for legality, than most of the aftermarket ones are illegal.

I think that what we have here, is a situtation that, if the intent was to not allow SBs as replacement bushings, it needs to be expressly codified. The rules, as written, don&#39;t preclude them. And, I don&#39;t know if you could write the rules to preclude them, w/o expressly calling them out as not being allowed.

[evanwebb]

[quote]
Evan, you&#39;re over-thinking this like the superb NASA engineer you are. The rule doesn&#39;t say "there&#39;s been a blueprint supercession", it says you can make the same part out of any substance you want.

In addition, is it your implication that wherever a "material" change is allowed, the entire part is thus unrestricted?

Thanks for the compliment Greg but I also went on to say :

"I am not saying that by implication from that allowance any other changes are thereby explicitly allowed, just that whenever you change a material you are in fact changing the design"

So, I agree that the strict interpretation doesn&#39;t explicitly allow anything other than a material substitution in the design.

But I still think th cat is out of the bag and we ought to simply get the SCCA to change the wording to "bushings are unrestrricted" or similar... I think the most important thing to come out of this debate is the need for clarity one way or the other... Besides, the bushings on my Volvo are still rubber so I&#39;ll be interested to see how this works out...

[Doc Bro]

I can only imagine what a round table on interpretation/change of a tax code law would be like! :D
.....but I digress........

R

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 8 2006, 09:24 AM

But, George, isn&#39;t that the way the rule reads? If you believe that an allowance (or restriction) in material allows (or restricts) dimensional changes as well, why did you - as part of the current ITAC - recommend the following words in ITCS 17.1.4.C in regards to aftermarket replacement parts? Why qualify the difference if there is none?

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I believe the ITAC/CRB mentions both material and dimensional because they believe - as I do - that there is a distinct difference. Given that, the implication vis-a-vis suspension bushings is clear.

GregA

70406


Greg, you&#39;re mixing rules.

The rule you quote is to make an allowance for non-OEM parts that previously were not allowed, despite being in all ways the same as the OEM part.

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I&#39;m fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can. However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.

Back to the bigging of this post, you are mixing rules and one has nothing to do with the other.

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 8 2006, 05:27 PM

It seems to me that what we have is merely a poorly written rule that has issues under a microscope.


70429


IMHO this encompasses most rules.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 8 2006, 11:32 PM

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I&#39;m fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can. However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.


70447


Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 8 2006, 11:32 PM
Greg, you&#39;re mixing rules.
70447
George, you&#39;re so missing the point...

[ddewhurst]

***Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.***

Which means a design change, as the function has been altered through the use of an allowed rule change which is the bushing material change. That IMHJ dose not allow an open door to change the OEM designed bushing from the get-go. ;)

[RacerBill]

Dang! two hours and no new posts.

This thread is soooooo looooonnng I can&#39;t remember if anyone has thrown this out. It is extracted from the 2006 GCR glossary, with no added emphasis, editorial comment, or tortured interpretation.

"Suspension Bushing - A hollow cylindrical mounting component which
acts as a bearing, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension
component and attachment point."


Or, how about this from 17.1.4.D.5.d

9. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by
similar items performing the same fastening function(s).

There&#39;s a real bag of worms. What is defined by &#39;etc.&#39;, &#39;similar items&#39; ? And I still want a definition of a &#39;total opening&#39;!!!!


I am still on the fence with the whole issue. On the one hand I think that SB&#39;s would make better suspensions, are not that expensive, and are the type of upgrade that a lot of solo and tuner cars are installing. And we are allowing suspension tuning with coil overs anyway. On the other hand, I don&#39;t want to see IT creeping into the modifications that are allowed in Prod classes.

OK, I&#39;ve said my piece. Let&#39;s go racing!

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 9 2006, 07:09 AM
George, you&#39;re so missing the point...

70453


Nope. I got your point. But they are two different rules making very specific allowances. My point is you cannot use the allowances under one rule to argue for or against the allowances under another rule

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 8 2006, 09:40 PM
Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB

70449


Andy, I don&#39;t think anyone will disagree that if a rule says you can do something, you can do it. Notice I followed up with the statement we were disagreeing on what the rule specifically allows. So, I stand by what you quoted.

Y&#39;all can go back to arguing about what the rule specifically allows.

[Dave Zaslow]

This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department:

Oh, they meant Suspension Bushings?

Racerbill; you da man!

Dave Zaslow

(now getting off at the Antelope Freeway)

[its66]

Originally posted by RacerBill@Jan 9 2006, 06:35 PM

"Suspension Bushing - A hollow cylindrical mounting component which
acts as a bearing, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension
component and attachment point."
Or, how about this from 17.1.4.D.5.d


70465


Now, is a SB acting as a bearing, or is it really a bearing? IF a bushing which acts as a bearing allowed, is a bearing allowed to act as a bushing? :bash_1_: I&#39;m confused...

[ddewhurst]

***allowing constrained motion***

Now, if we look up the word constrain in a dictionary that will differentiate suspension bushing & spherical bearing.

Will a suspension bushing constrain motion? Answer: YES

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO

Will a air bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO


ps: We need 10 pages................ ;)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 10 2006, 07:48 AM
***allowing constrained motion***

Now, if we look up the word constrain in a dictionary that will differentiate suspension bushing & spherical bearing.

Will a suspension bushing constrain motion? Answer: YES

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO

Will a air bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO
ps: We need 10 pages................ ;)

70548



Actually David, the spherical bearing will constrain motion. You can only move something up to the angle of misalignment. After that, you&#39;ve reached the limit of the range of motion for the bearing.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 10 2006, 09:48 AM
***allowing constrained motion***

Now, if we look up the word constrain in a dictionary that will differentiate suspension bushing & spherical bearing.

Will a suspension bushing constrain motion? Answer: YES

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO

Will a air bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO
ps: We need 10 pages................ ;)

70548

I would not say those are accurate conclusions. Depending on what level of compliance you want to use in quantitatively measuring constraint.

Spherical bearings all have constrained motion when installed. They all have a specification of tilt angle defining this constraint. The typical specification is 15 degrees or less in most standard spherical bearings. The specification of the SBs I am familar with for the 240SX are speced at less than 10 degrees depending on the supplier and the link in question. (ID, OD and race width are primary determinants of the resulting tilt angle limit)

I know for a fact that the rubber bushing in the TC rod of the S13 240SX will permit more than 15 degrees of tilt angle.

Does a spherical bearing constrain motion? Absolutely and at its specified tilt angle it does so better than rubber or poly bushings which do not have an absolute contraint until you have metal on metal contact in the bushing which is going to be more than a spherical bearing will allow. It still remains that SBs perform only the functions of the replaced bushing and no others and again does it better and doing it better is not illegal.

Up to tilt angle the "resistance" to motion of a rubber or poly bushing may be higher but as far as "constraining" motion the spherical bearing is significantly more so.

PS and not just to reach page 10.

[turboICE]

And BTW I see as nowhere near desirable and not the intent of the definition to constrain rotation in the intended plane and axis of the links - the entire reason for changing materials is to improve rotation in the intended plane and axis. The very purpose of the suspension bushing is to constrain motion of the axis and constrain motion of the link outside the intended plane. Isn&#39;t that why everyone is seeking alternate materials to OEM? So as to reduce compliance of the bushing in order to restrict the movement of the axis and outside the intended plane of travel? Is anyone honestly seeking to restrict the rotational movement of their suspension joints?

I guarantee it was not the OEM intent to restrict the rotational movement it is a result of OEM material decisions but was not the intent of the engineers. The engineers selected their material to do the same thing as spherical bearings except they have noise, ride, harshness, vibration concerns resulting in the selection of higher compliance material than spherical bearings or even poly.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 10 2006, 08:29 AM
And BTW I see as nowhere near desirable and not the intent of the definition to constrain rotation in the intended plane and axis of the links - the entire reason for changing materials is to improve rotation in the intended plane and axis. The very purpose of the suspension bushing is to constrain motion of the axis and constrain mostion of the link outside the intended plane. Isn&#39;t that why everyone is seeking alternate materials to OEM? So as to reduce compliance of the bushing in order to restrict the movement of the axis and outside the intended plane of travel? Is anyone honestly seeking to restrict the rotational movement of their suspension joints?

70556



Actually Ed, I&#39;d say the primary reason is to minimize (or eliminate) deflection, thereby reducing (or eliminating) dynamic changes in suspension geometry.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 10:36 AM
Actually Ed, I&#39;d say the primary reason is to minimize (or eliminate) deflection, thereby reducing (or eliminating) dynamic changes in suspension geometry.

70557


The entire design of the suspension joints is that they are going to rotate around their axis. Dampeners are the intended method of controlling that rotation. Dynamic changes are much more the result of the suspension design (angles, link lengths, etc) than bushing compliance. No bushing change is going to eliminate dynamic changes in suspension geometry. Consistency in those dynamic changes is however dependent on bushing compliance regarding minimizing the changes in those angles, link lengths, etc (due to deflection of the bushing).

And the minimization of deflection results in rotation within the intended plane and around the intended axis, they are practically if not completely synonomous in this context.

[stevel]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 8 2006, 03:06 AM

If your suspension bushings differ from stock in any way other than the substance of which they were originally made, they are illegal.

Greg


then that makes every poly bushing i&#39;ve seen illegal, because hardly ever are they exact copies of the OEM bushings.

Which, in my mind, the intent of the rule was to allow poly bushings (or other alternate "material" such as delrin, etc). Under Greg&#39;s interpretation you&#39;d have a hard time finding a poly bushing out in the market that meets that rule.

steve

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 10 2006, 09:48 AM
...in my mind, the intent of the rule was to allow poly bushings (or other alternate "material" such as delrin, etc). Under Greg&#39;s interpretation you&#39;d have a hard time finding a poly bushing out in the market that meets that rule.
70560


I agree with you on both counts, Steve. However, just because a part that meets the rule is not available does not allow us to break that rule. - GA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 09:24 AM
I agree with you on both counts, Steve. However, just because a part that meets the rule is not available does not allow us to break that rule. - GA

70569



Greg,

Did I read that right? Are you saying that most (all?) of the aftermarket bushings out there are illegal?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 10:40 AM
Are you saying that most (all?) of the aftermarket bushings out there are illegal?
70570
I cannot make such a blanket statement, given my limited knowledge of the available parts, however it&#39;s certainly a possibility. The rules allow nothing more than material change; if a specific set of bushings does not meet that standard, what other conclusion can one make?

If you&#39;re trying to draw me into an argument of degrees ("significant" dimensional change is/is not allowed) then you&#39;re out of luck: they either meet the rules or they don&#39;t... - GA

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 10 2006, 02:48 PM
then that makes every poly bushing i&#39;ve seen illegal, because hardly ever are they exact copies of the OEM bushings.

Which, in my mind, the intent of the rule was to allow poly bushings (or other alternate "material" such as delrin, etc). Under Greg&#39;s interpretation you&#39;d have a hard time finding a poly bushing out in the market that meets that rule.

steve

70560


So.....nothing prevents you from making them. That is what I&#39;ve been told countless times by members of this BB. (it feels good to say it too!!!) Why not talk to a company and show/tell them what you want. Delrin isn&#39;t that hard to obtain or work with.

That&#39;s what I HAVE to do if I want underdrive pulleys because they aren&#39;t offered for my car. Fabricate a set to the rules at what cost...who knows?...but it is do-able.

As I was so (un)kindly told by a member of this BB...if you don&#39;t have the stomach for it don&#39;t do it. You don&#39;t HAVE to run an aftermarket suspension bushing, just as you don&#39;t have to run a header it&#39;s really up to you to decide what level of preparation you want to achieve.

my .02 ....I&#39;m sorry if this sounds abrasive it isn&#39;t meant to be abrasive only meant to illustrate the market vs. the need.

R

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 09:53 AM
I cannot make such a blanket statement, given my limited knowledge of the available parts, however it&#39;s certainly a possibility. The rules allow nothing more than material change; if a specific set of bushings does not meet that standard, what other conclusion can one make?

If you&#39;re trying to draw me into an argument of degrees ("significant" dimensional change is/is not allowed) then you&#39;re out of luck: they either meet the rules or they don&#39;t... - GA

70574



Not trying to draw you into any kind of arguement Greg, just trying to understand what you meant by your comment.

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 11:53 AM
The rules allow nothing more than material change; if a specific set of bushings does not meet that standard, what other conclusion can one make?

If you&#39;re trying to draw me into an argument of degrees ("significant" dimensional change is/is not allowed) then you&#39;re out of luck: they either meet the rules or they don&#39;t... - GA

70574


Ten pages of debate that can be summed up quickly as &#39;Strict Constructionists&#39; vs. &#39;Originalists&#39; vs. &#39;Activists&#39; (you can search around legal sites a bit and learn what that is all about).

If you&#39;re a &#39;Strict Constructionist&#39;, then you read the rule as &#39;only the material can be changed&#39;. So...alternate designs, alternate colors, alternate metal sleeve thicknesses...all would be &#39;illegal&#39;. There is no middle ground here. To take it to extremes, although the material may be different, if the compliance of that material is different then, technically...according to the &#39;strict constructionists&#39;, it&#39;s illegal. You don&#39;t get any diddle-room here. Read the words, don&#39;t interpret anything. If it doesn&#39;t say the &#39;flavor&#39; can be different, then if I taste it and it&#39;s different, you&#39;re illegal.

&#39;Originalists&#39; ? Nobody here was listening when the rule was first written, and the memories of those who did the writing then are fuzzy. Or they&#39;re dead. See below.

&#39;Activists&#39; ? They&#39;re the ones arguing about just where the &#39;line in the sand&#39; should be - pink poly bushings vs. cartridge bearings etc.. Some of them think that spherical bearings are OK, even if they have to mod or weld on the control arm to do it (that&#39;s the point where I draw my own &#39;line in the sand&#39; and cry &#39;illegal&#39;).

It sounds like Greg may be leaning toward &#39;strict constructionist&#39;, but that may just be because he can&#39;t discuss the rule with the &#39;Originals nee Originalists&#39; who actually wrote the rules, because they are happily playing shuffleboard or would need a 6+ft. periscope and/or reincarnation to join in this discussion.

The rule is poorly written. Some here are tying themselves into knots to justify their positions. Waste of time, as the rule is poorly written and the energy expended in trying to interpret would be better spent trying to fix it.

Just have the damn rule rewritten so it makes sense in today&#39;s environment.

I&#39;ve got 3 race cars torn apart right now...I&#39;ll just be stopping by once daily to watch the fun...

Anybody have a 1.6 Miata motor CHEEP ? Leakdown on the #2 hole was blowing oil out the dipstick tube (really...). Back to work....

(edited...so it might actually make sense....)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JohnRW@Jan 10 2006, 12:13 PM
Ten pages of debate that can be summed up quickly as &#39;Strict Constructionists&#39; vs. &#39;Originalists&#39; vs. &#39;Activists&#39; (you can search around legal sites a bit and learn what that is all about).

If you&#39;re a &#39;Strict Constructionist&#39;, then you read the rule as &#39;only the material can be changed&#39;. So...alternate designs, alternate colors, alternate metal sleeve thicknesses...all would be &#39;illegal&#39;. There is no middle ground here. To take it to extremes, although the material may be different, if the compliance of that material is different then, technically...according to the &#39;strict constructionists&#39;, it&#39;s illegal. You don&#39;t get any diddle-room here. Read the words, don&#39;t interpret anything. If it doesn&#39;t say the &#39;flavor&#39; can be different, then if I taste it and it&#39;s different, you&#39;re illegal.

&#39;Originalists&#39; ? Nobody here was listening when the rule was first written, and the memories of those who did the writing then are fuzzy. Or they&#39;re dead. See below.

&#39;Activists&#39; ? They&#39;re the ones arguing about just where the &#39;line in the sand&#39; should be - pink poly bushings vs. cartridge bearings etc.. Some of them think that spherical bearings are OK, even if they have to mod or weld on the control arm to do it (that&#39;s the point where I draw my own &#39;line in the sand&#39; and cry &#39;illegal&#39;).

It sounds like Greg may be leaning toward &#39;strict constructionist&#39;, but that may just be because he can&#39;t discuss the rule with the &#39;Originals nee Originalists&#39; who actually wrote the rules, because they are happily playing shuffleboard or would need a 6+ft. periscope and/or reincarnation to join in this discussion.

The rule is poorly written. Some here are tying themselves into knots to justify their positions. Waste of time, as the rule is poorly written and the energy expended in trying to interpret would be better spent trying to fix it.

Just have the damn rule rewritten so it makes sense in today&#39;s environment.

I&#39;ve got 3 race cars torn apart right now...I&#39;ll just be stopping by once daily to watch the fun...

Anybody have a 1.6 Miata motor CHEEP ? Leakdown on the #2 hole was blowing oil out the dipstick tube (really...). Back to work....

(edited...so it might actually make sense....)

70591


What a great post. Maybe the issue fpr me is that I fall inbetween the &#39;Strict Constructionalist&#39; and the &#39;Originalist&#39; - and that is why I can&#39;t see some of the interpretations as legal.

Here is where I fall:

- A bearing can act as a bushing
- The rules state that only a material change is allowed
- A bearing is not &#39;simply&#39; a material change, it CAN BE a change in overall design
- The rules do not say that bushings are &#39;free&#39;, like I submit they would if that was the original intent (and I do think that Greg has a point that in other parts of the GCR, they are called out as free for other classes - leading me to believe they are not for IT)

Some people are looking at this from the persepctive of the suspensions they know. The VW example is one of them. The SB replacements searve no other purpose than to provide reduced friction (if I am getting that right). If you allow them, SB&#39;s can be used to provide &#39;out-of-stock&#39; range of motion (look simply at a sway-bar end-link).

Bottom line? I wish I was at the Sebring National in SM instead of chipping ice off the front entrace of our shop... :P

Good debate.

AB

[stevel]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 03:24 PM
However, just because a part that meets the rule is not available does not allow us to break that rule. - GA

70569


I agree. But for a rule that has an intent of allowing a poly bushing and poly bushings that are widely available on the market for tons of different cars (and while they do differ from exact stock replacements they don&#39;t have any other advantage) they are, as you read illegal.

Just curious Greg. Will you be replacing any suspension bushings on your car? What are you going to go with? Nismo I would assume, as they do fit the rule.

steve

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 04:15 PM
IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are UNRESTRICTED. Adjustable SPHERICAL BEARINGS or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

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


70351



It is interesting that the LP Production rules use the same Bushing rule that is found in IT. That said, this LP rule trumps any comparison between the LP Production and IT:

17.1.1.D.6.c.1.

Contol arms may be reinforced or alternate control arms may be fitted.

However, since many have used other definitions in the GCR to dredge the meaning of the IT rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6. it would interesting to know how the same rule is Viewed in LP Production. Has the use of S/B&#39;s to substittue bushings been tested in Limited Prep Production?

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 10 2006, 06:48 AM

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO


70548


Nicht so.

A spherical bearing allows rotation around the center of the x, y, and z axis. It will NOT allow movement along the x/y plane.

[Geo]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 10 2006, 11:11 AM


Just curious Greg. Will you be replacing any suspension bushings on your car? What are you going to go with? Nismo I would assume, as they do fit the rule.


70597


Nismo do NOT fit the rule under Greg&#39;s very strict interpretation. The trailing front lower control arm bushings are solid rubber (last I saw) for the Nismo item, yet the OEM is hollowed out (for lack of a better term off the top of my head) some to further isolate NVH.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 10 2006, 02:32 PM
Nicht so.

A spherical bearing allows rotation around the center of the x, y, and z axis. It will NOT allow movement along the x/y plane.

70606


Why not? What of you had an oval shaped hole and a slot in said hole? You could pivot INSIDE the SB and the SB could move along the slot. Just like in a upper strut mount...

https://secure7.nexternal.com/bimmerworl/images/camber_pl.jpg

This is part of my problem. If you open it up to SB&#39;s, you leave yourself open to initended consiquenses because we don&#39;t know the potential design allowances for every car in the GCR. Hardly a material-only change IMHO.

AB

[Greg Amy]

Very well done, John.

To all,

Let&#39;s get something straight here: I&#39;m a very reasonable person (as Dick alluded to). I am open-minded and I fully hear and understand (although don&#39;t necessarily agree with) everyone&#39;s viewpoints. However, this group (and the racer community as a whole) is infamous for picking away at rules using incrementalism to arrive at idiotic conclusions. Give an inch, then another inch, then another inch, and suddenly you&#39;re twenty miles from where you started. There comes a point where one must argue from the extremes in order to avoid this destructive incrementalism.

The "spherical bearings" issue is a perfect case in point. The rule is very clear, and I&#39;ve said it repeatedly: the only change allowed is &#39;the substance of which the parts are made&#39;. John, Steve, and Bill (among others) have accurately illustrated the idiotic extremes of that fact. The alternative, though, to such an extreme position is to admit there&#39;s some "wiggle room" or "gray area" in the literal reading of this. However, if one were to admit to this gray area it will immediately be picked away and picked away (definition of bushings/bearings, axis of movement, degree of deflection, friction/non-friction, rotational inertia, location of Venus relative to Mars when the period was typed in the original rule) until someone, somewhere has somehow decided that alternate bushing material means we are allowed to install cassette bearings and spherical bushings.

Sorry, no buena. That&#39;s just a patently ridiculous conclusion. I can&#39;t even see you waving when you&#39;re twenty miles away.

So, in order to remove that opportunity to increment yourselves to that ridiculous position, I am forced to dig my heels in the stand, be rigid, and stick to what the rules state and what I believe is right. I go through these mental gymnastics each and every time there&#39;s a disagreement on what a rule means (as if the rules REALLY need to be interpreted, trying to fit the square "I wanna do this" peg into the "you are allowed to do that" hole, versus using common sense). The result of these gymnastics is a question of "which extreme position is best for Improved Touring?"

And, given a choice between the rigid "material only" position and one that accepts and allows spherical bushings (and its implied conclusions) into Improved Touring, the choice is very clear for me: these things do not belong in IT, regardless of how it may or may not affect me or others.

John is wrong on one point: I was there back when the class was first subscribed. My mind isn&#39;t even that fuzzy, as I was a 19-ish-yr-old college student scratching to be able to keep racing on the odd weekend I didn&#39;t have to study for a Mechanical Engineering exam. I have a pretty good idea of what the original intent and mindset of the organization was when this class started (see the "IT/Prod" discussion). I like IT enough that I eventually came back after my foray into so-called "National" racing because it&#39;s fun. And, I will fight to maintain that environment as long as possible. So, called me a pseudo-Originalist, if you must label me.

To all you pro-SB folks: this is a perfect case of where the old tired saying of "if you don&#39;t like it here, get out" applies. SBs do not belong in Improved Touring; the siren song of Production racing beckons you...

Greg...

P.S. Earl and I are finalizing our 13.9 submission; Earl pro-SB, I opposing. We are significantly short of the $250 required for the request. If you want to put your 2 cents (or more) into the idea, best speak up soon.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 10 2006, 12:42 PM
Why not? What of you had an oval shaped hole and a slot in said hole? You could pivot INSIDE the SB and the SB could move along the slot. Just like in a upper strut mount...

https://secure7.nexternal.com/bimmerworl/images/camber_pl.jpg

This is part of my problem. If you open it up to SB&#39;s, you leave yourself open to initended consiquenses because we don&#39;t know the potential design allowances for every car in the GCR. Hardly a material-only change IMHO.

AB

70608


Andy, the SB itself does NOT allow x/y movement. What you are discussing when discussing x/y movement is the HOUSING for the SB. That&#39;s a whole other debate.

I disagree with your second point about unintended consequences because the working interpretation out there is they ARE legal. They are certainly in wide use so what additional consequences can there be that don&#39;t exist today?

[Bill Miller]

Give an inch, then another inch, then another inch, and suddenly you&#39;re twenty miles from where you started.

For a very current example of this, read some of the discussions on the Prod board, about limited-prep cars. They&#39;re now requesting dry-sumps, full-prep suspensions, modified rods, fully ported heads, etc. etc. Warning, it&#39;s not for the faint of heart!

Greg,

Before you guys spend money on a 13.9, how about a simple letter to the CRB? Could save some folks some money, and may get us to the point we need to be (a yes/no answer).

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Geo
...what additional consequences can there be that don&#39;t exist today?
HAH!!! George, you&#39;re just not imaginative enough. Trust me, son, I&#39;ve got some SERIOUS ideas, and the implications of a "no dimensional limitations" ruling in regards to alternate bushing material will be something you will NOT be pleased with.

Think "MoTec" for McPherson strut suspensions.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:21 PM
...how about a simple letter to the CRB?

70614
I do not believe that the CRB can accept such a request for clarification, given that there&#39;s a defined process in the GCR. Earl suggested an alternative of asking for a specific rule change, such as "Allow spherical bushings" or change rule to read "Bushings are free."

The problem with that (good) idea is that it will most likely NOT result in a definitive conclusion. The most likely result of such a request will be either "Thank you for your input" or "Rules are acceptable as written" which tells you absolutely nothing. The best you could hope for, if they thought that these do not belong in IT, is a "Not within the philosophy of Improved Touring", but there&#39;s really no way you&#39;d get an "Already allowed" response to the request.

So, we revert back to GCR 13.9. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:21 PM
For a very current example of this, read some of the discussions on the Prod board, about limited-prep cars. They&#39;re now requesting dry-sumps, full-prep suspensions, modified rods, fully ported heads, etc. etc. Warning, it&#39;s not for the faint of heart!

Greg,

Before you guys spend money on a 13.9, how about a simple letter to the CRB? Could save some folks some money, and may get us to the point we need to be (a yes/no answer).

70614


All that will get you is an opinion, not an official ruling where people need to sit sown and discuss, no?

I actually did this for the piston debate and got two different interpretations from the two people I copied...

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 01:05 PM
P.S. Earl and I are finalizing our 13.9 submission; Earl pro-SB, I opposing. We are significantly short of the $250 required for the request. If you want to put your 2 cents (or more) into the idea, best speak up soon.

70609


Greg, what is the address again that you use for Paypal?

I&#39;ll send some money.

[Bill Miller]

Greg and Andy,

I&#39;m going by what happened w/ the l-p rear disc brakes. I don&#39;t believe that anyone filed a 13.9, there was just a question that was asked of the CRB (at the &#39;04 Runoffs Tent Mtg, IIRC), and it ended up making it&#39;s way into the rule book. Andy, I&#39;m not suggesting that you improperly use your position on the ITAC, but I can&#39;t see where it would hurt to ask this during your next con. call. Or better yet, maybe Peter can bring this up.

If you don&#39;t get the result that you want, and still feel the need to file a 13.9, I&#39;ll kick some money in too.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:42 PM
Andy, I&#39;m not suggesting that you improperly use your position on the ITAC, but I can&#39;t see where it would hurt to ask this during your next con. call. Or better yet, maybe Peter can bring this up.

If you don&#39;t get the result that you want, and still feel the need to file a 13.9, I&#39;ll kick some money in too.

70619


I knew that! I just think that we are looking for an official ruling, not any one persons interpretation.

AB

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 04:05 PM
I was there back when the class was first subscribed. My mind isn&#39;t even that fuzzy, as I was a 19-ish-yr-old college student scratching to be able to keep racing on the odd weekend I didn&#39;t have to study for a Mechanical Engineering exam.
70609


You must play a mean game of shuffleboard, Oldtimer.

Although Greg was familiar with the way that the rule was interpreted at that time, it doesn&#39;t mean that any of the current differing &#39;other&#39; opinions are wrong, it just means that the rule interpretation has changed over time. It&#39;s an &#39;opinion&#39;, not a fact. That&#39;s why Supreme Court rulings are called &#39;opinions&#39;, not &#39;facts&#39;. The only &#39;facts&#39; are defined when something is specifically allowed or disallowed in the rules. Absent that...we&#39;re all just throwing darts.

Was the phrase &#39;alternate materials&#39; used in the first draft because that&#39;s all that anyone imagined would be available ? History (racing and otherwise) is replete with examples of people who couldn&#39;t read the future.

I&#39;m certainly not a &#39;strict constructionist&#39;, and I feel that &#39;originalists&#39; are ballast on classes that want to/need to grow. I like...and applaud...innovative interpretations of technical rules, within bounds. Don&#39;t mean to keep dragging him in as a &#39;poster child&#39;, but when I saw Bob G&#39;s BHP &#39;Volvos from Hell&#39; rear shock/swaybar linkage, I reread the rulebook and yelled &#39;BRILLIANT !!!&#39; It was freakin brilliant. That doesn&#39;t make him (or me, by proxy) an evil cheater.

I&#39;m agnostic on this issue. The one IT car that actually runs is &#39;for sale&#39;, and the garage is occupied by two different &#39;Spec&#39; cars, a vintage racer and lotza other crap. In the late 90&#39;s I came to love true &#39;spec&#39; series cars, as it takes all this drama away. Hell...I was probably the very last IT VW guy to still be running stock upper strut bearings instead of spherical bear-ushing camber plates (half-life of a stock VW strut bearing at Nelson Ledges is about 90 minutes...if you wanted to know...). But...future costs to be competitive in any class have to weigh in on any interpretation.

I have no sympathy/empathy for those who argue "...got a big investment in helium-cooled Heim-jointed Wartburg lower control arms, and it&#39;s unfair to make me throw them away". Boohoohoo. The remote reservoir shocks thing ? Har...tough luck. I&#39;ve got over $2K in new/nearly new &#39;spec&#39; tires that are no longer the &#39;spec&#39; tire in one series. Boohoo. Nobody ever said this was going to be cheap.

I need to resist the gravitational pull of this thread. Help...

[lateapex911]

Great posts John!

Greg, lets take the next step. It seems to me you&#39;ve made the case that you think that it&#39;s all gone too far, and that the rule clearly doesn&#39;t allow us to be where we are!

By my reading, the rule really effectively might as well state, "Suspension bushings must be stock, AND must retain stok characteristics", if we are to take the current material only allowance and follow it to the "No other designs or functions" letter of the law.

And sure, I have schemed of "cassettes" of offset SBs...adjustable too!...sitting in my control arms. Haven&#39;t gotten around to them...or a lot of other "cool ideas" I have.

So, we have a situtaion where the rule effectively allows nothing, but everybody has buckets of these things in their car.

Assuming your "inquiry" results in a strict definition, what do we, collectively as a club, do??

Rewrite the (as I stated earlier) poorly written rule?

Make the entire category switch back to stock busings, in new condition? (The oft mentioned, but rarely seen act of stuffing the Genie back in the bottle)

Allow whatever you want just so the actual suspension and body mount components are unmodified? (ie, NO welding, drilling threading etc.)

Add a comment requireing the dimensional centerlines to remain as stock?

Thoughts?

[Knestis]

"Suspension bushings or bearings not falling under another rule in the ITCS may be modified or replaced with bushings or bearings of alternate material and/or design, as long as (1) no other part is modified to facilitate installation and, (2) such modification or replacement does not effectively relocate the suspension mounting point."

Any rule that just says "bushings" leaves us in the "bushings aren&#39;t bearings" pickle.

This would give a lot of people what they seem to say that they want. I confess that I&#39;m not sure WHAT I&#39;d personally like, mostly because I&#39;m still wrestling with the problem of defining ANYTHING in particular, that isn&#39;t either "stock" or "free."

K

[lateapex911]

Agreed...drawing the line on an exact definition is difficult, esp as so many varieties exist...even stock.

Pragmatically, I have been thinking along those lines. Good rule writing.... esp on such short notice!

[HOOSER 99]

IDEA!! just make them legal because we can&#39;t enforce the old ecu....my bad, wrong topic. FWIW I have them on my golf because I thought it would be neat to try to make them myself..I&#39;d like to think they take away the movement by the old rubber ones....but I think the guys up front would be there with sb&#39; or blocks of pine. I think the bigger issue as John said, is what is natural progression, rule creep, or taking steps backward. We&#39;re at 11 pages for suspension bearings and its been a pretty mild winter!!
jerry

PS Make sure when you protest this you throw in about 95% of camber plates couse they have sb&#39;s.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by HOOSER 99@Jan 10 2006, 10:47 PM


PS Make sure when you protest this you throw in about 95% of camber plates couse they have sb&#39;s.

70651


And why would those be illegal?

AB

[Rabbit07]

I don&#39;t understand what the big deal is? What are you afriad of with spherical bearings? Does it give someone else an advantage that you do not have? Get real! I just can&#39;t see anywhere in the rules where a spherical bearing does not apply as a bushing! :bash_1_:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Rabbit07@Jan 11 2006, 06:12 PM
I don&#39;t understand what the big deal is? What are you afriad of with spherical bearings? Does it give someone else an advantage that you do not have? Get real! I just can&#39;t see anywhere in the rules where a spherical bearing does not apply as a bushing! :bash_1_:

70729


I don&#39;t know who you are asking this of but it really doesn&#39;t matter. We are debating the legality of spherical bearings as bushings as it pertains to a rule that says a MATERIAL only change may be made. Some agree, some don&#39;t.

It has nothing to do with advantages or not.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Just to throw a little more confusion into the mix. From the WCTC rules


2.9.8.6: Suspension components shall be the stock OE pieces, but they may be
reinforced. Heim joints are permitted on suspension components. Standard suspension
bushings may be replaced with solid, or spherical, bushings.

:o

[turboICE]

Is there now an expectation that the Club Racing Board sets rules in parity with Pro Racing series language and intent - is a ruleset not even in the GCR valid as support for interpretation? They aren&#39;t the same group are they - the series has its own rule board or am I missing something?

Oh and that must suck for the WCTC - nowhere in that rule is alternative materials permitted. So while the replacements may be solid bushings or spherical bushings they must be OEM material. :P I don&#39;t see any indication of free or unrestricted in the rules!

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

I put that in there simply to point out the use of the term spherical bushing. I&#39;m not saying that Pro rules should be used for Club Racing. We&#39;ve had several people here claim that a spherical bearing is not a bushing, etc. By citing the section of the Pro rules, I simply wanted to show that there are some people w/in racing, and w/in the SCCA, that consider a spherical bearing a bushing. I put this up for the people that were saying "No way, no how is a spherical bearing a bushing, and to say it is, is a strained and tortured interpretation of the rules." The goal was to simply show that it&#39;s feasible to interpret it as such.

However, using Pro rules in Club Racing makes ALMOST as much sense as using GT rules in IT. :o ;)

[Bildon]

Nice find Bill :023:
Further proof that we&#39;re wasting time here.
I love my spherical bearing attached suspensions.

I&#39;ve got a new Mantra.... stop nit picking and lets fix the REAL problems... ...DISPLACEMENT and COMPRESSION! The SCCA needs to supply every region with 2 cheap tools. A compression guage and a displacement pump!

A) Compression Gauge - to get a rough figure on cylinder pressures. Simple and fast to check. Post everybody&#39;s cylinder pressure on a sheet over the course of a weekend. Random checks...Post during practice a few car #s that need to tech to have it done...or whever method works for whatever region. Simple!

B ) Displacement Pump - check using a simple plastic graduated cylinder with a floating plastic piston in it. Crank the engine over a few times (no ignition), check one cylinder and Voila!

Doing these 2 things would virtually eliminate all the real effective cheating.

[Bill Miller]

The only other thing I&#39;d add to that Bill, is a dial indicator, to check cam profiles with. Displacement, compression, and cam profile will get probably 80 - 90 percent of the real performance gains.

[turboICE]

Ah figures I mistook your post&#39;s intent Bill. I thought it was an argument for when a ruleset intends SBs they list them. Sorry for the confusion.

[Bill Miller]

No problem Ed, it&#39;s all good! :023:

[Bildon]

>> is a dial indicator

That requires a tear down. Not gonna happen. Might be easy to pull the VC on a Golf but on many cars its a very large undertaking. Plus after seeing the tear downs that have happened I have no confidence that cam profiles could be measured properly at an event by voluteers with no prior experience doing so.

COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !
:bash_1_:
COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !
:bash_1_:
COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !

[ChrisCamadella]

Originally posted by Bildon@Jan 24 2006, 04:36 PM
>> is a dial indicator

That requires a tear down. Not gonna happen. Might be easy to pull the VC on a Golf but on many cars its a very large undertaking. Plus after seeing the tear downs that have happened I have no confidence that cam profiles could be measured properly at an event by voluteers with no prior experience doing so.

COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !
:bash_1_:
COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !
:bash_1_:
COMPRESSION GAUGE AND DISPLACEMENT PUMPS !

71880


The problem with both of those is that they don&#39;t usually work. I&#39;m not sure what you would do with a compression gauge - there are way too many variables to have the PSI generated in the cylinder by the starter motor mean anything.

And the displacement pumps are great in NASCAR, where all of the engines have rocker arms, but really hard to implement in sports car racing, where most of the engines have overhead camshafts operating directly on the valve lifters. Don&#39;t forget, for one of those gizmos to work, you have to disable the valves for at least the cylinder you&#39;re checking. That&#39;s very hard on most all of the cars that we race.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944

[ddewhurst]

Bill Miller, if ya want to continue the jack jawing about suspension bushings & spherical bearings please go to the PCS rules & explane the two rules to me. The pcs bushing material rule is the exact same words as the IT rule & the other PCS rule talks about bearings. ;)

[ChrisCamadella]

I know we&#39;ve seen a lot of opinions on the bushing replacement issue, but I&#39;ll add mine anyway.

I firmly believe that the spherical bearings in a car I know about are perfectly legal within the current spirit of the rules, although I do agree that a rewrite is necessary, because I don&#39;t think they&#39;re legal within the LETTER of the rules, which, it turns out, is the only thing that matters.

1. 17.1.D.4.5.d.6 says "Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted".

2. A BUSHING is actually something that takes up space. Look at the definitions in the glossary section. That is also the accepted engineering definition of a bushing.

3. A BEARING is something that allows two parts to turn relative to one another without unduly wearing out the parts. Some bearings have more friction than others, but if the parts move, they&#39;re all bearings. Since the suspension moves up and down, even the rubber suspension &#39;bushings&#39; are actually bearings.

4. It is obvious that the rule makers meant &#39;bearing&#39; when they said &#39;bushing&#39;. Look at section 17.1.D.4.5.d.1, 2, and 3. If you can adjust camber with an eccentric &#39;bushing&#39;, then that &#39;bushing&#39; must allow for movement, which makes it a bearing.

5. Provided that you accept that the rules writers were talking about those big rubber things that this car (the one I know about) has at the control arm pivot point when they meant &#39;bushing&#39; (which I think they did), then the ones in my friends&#39; car are legal, as follows:

a. They are dimensionally identical to the original parts. They have the same ID, the same OD, and the same length. Neither the control arm nor the suspension crossmember to which the arm attaches have been modified in any way.

b. They use the same mounting hardware, in the stock location.

c. They are made of an alternate material (or, in this case, materials, plural, which happen to consist of aluminum, stainless steel, and a little tiny bit of teflon. The rules don&#39;t say that the &#39;bushing&#39; has to be homogeneous.)

I guess I, for one, don&#39;t even see any gray area in these items. I believe that the parts mentioned above are legal within the current rules.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944

[gsbaker]

This threads reminds me of why I so enjoyed Wednesday night bracket racing at the local drag strip. You post your ET on the window and if you run 0.10 sec under you go home. The round-robin winner goes home with 50 bucks.

I think we should do this with lap times. :D

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by ChrisCamadella@Jan 24 2006, 12:33 PM
I know we&#39;ve seen a lot of opinions on the bushing replacement issue, but I&#39;ll add mine anyway.

I firmly believe that the spherical bearings in a car I know about are perfectly legal within the current spirit of the rules, although I do agree that a rewrite is necessary, because I don&#39;t think they&#39;re legal within the LETTER of the rules, which, it turns out, is the only thing that matters.

1. 17.1.D.4.5.d.6 says "Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted".

2. A BUSHING is actually something that takes up space. Look at the definitions in the glossary section. That is also the accepted engineering definition of a bushing.

3. A BEARING is something that allows two parts to turn relative to one another without unduly wearing out the parts. Some bearings have more friction than others, but if the parts move, they&#39;re all bearings. Since the suspension moves up and down, even the rubber suspension &#39;bushings&#39; are actually bearings.

4. It is obvious that the rule makers meant &#39;bearing&#39; when they said &#39;bushing&#39;. Look at section 17.1.D.4.5.d.1, 2, and 3. If you can adjust camber with an eccentric &#39;bushing&#39;, then that &#39;bushing&#39; must allow for movement, which makes it a bearing.

5. Provided that you accept that the rules writers were talking about those big rubber things that this car (the one I know about) has at the control arm pivot point when they meant &#39;bushing&#39; (which I think they did), then the ones in my friends&#39; car are legal, as follows:

a. They are dimensionally identical to the original parts. They have the same ID, the same OD, and the same length. Neither the control arm nor the suspension crossmember to which the arm attaches have been modified in any way.

b. They use the same mounting hardware, in the stock location.

c. They are made of an alternate material (or, in this case, materials, plural, which happen to consist of aluminum, stainless steel, and a little tiny bit of teflon. The rules don&#39;t say that the &#39;bushing&#39; has to be homogeneous.)

I guess I, for one, don&#39;t even see any gray area in these items. I believe that the parts mentioned above are legal within the current rules.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944

71927


Thanks Chris, I have not posted cause I am not smart enough to say it this way, the best and clearest points on the subject yet.

[Bildon]

Chris you correct, the pump I described would not work for most IT cars. :unsure:
I am sometimes blinded by my own experiences...(or lack thereof)
On non-interference (VW) engines with timing belts...this test would not be so hard.
There is another type of displacement pump that fills the TDC cylinder with compressed air and measure that volume as it fills... I have not see these in person...has anyone? Sounds like it would be far more $ however. :(

However on the compression gauge issue... We all have factory manuals with a range of acceptable compression readings listed...from worn cylinders to new fresh ones.

With all your peers looking on, I think a pressure reading that was WAY out of spec. would keep a lot of people in check. :bash_1_:

[lateapex911]

On one hand, I like the idea Bill. I know a few guys that would fake an off during a session if they knew they were going to get "burped" in impound right after. And that&#39;s just this year! ;)

On the other and, IF it&#39;s not reasonably accurate, I hesitate to go to all the trouble, and possibly creat bad blood where there should be none.

Last year Anthony Serra, who owns The Mechanics Shop on lower NY state sopnsored a set of prizes to be won in the years big race at Lime Rock, the NARRC Runoffs. Fastest Honda/Acura got some money, second got less, and so on, or something like that. But the cool part was, you drove your car from impound to Anthony&#39;s paddock area where he hung out while Jason, his mechanic, did compression tests and checked cams. Cool stuff, LOL, and everybody who took part was clean...even Richie! (Kidding Richie! ;) )

It&#39;s tough on tech to do that much checking, but I would be all for a plan that is robust, dependable, accurate and relatively low stress on all concerned.

[bldn10]

Although Chris&#39; logic and clarity are to be commended, I have to beg to differ on a couple of assumptions and the conclusion that follows from them.

I am absolutely certain that the rulesmakers did not mean "bearing" when they said "bushing." They did not use the extremely technical definition that Chris does. Geez, if you run w/ that I guess a tire is a bearing, as are every other pair of things that turn against each other. As I have said before in this thread and no one has wanted to acknowledge, the glossary first and foremost defines a bushing as a "sleeve or tubular insert." Since a tire is neither, and nor are any other of a multitude of examples that would fall w/i Chris&#39; definition of bearings, his premise breaks down. Thus, even if Chris is correct in the most esoteric sense of what a bearing truly is, this rule is talking about something more limited. Perhaps a subset of bearings (i.e. all bushings are bearings but all bearings are not bushings). All this rule says is that you take an OEM bushing that is made of X and you can substitute one made of Y. While the rule does not use the term "homogenous" IMO the terms "sleeve" and "tubular" suggest as much. It says nothing about a sleeve or tubular insert w/ some kind of rotating joint inside. Now, I admit that the rule has been interpreted to allow multiple sleeves of different materials instead of one homogenous one, but I don&#39;t think that opens the door to a bushing of completely different design - one that ceases to be a simple sleeve or tubular insert.

I looked at a buddy&#39;s car yesterday that had just been fitted w/ sphericals all around but (other than they are eccentric and allow independent rear camber adjustment) I still don&#39;t quite understand why he spent so much $ on them. Thinking about the rear arms, when the suspension is in compression or bump the arm rotates vertically against the bushing in the housing - right? If all you wanted was less friction for that movement, wouldn&#39;t a sealed roller bearing like the wheel bearing do? But I suppose that the arm also wants to move somewhat laterally as well - right? And the roller would not allow that like the OEM rubber or whatever that has some "give." So, a spherical bearing allows ease of movement in both planes? But why would you really want your rear wheels to move laterally? Seems to me like all you&#39;d want would be enough "give" to isolate the shock. What am I missing? Is it that you’d rather the rear wheels move than the entire car pivot? More camber adjustment? :119:

[turboICE]

Binding.

When certain suspension designs are used at ride heights other than they were designed for the plane of movement tilts, especially when your rear suspension components have 10 pivots per side.

I have heard universaly that the 240SX will not run up front without spherical bushings in the rear suspension, period. I have been told time and again that if you don&#39;t have spherical bushings on the 240SX you are not fully prepared.

Now with the recent weight adjustments based on fully prepared vehicles, the question I have is were the ITAC recommendations based on spherical bushings being legal or illegal espcially when it matters tremendously in determining the suspension design benefit/detriment?

I continue to believe they are legal - but if they were determined to be illegal through a protest and only the mods suggested by the anti-SB camp then the 240SX was just shuffled to the rear when they gained 100lbs no matter how well prepared and driven against other fully prepped and well driven models.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 12:07 PM
...were the ITAC recommendations based on spherical bushings...
72311

No.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg is right. That level of consideration for suspension design is not taken into account.

No worries though. The issue was discussed on our con-call... ;)

AB

[turboICE]

Greg, you answered the question you wanted to not the question I asked, out of context quotes should at least remove the identity as the question was yours not mine.

Andy, so if I am to understand correctly the suspension benefit/detriment portion of the process did not consider how the suspension responds in IT legal prep?

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 12:07 PM
Now with the recent weight adjustments based on fully prepared vehicles, the question I have is were the ITAC recommendations based on spherical bushings being legal or illegal espcially when it matters tremendously in determining the suspension design benefit/detriment?
72311

Ah! Given that the answer is...

...still "no".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 12:33 PM
Andy, so if I am to understand correctly the suspension benefit/detriment portion of the process did not consider how the suspension responds in IT legal prep?

72323


Yes, but not to the point of interpreting grey-ares rules to see how they could apply. The &#39;process&#39; is not that sophisticated, nor should it be.

AB

[turboICE]

Greg, but the implication of the answer is different. Might be the same word but in the context of the question the answer IS different.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 02:05 PM
Yes, but not to the point of interpreting grey-ares rules to see how they could apply. The &#39;process&#39; is not that sophisticated, nor should it be.

AB

72337

Nor do I believe it should. But if a suspension binds in IT prep would that have an affect on the process? A binding suspension is much different performance potential than one that doesn&#39;t bind, wouldn&#39;t you agree? My assumption is that the group viewed the 240SX suspension performance based on it not binding. Might be a fair assumption or not - but if the assumption is accurate the 240SX suspension doesn&#39;t bind only if spherical bushings are used. By implication the process by treating the 240SX suspension as nonbinding in IT prep would indicate that SBs were being used and the process only considered legal prep levels.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:09 PM
Nor do I believe it should. But if a suspension binds in IT prep would that have an affect on the process? A binding suspension is much different performance potential than one that doesn&#39;t bind, wouldn&#39;t you agree? My assumption is that the group viewed the 240SX suspension performance based on it not binding. Might be a fair assumption or not - but if the assumption is accurate the 240SX suspension doesn&#39;t bind only if spherical bushings are used. By implication the process by treating the 240SX suspension as nonbinding in IT prep would indicate that SBs were being used and the process only considered legal prep levels.

72340


I think saying that your suspension binds in IT prep is a little strong. Your suspension binds because you are trying to lower the car below what the factory intended. Same with soem VW&#39;s etc. Don&#39;t lower it that much.

Don&#39;t make too much out of this. Your weight in the reclass has nothing to do with a &#39;sophisticated&#39; suspension. Torque/displacement and RWD were &#39;adders&#39; IIRC.

AB

[turboICE]

Fair enough. You have told me what contributed to the decision and those are fair adders. However if I have to ride around at a rally height of 7" due to suspension design limitations if SBs are not legal, then I think the poor suspension design should have been part of a full consideration, IMO.

As was said in the process thread - full prep was assumed in the process. To me full IT prep is lower the CG as much as legally possible. If you don&#39;t do that, well then it just isn&#39;t full IT prep any longer. The easiest way to lower CG is to lower the car to the allowed 5". 5 1/4" or 7" isn&#39;t full IT prep and the competitor should not expect to compete against fully prepped cars of the same class if they are not fully prepped. Full IT prep for suspension should have the same principles as a discussion of whether or not an engine and its exhaust have been fully prepped.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:07 PM
I have heard universaly that the 240SX will not run up front without spherical bushings in the rear suspension, period. I have been told time and again that if you don&#39;t have spherical bushings on the 240SX you are not fully prepared.

72311


I&#39;ve heard the same thing Ed. I have to wonder though, while I&#39;m guessing our cars probably benefit more from spherical bushings (due to our mega-link rear suspensions) do none of the other front-running cars need them to win? How about it Acura/Honda/Mazda guys, can your cars win races without the benefit of spherical bushings?

[turboICE]

BTW I don&#39;t think a factory design limitation should be the justification behind the legality of a part. It is legal or not.

I think SBs are legal and as a result the 240SX can be taken to full prep of 5" ride height and as a result the 100lbs added in the process for the items mentioned are fair. But if I can&#39;t get to 5" legally that is another story.

If SBs are deemed illegal - OK. But then that changes mine and I think many others views of the competitive potential of the 240SX. I don&#39;t think 5" should be arrived at illegally (altering the geometry of the pivots to not bind at 5" for instance). But if a car cannot legally get to 5" that is a factor affecting performance potential - that should offset torque displacement etc.

If full legal IT prep results in a higher than 5" ride height that should be a subtractor as torque can result in an adder.

Yes I believe there are front running cars that don&#39;t need SBs - but that doesn&#39;t mean they are or should be illegal.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:40 PM
But if a car cannot legally get to 5" that is a factor affecting performance potential - that should offset torque displacement etc.
72349
So, does that mean you would support dropping 100# off my car (and all others with McPherson struts)? If SBs were intended to assist in a suspension geometry problem, what do the McP cars get? I can&#39;t lower the car much below stock ride height without the suspension geometry going into "dangerous scary" territory...

Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:32 PM

As was said in the process thread - full prep was assumed in the process. To me full IT prep is lower the CG as much as legally possible. If you don&#39;t do that, well then it just isn&#39;t full IT prep any longer. The easiest way to lower CG is to lower the car to the allowed 5". 5 1/4" or 7" isn&#39;t full IT prep and the competitor should not expect to compete against fully prepped cars of the same class if they are not fully prepped. Full IT prep for suspension should have the same principles as a discussion of whether or not an engine and its exhaust have been fully prepped.

72345

We will agree to disagree here. Certain cars can utilize rules/limitations/allowances in different manners. Just because the minimum spec is 5" doesn&#39;t mean that it defines 100% IT prep. You lower your application as low as it can go and be fast.

IT engine prep for non-rotories is all equal. Some engines can take advantage of alloances more than others. Does that mean those &#39;Porsche-type&#39; (factory optimized) engines aren&#39;t built to 100% IT-prep?

Some cars have to run higher than others in order to &#39;work&#39;. There is no way to quantify 1/2 inch. 1 inch, 2 inches more ride height...then compensate for additional shock travel please...

I hear you, but it can&#39;t/shouldn&#39;t be done.

AB

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 02:58 PM
So, does that mean you would support dropping 100# off my car (and all others with McPherson struts)? If SBs were intended to assist in a suspension geometry problem, what do the McP cars get? I can&#39;t lower the car much below stock ride height without the suspension geometry going into "dangerous scary" territory...

Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

72353


If the relative nature of your car&#39;s suspension vs others was not considered in its process and you were able to support that it should have been been a contributing factor, then yes I would support you persuing that.

If something were in the rules that permitted you to legally be lower would you utilize it? Or would you say ahh forget it I will stay at a higher ride height?

If you were to identify additional modifications over and above the McP rules already in place that would help you lower the car and fit in the IT spirit - I would also support you persuing that course.

It would be a lot easier to accept and get on with it, if my legal car wasn&#39;t subject to an intended protest.

I can accept and get on with it when I know if there is something major I need to do that completely changes the core nature of my car.

As part of "we" accepting, you also could have accepted things, sucked it up, etc - you picked the battle. I would never have told you to accept something that sincerely bothered you, I have gone on accepting that it was and is your right to persue a sincere belief, even while disagreeing with your view. My hope would be that you wouldn&#39;t expect more of someone else than yourself and that maybe they have the right to persue their sincere beliefs especially when it is theirs that is being attacked.

My real concern now is that hopefully there is some resolution with sufficient time for me to do something about it.


Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 03:16 PM
I hear you, but it can&#39;t/shouldn&#39;t be done.

AB

72358


You heard what I am saying, how much more can someone ask for I do appreciate it.

And if my expectations are or have been such that the process would have to be more complex than it can or should be, then having that communicated to me is excellent as well. (Even if I disagree because it takes me no effort to disagree that it would be more of a burden than justified as opposed to the extraordinary effort the ITAC put forth without being told to make the process even more complex. ;) )

In all honesty I can understand, appreciate and respect that, and thanks by the way. My question was answered and now I know.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 01:58 PM


Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

72353


Bingo!

We all chose our horses, and we have to live with that choice.

And.....IF SBs were disallowed, I absotively posilutley GUARANTEE, that some ingenious guy will figure out a way so that you can lower your car to whatever height you like, and keep your suspension happy and non binding. Might be expensive, might be a pain, but it COULD be done. Do we WANT that? Well, no, but this path of "was my suspension considered completely before weight was added" thinking is a moot point.

One, you don&#39;t know the answer to the SB issue, and
Two, it is not unworkable regardless of the answer.

[turboICE]

If Greg&#39;s interpretation were to prove out I couldn&#39;t calculate the lowered angles and have the poly bushings formed with an static angled inner cylinder to prevent binding as Greg&#39;s interpretation would mean that the static inner cylinder would have to be at a right angle to the edge as oem would be.

[turboICE]

Also we choose our horses with a certain amount of expectations - until Greg brought it up in an unrelated thread six months ago - I had never heard anyone interpret them as illegal. I buy a car from a steward with SBs that had had SBs since 1997 and all I hear about is SBs aren&#39;t only legal but necessary for the car, for 2 years I am competing in a car I believe to be legal and if I was to be told now that my car was illegal that whole time yeah it would be much more than annoying. It isn&#39;t like I was coming in clueless, I did the research, I asked around, I bought a car. As a new competitor it is going to annoy me that I didn&#39;t get the horse I chose.

Greg was my instructor at my second school, he knew the car I drove, apparently knew that the majority of these cars have at least some SBs in their rear suspension and never said a word about it then. It would have been nice for that kind of instruction as well as the quality instruction received on my driving.

The thing is I like Greg but not so sure about his feelings about me now and it is likely my instructor is going to protest me the next time I see him.

If these are deemed illegal - consider what the impact of poorly written rules combined with unenforced rules that are apparently being knowingly broken without protest previously has on newcomers to the class when all of sudden the clarification is on them.

None of this should be taken to mean in anyway do I think the longevity of their existence and use should make them legal - rules should not work that way - they are legal or not in their own right. It goes back to my question on short shifters and extended periods of nonprotest though - you only hurt the class and new comers when you don&#39;t protest what you believe is illegal. If Greg felt they were illegal for over a decade - why protest in 2006 all of sudden - why not protest it when you know it. The class would be better off and no one since that point would be having any issues if it had been cleared up back then. If all of you have been letting this fester for this long it isn&#39;t my fault - and I didn&#39;t get the horse I chose.

If they come out of this illegal - I am going to be pissed because they could have been determine illegal a long time ago and I could have removed them when I got the stupid car along with the short shifter I removed.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 06:38 PM
Greg was my instructor at my second school...would have been nice for that kind of instruction...

Dude, low blow! Driving instructors neither know nor care about the legality of students&#39; cars. If I see something obvious I&#39;d be happy to point it out, but I hardly spent time looking over your car in detail...


...not so sure about his feelings about me now...

Unchanged (that should get him to overthinking WAY too much... ;) )


...why protest in 2006 all of sudden - why not protest it when you know it.

The whole SB discussion popped up because I started to realize just how many people were using these things and I truly do not believe they are within either the spirit or the letter of the rules.

Why now? Hell, because I&#39;ve thought they&#39;re illegal it never even crossed my mind that folks were using them until I heard about it a year ago or so. I&#39;m guessing some time in 04 it was brought up on this forum (by Geo, IIRC) and that&#39;s when I first learned of them; we had a spirited argument then, too!

As I paid more attention I learned their use was rapidly increasing, and some time last year we learned a major Honda parts guy was actually modifying the control arms on CRXs to make them fit! At that point it became a bit more than veiled disinterest; added to the cramming of MoTec into stock ECY housings it became a festering wound.

Couple that to the fact that until 2004 I was wallowing in ITS (so rules infractions didn&#39;t matter); it finally came to a head and I want(ed) to nip this flower right in the bud.

In the end, I strongly suspect that this issue will be resolved at either the CRB or CoA level, and I fully expect the Club to come back and declare SBs legal. However, this allowance will very likely not be due to the fact that they&#39;ve been legal to the letter or spirit rules as written, or that anyone made a clear logical argument in their favor, but rather they&#39;ll be declared legal in the same light as Motec is clearly illegal to the spirit but legal to the letter: a clever, tortured genie that has been released from the bottle but the Club does not have the intenstinal fortitude to cram it back in.

The final result will be an official blessing of a tortured interpretation of a basic and clear rule, leading competitors (including myself) to deep-read the rules to the point of exhaustion, looking to get that next loophole installed on my car for such a length of time that the statute of limitations iexpires and we can consider it to be de facto - and de jure - legal. - GA

[ddewhurst]

Ed, you talk about your rearend with S.B. I don&#39;t know or understand your rearend but I will ask a question. When you read the rules of what can & can&#39;t be done to your rearend might the S.B. be legal through some rearend rule ? :D Other than the Bushing Material rule.

This on going verbal match is going no place. :D

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy
Dude, low blow! Driving instructors neither know nor care about the legality of students&#39; cars. If I see something obvious I&#39;d be happy to point it out, but I hardly spent time looking over your car in detail...
By no means intended as such (and certainly accurate enough for most instructors but I had put you on a higher pedestal :) ) - if this just boiled over in your mind recently, my bust. But if the temptest was brewing back then, as a potential future competitor I thought it may have come to mind that hey alot of these cars have SBs. I mean almost everyone I had spoken with up to that point at some point in the conversation about my preparation (at the summit school for instance) had brought up "you know that car really needs SBs, right?" I mean this topic came up a bunch when I talked to SCCA people at NASA and started going to SCCA events - but I hadn&#39;t had any warning that there was underlying backlash to it. Expectations may have been misplaced - I am sure if it was on your mind you would have said something then. Probably in my frustration I am grabbing at straws at how I could have prevented being in this situation of uncertainty as I get to the end of January.

Also, hey maybe you were too focused on keeping me on course and not locking up to worry about anything else...



Originally posted by GregAmy
Unchanged (that should get him to overthinking WAY too much... ;) )LOL - Nah as long as it is unchanged.


As I paid more attention I learned their use was rapidly increasing, and some time last year we learned a major Honda parts guy was actually modifying the control arms on CRXs to make them fit! At that point it became a bit more than veiled disinterest
Now see that is just wrong. (Not sure if that is in reference to racing a honda or modifying the arms themselves - but still just wrong.)


In the end, I strongly suspect that this issue will be resolved at either the CRB or CoA level, and I fully expect the Club to come back and declare SBs legal. However, this allowance will very likely not be due to the fact that they&#39;ve been legal to the letter or spirit rules as written, or that anyone made a clear logical argument in their favor, but rather they&#39;ll be declared legal in the same light as Motec is clearly illegal to the spirit but legal to the letter: a clever, tortured genie that has been released from the bottle but the Club does not have the intenstinal fortitude to cram it back in.I hope so on the first part. However, I don&#39;t hope so for that reason. I hope so because it was intended. If it wasn&#39;t intended despite how unhappy I will be I hope not - because one day that way of making decisions is just going to bite me to someone elses benefit when I feel as strongly as you do. I want the right answer, not the convenient one. But we all want stuff...


The final result will be an official blessing of a tortured interpretation of a basic and clear rule, leading competitors (including myself) to deep-read the rules to the point of exhaustion, looking to get that next loophole installed on my car for such a length of time that the statute of limitations iexpires and we can consider it to be de facto - and de jure - legal. - GA
See you need to be asking your students do they really know what they are getting themselves into and do they really need all this? :)