Booger bushings. Legal?

[marka]

Howdy,

Preparing my car, and ran across another "I'm not sure that's legal" part...

The car is an ITA Neon. It has the standard, in the Neon world, 'Booger Bushings' installed on the transmission shift cables. These are poly bushings/washers that replace the factory rubber bushings / washers that are at the end of the cables attaching to the shifter and transmission levers.

The only thing my newbie eyes can see in the rulebook that might allow them is:

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

These washers/bushings are a press/clip fit that connect the end of the cable to the trans or shifter levers.

I figure this has come up before though, and wondered what the group answer was.

Thanks!

Mark

edit: Info on these with pictures is here: http://www.boogerracing.com/boogerbushings.html

[pitbull113]

my thoughts are not legal. it's a bushing not hardware.

lol you said booger

[Greg Amy]

IMO, not compliant to the regs.

I'm entertained that our panties are all in a wad over guibos and booger bushings. I wait with bated breath for the next iteration... ;)

[marka]

Howdy,

Ok. Are they legal if I color them black with a sharpie?

:-)

Mark

[Greg Amy]

Are they legal if I color them black with a sharpie?
That's called "Spec Miata Tech Shed Legal".

;)

[ShelbyRacer]

EXCEPT, as Mark said, these particular bushings (both stock and Booger) have a ridge that fits in a groove on the pin on the shift lever, and a shoulder that prevents the end of the cable from sliding off. This is the only "fastening" method that retains the cable on the lever...

I'm NOT saying that makes it compliant, but if confronted with paper, I'd certainly make the argument.

[joeg]

As I suggested in the other thread, let's make the "rubber list".

[Greg Amy]

My manifold is what "fastens" my throttle body to the engine...is that free, too...? ;)

Remember, "fastener" is a noun, not a verb. If you open the idea(l) up to anything that fastens (verb) anything to anything, the box is Pandora's playground... - GA


Edit: from the GCR:


Fasteners – Any mechanism which serves no other purposes than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc.).Looks like my manifold is "free", as long as it serves no other purpose (insert ;))! Does the booger serve any other purpose than as a "fastener"?

[mtownneon]

I've had a set of Boogers in mine for some time now, never even thought about the legality of them. I just didn't want to shell out the money for a set of cables only because the bushings were shot. Never had anyone question them.

[marka]

Howdy,


Does the booger serve any other purpose than as a "fastener"?

Arguably not... Its role is to fasten the end of the shift cable to the shifter or transmission lever.

Mark

[Knestis]

... Never had anyone question them.

Evidence not of legality but instead, of apathy. :)

K

EDIT - Pandora would have lots of fun with the half-dozen VW shift linkage bits that "fasten" wherever they connect, until they get cooked by the header and have to be replaced every year.

EDIT^2 - Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but it would be a wee bit inconsistent, pushing on this one while squawking about Chris's engine mount idea that's equally compliant with carefully parsed language of the applicable rule. You aren't actually doing that but...

[Greg Amy]

Arguably not... Its role is to fasten the end of the shift cable to the shifter or transmission lever.
Then, unlike my "reductio ad absurdum" intake manifold example, you may have a leg to stand on. However, keep in mind that the common acceptance of the definition of "fastener" tends to be more toward examples you'd find in the hardware aisle of Home Depot... - GA

[lateapex911]

Do these transmit forces for the shift action?

IF the new "mounts in the drive train are free" rule goes through, then things like this are going to be minced over and considered fair game.

:shrug:

[marka]

Howdy,



EDIT^2 - Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but it would be a wee bit inconsistent, pushing on this one while squawking about Chris's engine mount idea that's equally compliant with carefully parsed language of the applicable rule. You aren't actually doing that but...

:-)

I'm not 100% sure what Chris's engine mount idea is, but there's absolutely no question that I'm trying hard to read into the rule what I want to see there.

And Greg, the hardware aisle in my Home Depot has plastic spacers and rubber bushings both. :-)

Mark

(if the end result of this is "most everyone thinks they're illegal", then I'll probably get around to changing them out after I've got the rest of the car sorted. Depends on how much I want to push the rules. I was really hoping that I'd missed the clear allowance though.)

[marka]

Howdy,

Letter:


Please consider adding an allowance to the transmission section, 4: "Shifter linkage cable bushings may be replaced."

The intent would be to allow the common 'booger bushings' and similar products that replace the factory rubber bushings on shift linkage cables.

For example: http://www.boogerracing.com/boogerbushings.html

These bushings tend to break down on older cars, rendering shifting imprecise and sloppy. For many older IT cars, new replacement OEM cables are hard to find. Sloppy and imprecise shifting is a recepie for an expensive 'money-shift'.

As an alternative, consider opening up all shifter related bushings: "Shifter and shifter linkage bushings may be replaced. Replacement bushings must maintain stock geometry." This would allow cars like the E36 BMW to replace the sloppy factory shifter mounting bushings, again helping to reduce the chances of a money shift.

Costs for these bushing replacements generally are very affordable and this allowance seems consistent with the other bushing allowances in the IT category. Indeed, many ITA Neon owners seem to already run the booger bushings, presumably thinking that they are already legal (which is arguably true, under the 4.d hardware allowance, though I don't feel that is very clear).

Thanks for your time.


Mark

[marka]

Howdy,

Grrr.



1. #6503 (Mark Andy) Allow alternate shift linkage bushings
Thank you for your input, the rule is adequate as written.


What the hell does that mean? That its legal via 4.d? Otherwise I'd have expected something like "That change isn't consistent with class philosophy" or whatever.

Mark

[Greg Amy]

What the hell does that mean? That its legal via 4.d? Otherwise I'd have expected something like "That change isn't consistent with class philosophy" or whatever.
I was actually hoping to see something more clear, too...

I still contend "no bueno". :shrug:

[lateapex911]

No, it means they aren't changing the rule.
You wrote requesting a rule change, right?
Your call to action was to add the wording that would allow shifter cable bushings to be replaced. (or all shifter bushings)
They obviously don't think your request was something they wanted to do, and that things are fine as is.
Simply put, you said: "Change this"
They said,: "no change, fine as is"

IF you were asking for a clarification, (which you weren't), they're not in that business. That would go to the other department, for a fee, or you could run it up the flagpole via the protest/appeal process.
You added, almost as a side comment:
"Indeed, many ITA Neon owners seem to already run the booger bushings, presumably thinking that they are already legal (which is arguably true, under the 4.d hardware allowance, though I don't feel that is very clear)."
But you didn't actually call them to action to respond to that. You didn't ASK them if it were, or were NOT legal. Clearly you don't think they are legal, or you wouldn't have asked for an additional allowance.

[marka]

Howdy,


Clearly you don't think they are legal, or you wouldn't have asked for an additional allowance.

Actually, I think they are in the grey area and I can make a case for them being legal or illegal. I was asking for the explicit allowance to make it clear.

I want them to be legal on my car, so guess which case I'm going to go with. :-)

Mark

[ShelbyRacer]

Unfortunately, this response seems to be the new version of "not within class philosophy," but is actually less clear than that statement ever was. That, combined with "Thanks for your input," makes the answer appear to lead toward Mark's statement above.

It appears to read:
"Thanks for asking for an allowance, but we think the current rule is enough to handle most situations."

The committees will take the time to publish intent on a new rule (when mounts went out for member input), but won't give us any idea of the intent of an existing one? If the committee is unsure of the intent of the rule, how do you make informed decisions about how things fit into the overall class philosophy (stating a real question, not making a sarcastic punchline)?

Personally, I think one of the reasons why we have issues with rules creep is that we keep adding on, pushing further and further, and ignoring how an allowance in one area will affect interpretation in another (see also, Mounts). The ITCS, along with many of the other spec books and the GCR itself, has become a double-wide with a garage, sunroom, master suite, and rec room. Asking to turn a fire escape into a normally used door, and being told "no", doesn't mean you can't keep going in and out the fire escape. Someone saying, "No, because an entry/exit door there causes problems," sends the message that you shouldn't be doing that, and if you do, you could get in trouble.

I truly think the current ITAC has a good vision overall, but the implementation of that is often extremely vague, at times can be confusing, and in other instances it's downright contradictory.

In this case, an answer of "That additional allowance is not needed at this time," makes it clear that the suggestion is not within the scope of the intent of that rule, and that they don't want to go there. While I personally can't agree with that, I can respect it as a clear response.

Jake- I don't think it's obvious that "They obviously don't think your request was something they wanted to do, and that things are fine as is." I could just as easily read it and say, "It's obvious they feel that the current rules allow it and they don't need to be changed and open the door for other things..." I'm not saying I'm correct or that you are, but if we both can come up with "obvious" meanings that are completely opposite, then obviously the response was ambiguous.

[lateapex911]

I would think, that since the foundation is IIDSYCYC, that they would have stated that it's actually allowed, and the rule was fine as is. Or they'd change it as it wasn't clear, considering somebody wrote asking for an allowance. But I see your point.

[marka]

Howdy,

How about as a compromise I just color the booger bushings black with a sharpie?

:-)

Mark

[Chip42]

I aappolize for the distant and uncomital response. I completely agree that we should do a better job of spelling out the rational for the responses. I will make a point of that in the future.

the problem with the neon is that the shifter bushing is the attachment mechanism for the shift cables at both sides. most cars have a bolt or a pin etc... to hold the bushing in place and thus aren't arguably replaceable under 4.d. the neon's are. how successful that argument is will depend on the phrasing and the audience.

We did not see enough support or need for a full shifter bushing rules change at the time. if you think I'm wrong, please write in and let us know. www.crbscca.com

as of right now, barring clever interpretations like the above that I (not an official response) believe are legal but unintended, shifter bushings are to remain stock.

[ShelbyRacer]

Dammit Chip, I had this great dissertation on the exact topic you mentioned that I was hashing out on the way home. To sum up:

In the Neon, the "bushing" is the only fastener.
Fasteners may be changed.
There is no breach of prohibited function (allowed change doing something not allowed).
If it says you can, you bloody-well can. (GR)

My line of thinking:
The ITAC saw this.
They knew it was an isolated issue, and that it could be "allowed" via the above thinking.
Putting in more words might allow something else beyond the current "leeway".
Using that response, the TIAC didn't endorse it, but didn't disallow it either.

If the purpose was intentional ambiguity, message received. I'm not saying that you specifically confirmed this, and if asked I'll disavow making the assumption based on anything you said (since it truly wasn't).

If that was not the idea, I'd consider amore direct formal response in the future.

[Knestis]

So I can change the "fasteners" that "fasten" the shift rods to the levers on my linkage? Oh, please say "yes." I'd need, let's see - about 10 little spherical fasteners...

K

[marka]

Howdy,

Its cool. It was a little frustrating, but I also realize that the level of explanation possible in a forum like this isn't possible via Fastrack.

I appreciate the further clarification.

The letter was intended to suggest opening up shifter / shifter linkage bushings for replacement overall. That, to me, seems to fit what I know of IT philosophy... Off hand I can't think of too many other places where a rubber bushing on an IT car has to remain stock. Particularly now with the drivetrain mount change.

But if a guy on the ITAC sees the argument I'd make with the existing rules to justify booger bushings, that's good enough for me unless I run into someone selling some NOS cables or something. :-)

Mark


I aappolize for the distant and uncomital response. I completely agree that we should do a better job of spelling out the rational for the responses. I will make a point of that in the future.

the problem with the neon is that the shifter bushing is the attachment mechanism for the shift cables at both sides. most cars have a bolt or a pin etc... to hold the bushing in place and thus aren't arguably replaceable under 4.d. the neon's are. how successful that argument is will depend on the phrasing and the audience.

We did not see enough support or need for a full shifter bushing rules change at the time. if you think I'm wrong, please write in and let us know. www.crbscca.com

as of right now, barring clever interpretations like the above that I (not an official response) believe are legal but unintended, shifter bushings are to remain stock.

[shwah]

As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

[Matt Rowe]

As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

A hardware item used to connect two components? Sounds like a fastener.

Of course if you replace the words "shift linkage" with "motor mount" those two reasons above are the same ones that were used to justify aftermarket motor mounts. :rolleyes:

[ShelbyRacer]

The difference, however, with the Neon in particular, is that the rubber insert is the ONLY part that secures the cable end to the lever arm. Also, in this particular case, I believe the "bushing" is not available for replacement, and even the whole cable assembly is soon to be (if not already) NS1.

I'll go one better than your Sharpie suggestion Mark. I'll grab a 1/32" drill and make a ring of holes between the ID and OD, and then cut/abrade the top down so it's rounded. Viola- a "stock" replacement bushing.

Personally, I see no benefit other than longevity/durability with going to full spherical rod ends. But then again, I guess being able to consistently shift the car is one of those "warts and all" things, huh? Because A1/A2 VWs and Chrysler L-bodies are running away with IT, or they would be if they didn't have a shift linkage that could fall apart, right?

If we just add one more room onto this here double-wide, it'll be a gall-dern mansion...

[Chip42]

So I can change the "fasteners" that "fasten" the shift rods to the levers on my linkage? Oh, please say "yes." I'd need, let's see - about 10 little spherical fasteners...

K

if you can make that argument with a straight face.

the neon's bushings snap-on to the pin at the trans through an eyelet in the linkage. I know early VW's shifters were some german's kinematic design project, with multiple seemingly unnecessary levers and a couple of snap-on ball and socket connecting rods, but I'm not sure about the A3. I could see an argument about the socket caps on those connecting rods though, for the same reason. again, I see it as legal and unintended, and I'd LOVE for the COA to rule against it.

and to Matt - I still think we could have done better on the reply, even with the desire to maintain the status quo.

[lateapex911]

When comparing the current discussion to that of engine mounts, keep in mind that the original authors of the IT ruleset intended us to be able to control engine movement. But, at the time, aftermarket mounts didn't exist. So, they allowed the use of stayrods.

They have never allowed any improvements to shifting action, other than to allow the shifter to be bent.

[marka]

Howdy,


As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

[lateapex911]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

In before Kirk. (just cuz I want to beat him, LOL)
You wouldn't want it if it wasn't SOME kind of an advantage, and in racing, every advantage distills into a performance advantage.
Pedantic? maybe, but I'm sure you understand. ;)

[shwah]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

Plastic socket that snaps over a metal ball at nearly every pivot point in the system, routed right by the exhaust header. This is a case of the warts and all reality of the IT rule set. There is always some advantage to an allowance, even if it is simply more time and money available to put towards going faster rather than being more reliable.

[JLawton]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

Yeah, I gotta call BS on this one........ Warts and all. That's how we pick our cars. Both the maintenance argument and the safety argument don't cut it. We all have things on our cars that would be great to not have to "maintain" or tom improve "safety" Like the rear drums on the early VWs or upper shock mounts on the BMWs. But many of you may not have been around for those arguments but the BMWs were a great example. The upper shock mounts begins to rip up the rear shock towers. So guys were going in and reinforcing the hell out of them. Yes it made it safer. Yes, it made it less likely to rip out in the middle of the race.......... but clearly not legal. But that's what racing is all about. Making it to the finish line........

I always use "intent" of the rule when looking at these debates. The intent of the rules was not to allow them. If you try twisting the intent you're not fooling anyone.

All that being said, if you hadn't said anything about it and drove it as is, i don't think there is anyone in the country who would have protested you. :)

[Knestis]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

http://www.mjmautohaus.com/catalog/images/linkage2.jpg

Yeah, that's it. Just like that. Yup.

K

[marka]

Howdy,


In before Kirk. (just cuz I want to beat him, LOL)
You wouldn't want it if it wasn't SOME kind of an advantage, and in racing, every advantage distills into a performance advantage.
Pedantic? maybe, but I'm sure you understand. ;)

You really can't understand wanting something because I'd like to fix it one time, vs. have to continually maintain it, rather than because I think it gives me an advantage on the track?

But whatever. My shifter bushings are legal. :-)

Mark

[ShelbyRacer]

http://www.mjmautohaus.com/catalog/images/linkage2.jpg

Yeah, that's it. Just like that. Yup.

K

That's some nice lookin' warts you got there Kirk.

[lateapex911]

Howdy,



You really can't understand wanting something because I'd like to fix it one time, vs. have to continually maintain it, rather than because I think it gives me an advantage on the track?

But whatever. My shifter bushings are legal. :-)

Mark'
The advantage is that you aren't spending your time fixing it (or I'm not spending time fixing MY issues), you're spending the resources elsewhere.

Listen, I'm zen about your parts, you can do whatever. I'm just being pedantic, or the devils advocate, or whatever. Besides, Kirk sends me a check when I save him typing...

[marka]

Howdy,


'
The advantage is that you aren't spending your time fixing it (or I'm not spending time fixing MY issues), you're spending the resources elsewhere.


Eh, pretty tenuous in a grass roots sport, at least to me.

Can we write some rules to equalize between the guy that works 30 hours/week and the one that works 60? :-)

I buy "reliability as competitive advantage" arguments if it occurs during a race distance. But if we can give someone the ability to fix a longer terms recurring problem area so that it stays fixed without giving them an advantage during the race, that seems like a nobrainer to me.

The law of unintended consequences / racers push everything to get an advantage means that opportunities for this aren't that common of course, but I'm not understanding how allowing someone to replace shifter bushings is going to upset any competitive applecart.

I'll stop arguing about it now. Honest. :-)

Mark

[lateapex911]

Hey, as I said, I'm playing devils advocate. Giving you a heads up on the possible objections. Your job is to convince the men in the darkened smoke filled room behind closed doors.