What part of 'bushings are free' am I misunderstanding?
R
Printable View
Josh,
Something completly analouguos, that I know about. Does the TIS for the Z3 have the factory proceedure for fixing a cracked differential mount? I know that I've seen several where the dealer will weld a second mount over the first. However, it seems the dealer has to bring in an rep to tell them how to perform the repair, thus avoiding the documentation and resulting liability if something goes wrong with the repair. Maybe it's a similar kind of situation... non-documented dealer/factory repairs.
James
The part about them being under the category rules for suspension...?
Of course, if we're agreeing that any bushing that suspends anything is free, let me know...'cause you ain't gonna like the results...just sayin'...
GA, who's really hoping our BMW friends are not replacing their rubber caliper bushings with anything non-rubber...
I've never seen any acknowledgement by BMW for the diff mount/trunk floor problem, just like I've never seen anything for the E36 problem.
Therefore, such a dealer-installed repair would not be legal in IT, even if a verbal agreement with a BMWNA employee allowed BMWNA to pay for the repair.
Mine are stock, but I thought this went back and forth several years ago...with the end interpretation being bushings are free. I could be mistaken. I thought it was around the whole spherical "bushings" and "air bushing" era.
From the GCR;
bushing- a sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing.
The suspension section clearly states bushing material is unrestricted as we all know.
The brake section states that brake linings are unrestricted....what's the difference between a liner and a lining?:cool: Brake connectors are unrestricted. Isn't a connector something that "connects" the something to something else? As in the caliper to the car? Seeing how lining and connector aren't defined in the GCR I'm unsure.
I think this subject is pretty gray...as I stated before mine are stock so don't be a hater....just posing a counterpoint.
R
I find that all to be a ridiculously tortured interpretation.
A brake lining is the actual brake pad/shoe material. The "connector" being referred to is the hydraulic connector. That entire paragraph is about hydraulics. Context matters.
Not even remotely gray in my opinion.
But Josh those are YOUR definitions not the GCR's, The GCR doesn't define these things so variability (creep) gets introduced.
SoI guess the ITAC guys get to decide what's rediculously tortured...
Let's go back to "air as a bushing" and truly talk about what's tortured.
R
Of course these are all just my opinions. In my current role I don't get to decide this stuff. But in the past I have served on both protest and appeals committees, and I know how the committees that I have served on would have interpreted these situations. I think that 99 out of 100 appeals committees would agree with me. Unfortunately, too often, these things never get protested/appealed.
That past experience is part of why I have such a conservative read on the allowances.
Oye. Looks like it's time to tear some cars down in NER.
yee ha! another e36 hater thread! harkens back to the good old days when we ran unrestricted in ITS! :P
as an e36 racer though, the metal replacement bushing for the brake calipers are NOT legal in ITS. they ain't brake linings and they certainly ain't part of the suspension.
Oh come on.. those bushings suspend the calipers right? Give me a break. Anyone remember when they tried to justify internal coatings because they were "lubricants"? That didn't fly either.
some folk have trouble wih engish. suspend as a verb vs. the gcr use of suspension as a noun...;)
Does anyone have a link to the bushings you guys are talking about?
Here you go Mike:
http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html...ODUCT_ID=CBMW1
The issue is that all of these cars have single-piston sliding calipers, and the caliper slides on metal pin, but with a rubber bushing. The brake can feel really squishy and cause uneven pad wear due to the flexibility in the rubber, especially as the pads get low and the piston is extended.
These metal replacements are very common for track cars and BMWCCA club racing.
Oh my goodness!!! :o
You mean the designers of The Ultimate Driving Machine have made an engineering error that leads to their creation having a perceived flaw for track use?
No way, I don't believe it. All the BMW Club track days start out with "Your BMW was born and bred for the track, it'll be fine to use just as is...."
Heaven forbid we get uneven pad wear and a really squishy pedal.....Jeez, I wish that was all I had to worry about on my IT dinosaur.
No AB. I know no one. But I remember the discussions about it ad nauseum, as I know you do.
My comments were only directed at the fact that the GCR offers no clarity on the questions I posed. Next thing you know I'm a rules creeper. As I stated mine are stock rubber, period. Reminds me of the RX7 1st gen rear wing guy.....easy to see why he made the mistake....even easier to see why he got beat up here. I guess I learned my lesson....I'll spend more time with my family and less time on IT.com. I'll let the "pro's" chase windmills.
R
*I* don't feel like the GCR has to offer clarity to the questions you posed Rob, because *I* don't feel you have posed reasonable questions.
The bushings on your racecar are not free. Suspensions bushings may be replaced. Has nothing to do with brakes. By your logic, engine mounts would be free because they are bushings. Just not true.
The section of the ITCS in which an allowance is given IS applicable.
Thanks for the great read on a Monday morning.
Reminds me of the golden days of IT. :023:
While we're kicking this can down the road, I would like to mention one of my pet peeves. There is a word that is used a lot in this forum that sometimes only adds to the confusion hereabouts... the word is "free", as in "...bushings are free", "pads are free", etc, etc.
The word "free" does not exist in the ITCS, and to my knowledge, never has. Since the word "free" means many things to many people, and since it is not in the ITCS, I would suggest we quit using it.
Just because the GCR mandates that the manufactures provide XYZ (in this case it's a document stating dealer repair methods) to a racer doesn't mean that the manufacturer will. In this case of drastice chassis repairs, there is probably legal liability reasons for the absense of such a document along with proprietary reasons. Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.
Wow...never knew THIS was where the rules and regs soap opera went!
For the record, Air bushings. It is said that RX-7s (early cars like mine), when lowered will bind the rear axle and destroy U joints. That's because the stock upper trailing arm pulls the axle forward at teh top at that point in it's travel. The rules allow the addition of traction bars, and with a properly designed traction bar, one can do what you wouldn't normally think of: use really soft bushings as opposed to the typical hard replacements, in the upper trailing arms. This allows the axle to rise and fall without twisting forward, and removes the binding.
Now, I haven't crawled under anyone's RX-7 in a long long time, but rumour has it that not only are the bushings just not replaced at all, but the upper trailing arms are just left off certain cars. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, but, at the front, my bet is all RX-7s are legal. Mine runs hard foam in the upper trailing arm bushing locations. (I can't imagine the racket air would create if used as a bushing!)
Air bushings? Silly boys!
A bushing made of closed-cell foam would in fact be a composite of an elastic material and air. Not a problem under the current regime. Removing the [whatever] altogether would be OK if the rule allowed replacement or "removal." Remember some rules (e.g., the sway bar allowance) didn't actually allow that, although in this example the language was changed.
We should all - myself included - read Gary's really good point a few more times.
K
It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.
The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.
My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i
Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?
I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.
Thanks.
Jeff
But you are infering by saying 'parts room model' that what is on track never existed when in fact, peple are creating the 1989-1990 GTUs. Here are some facts for you:
It has no more HP than ANY other 89-91 RX-7
It has the SAME brakes as the GXL
It has the same rear wing as the GTU and GXL
The differences were a 4.30 viscous (vs 4.10 open) and the slightly upgraded 5th gear of that the only thing applicable to IT racing is the transmission...and oh yes, it did have an aluminum hood that it shared with the convertible.
And it wasn't limited production like the MT 325. Only about 1100 were made but that was due to lack of demand, not a limited production run. It was a fully documented model in the brochures.