Quote:
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's even possible)? Like I said, if that's going to be your standard, you'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'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's, that bind can be eliminated. But AGAIN, let'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.
Quote:
And please stop w/ examples like the BMW one, they make you look desperate. That logic fails, becuase they're both not prepared to the same level. You're a smart guy Andy, you don't need to do that.
You'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't make it legal.