Quote:
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'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.
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.
Again, Andy I completely disagree with you here as far as your range of movement argument. The SB's providing a non-stock range of motion is, IMHO, incorrect. A poly or delrin bushing will cause bind. So people put the SB'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.