Spherical "Bushings"

[lateapex911]

Bill, if the legislature got wind of an issue, and decided to debate it internally, and that debate included some of the original writers, and they wrote a clarified version of the rule, wouldn't that save a bunch of court time?

Of course, the lawyers would have to go find something else to occupy themseves, but hey...there are tons of legal grey areas these days...

[bldn10]

Jake, your hypothetical has 2 parts: the discussion of the original rule; and a "clarified version." As to the former, absolutely not - those discussions would not be admissible as evidence nor would it be proper to even consider them as to the meaning of the original rule. After-the-fact legislative history is somewhat suspect because people sometimes change their minds about what they want a law to do. The "clarified version" would actually be a new rule and the question would then be whether it has retrospective effect. If not, the court would be free to rule contrary to the clarification in existing disputes. But, yes, you are right that court cases often lead to legislative action to "clarify," close a loophole, or even change the effect completely. It appears here that the SB debate is going to lead to some change in the rule. I just hope they get it right this time and not open some new Pandora's box. I am afraid that if they make bushings themselves free, the next thing is that people will be arguing for additional leeway to modify attachment points, as you anticipated.

What about my query before re mods to the trailing arms to facilitate SBs - is that legal (in IT)?

[lateapex911]

.....What about my query before re mods to the trailing arms to facilitate SBs - is that legal (in IT)?
[/b]

Well, I went back and I think you are referring to your comment about the Flat Out units that require tack welds. If so, I think Andy pointed out that they make those for the E-Prod guys who can clearly do some tack welding.

Now, in IT, most (60% I would guess,) of the population would respond that tack welding to an susp component is a modification (The metal is bigger now), and is not legal. Lot's of companies sell cassettes and other "end around" solutions that get pricey to comply with that belief.

The other 40% thinks that a tack weld is fine, as no function of the arm is really affected except to hold the SB in place. A convenience mod, as it were. They feel that if you JB welded it, your result would be similar, if less effective, so why not just tack weld it.

My interpretation is with the 60%. "Unmodified" means that the metalof the component should remain unmodified....not machined, lightened, drilled, welded, gusseted, and so on.

Of course that means if I want to make my arms stop rusting, and I take them to be sandblasted for powdercoating, that I am really in violation as the sandblasting modifies the metal by removing trace amounts.

It's a question of where you draw the line, and how crazy you want to get, LOL....

As the rule is written though, I am uncomfortable with any method of attachment that isn't "non invasive".

My 3 cents.....

[Renaultfool]

If you really want to stick with a literal interpretation of the rules and defenitions, the often used poly suspension mounts would not be legal either.

Most, but not all, stock suspension mounts are not a bushing but are of the molded, bonded rubber construction in which the inner metal sleeve and outer metal sleeve are both bonded together with rubber. The suspension mount does not act as a bearing, where one steel sleeve moves in relation to the other with reduced friction by slipping in the rubber. In fact the suspension arm movement is only allowed due to the flexability of the rubber which allows the inner sleeve to move in relation to the outer sleeve by deflecting the rubber. This adds some spring rate and restriction to the arm movement as can be demonstrated when you remove the strut or springing device from your stock suspension and your suspension arm just doesn't drop freely toward the floor. These mounts provide this spring effect/restriction, to both the up and down movement of the arm and therefore perform a function beyond that of a "bushing" that just takes up space. Additionally they are designed to isolate road shock from the chassis by allowing movement between arm and its mount with their designed in cushion effect. As the suspension arm mounts perform funtions beyond just filling the space between the suspension arm and the bolt attaching the arm to the chassis, I submit that they are not bushings or bearings as defined in our rule book, and therefore not even open to the "change in material of a bushing" rule.

The manufacture of the poly bushings I've seen seperates the poly part of the bushing from the sleeves allowing for the poly bushing to rotate on the sleeves which gives it the effect a bearing. This eliminates the natural spring effect and friction of the twisting rubber and would therefore be a total change in the manufacturers design, in the fact that it produces the secondary effect of acting as a bearing, which may be an advantage not allowed by the rules as well as the obvious compliance changes.
Using this line of thinking the SB would also be illegal as it is also a bearing (they brag about their teflon liner to reduce friction and eliminate the need for lubrication etc.) which eliminates the manufacturers designed in springing/friction cushion effect again.

Chevy offered molded/bonded mounts for their HD suspensions that used a harder rubber with less compliance to stiffen up the suspensions on their performance models, but did not change the design, only the material. Their suspension arm mount would still be illegal because even though they did not change the design, they changed the material, which is only allowed in our rules for a bushing, not a mount.

I see nothing in the IT rules that allows such a major change in the manufacturers design. This would open the door to all kinds of practical, cheap, and fun modifications to make our cars handle or perform better, be simpler to maintain or more reliable/safer, that go beyond any literal interpretation of the IT rules.

Yes, I know that many cars are currently using the poly bushings which many thought to be legal, and even the SBs, but the number of competitors who would have to remove the illegal parts and go back to stock should not be the determining factor in this discussion, as per many other threads on this site.
So there you go boys, put your SBs and poly bushings back in the box with your modified ECUs and your 0.040 pistons and press those stock mounts back in. Let's race!
(Yes, it is snowing here today so I had the time to run amuck.)

[pfcs]

very well put! I agree absolutely! who could or would argue with such well put logic? No one, I would hope. (is there a pattern here?)

[Bildon]

Hi Bill. How are ya buddy? Not sure if I will get there this year for the Double SARRC MARRS race. We (Kathy and I) just moved into a new house and we have a major renovation to do (again). That will probably take up a lot of my time and money this year. That, and the fact I am constantly, it seems, on the road for the job. So not sure. But come on down for the ARRC and I will crew for you. How are you? You married yet?
[/b]

Yup, Married.
I'll take you up on the ARRC offer if I can manage to get back down there.

Wow...you guys must have long lunch hours, or type awfully fast, LOL.
[/b]

:119: This coming from you? Mr. #3 all time poster?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...sort_order=desc

[Greg Amy]

...who could or would argue with such well put logic?[/b]

[attachmentid=280]

[imported_Webmaster]

[attachmentid=280]
[/b]

Oh I like that! So I added it to our collection of Emoticons.

I can almost tell the story of this thread without words now....

[bldn10]

Jake, notice that the Flatout SBs were only one example - I mentioned the ones a buddy got from another source that he said required some welding too. And I don't think Flatout is going to require an affidavit that you promise to use theirs only on EP cars!

"who could or would argue with such well put logic? No one, I would hope."

Oh, Lord, why me? Renaultfool obviously knows a whole lot more about bushings and crap than I do but I am not totally following the argument that after-market poly bushings are illegal. "total change in the manufacturers design, in the fact that it produces the secondary effect of acting as a bearing, which may be an advantage not allowed by the rules" The Glossary specifically talks of a bushing "which acts as a bearing" so the fact that a poly bushing acts as a bearing certainly does not make it illegal. The primary distinction between poly bushings and SBs is that polys are still "hollow cylidrical mounting component[s]" while SBs are not simply that. SBs are not illegal because they act (or are) bearings but because they are not hollow cylinders. I observed earlier that I didn't know where to draw the line as you move away from the OEM design and I guess Renaultfool draws it very closely. But I think a design that remains a hollow cylinder (or several concentric ones) or "sleeve or tubular insert" but "that seperates the poly part of the bushing from the sleeves allowing for the poly bushing to rotate on the sleeves which gives it the effect a bearing" is specifically allowed.

[lateapex911]

Yup, Married.
I'll take you up on the ARRC offer if I can manage to get back down there.

:119: This coming from you? Mr. #3 all time poster?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...sort_order=desc
[/b]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, LOL.... But too bad the list doesn't sort by time!

I was amazed at the number of posts...and repeat posts over a periods of hours by the same posters during work hours. Not just here, but the BMW site that discussed the E36 SiR situation had guys posting that Andy had run away and was cowering because he hadn't responsed in 2 or 3 hours! Sheesh! Get a life Marranelloman, LOL

I might be up on the list, but I HAVE been here a long time, and I am a LONG way behind the top guys. Besides, Andy changed his sign on name or he'd be ahead too.

[Knestis]

:119: This coming from you? Mr. #3 all time poster?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...sort_order=desc
[/b]

Oh, goody - Number Two again. Do you KNOW how many 2nd-place trophies I've given to little kids over the years?

K

[Rabbit07]

So to alll you Spherical bearing nay sayers, try this. Mercedes, DaimlerChrysler, and Mitsubishi all use dual axis joints in suspension components. What is a dual axis joint? A spherical is a dual axis joint. So what are you going to protest when these cars are clased in IT? Just because they have a dust boot to keep the dirt out doesn't make them ant different.

And if it helps anyone out, I'll protest myself and bring plent-o-evidence. :huh:

[turboICE]

March FasTrack clarified the issue.

It didn't rule on what it meant in the past, but made it clearer with regards to this topic in the future.

[ddewhurst]

The issue with some of you guys blowing your horns about the Fastrack response to Spherical bearings you don't have a clue WHY many of these decisions are made. Have ya also noticed that with Production roll cages the both ends of the diagonal are not required to be within the plane of the main hoop ? Duh, same Fastrack response logic as the Spherical bearing. In the big long term picture ask yourselves why Production car racing costs ar totally out of control. Oh crap ya ain't old enough to have tracked Production car incremental CREEP for any length of time. Anyway, I'll tip a to all you guys who had this deal aced.

Greg, you to.

[shwah]

The issue with some of you guys blowing your horns about the Fastrack response to Spherical bearings you don't have a clue WHY many of these decisions are made. Have ya also noticed that with Production roll cages the both ends of the diagonal are not required to be within the plane of the main hoop ? Duh, same Fastrack response logic as the Spherical bearing. In the big long term picture ask yourselves why Production car racing costs ar totally out of control. Oh crap ya ain't old enough to have tracked Production car incremental CREEP for any length of time. Anyway, I'll tip a to all you guys who had this deal aced.

Greg, you to.
[/b]

Sorry but I don't care why the decision was made. I like the result, as it bolsters what I beleive was already clear in the rules. SBs were part of my suspension improvement program for this year, and I am glad that I don't have to change that as a result of this wayy tooo drawn out argument.

Chris

[Knestis]

My front arms are getting SBs this winter, too but - with respect, Chris - what any one of us wants individually SHOULD NOT be the consideration, where longer-term health of the category is concerned.

K

[lateapex911]

The issue with some of you guys blowing your horns about the Fastrack response to Spherical bearings you don't have a clue WHY many of these decisions are made. .......[/b]

Do you????

Really??
If so, plase explain, in detail.

[ddewhurst]

Jake, ask yourself why within Production cars the main hoop diagonal is no longer (since the March Fastraclk IIRC) required to be attached at both ends to the main hoop.

When you have answered the above question you will have also answered the Spherical bearing question.

Being that you continue to push the bearing subject you have initated my RANT mood. Now that you are a ITAC member please explain the Fastrack CRB response of my question of why don't you the CRB use identical rules for IT & Production Side Protection rules. The CRB response in March Fastrack is that IT Side Protection is compatable in a Production car. That Jake is a bunch of crap. Read the Side Protection rule for IT & for Production cars & you should note the difference in the rules. Therefore IT Side Protecton IS NOT LEGAL in Production. It ain't the poor horse that should be


Ya see, I talked to Bennett (he is always overhead in a black helocopter) & this whole deal is a consistency conspiracy.

ps: I continue to have my 1st gen RX-7 stuff so that when Scott starts racing his NOW legal Spherical bearings in G Production upon his completition request for classing the car in G I can race with him. I will not convert to Sherical bearings in the lower control arms because I am not good enough to turn consistantly close laps. Close equals within .5 second.

[shwah]

My front arms are getting SBs this winter, too but - with respect, Chris - what any one of us wants individually SHOULD NOT be the consideration, where longer-term health of the category is concerned.

K
[/b]

I'm not hurting the category by being happy that this rule has been clarified to in fact allow exactly what it allowed before. I didn't need them to do it for me, but am glad that it has been made more clear for others that wished to argue the issue.

Chris

[mustanghammer]

ps: I continue to have my 1st gen RX-7 stuff so that when Scott starts racing his NOW legal Spherical bearings in G Production upon his completition request for classing the car in G I can race with him. I will not convert to Sherical bearings in the lower control arms because I am not good enough to turn consistantly close laps. Close equals within .5 second.


David,

You mean I have been cheatin' for the last three years! Actually based on what has been explained about the SB resolution I don't think I have been, however the wording of the bushing rule certainily was not clear. By the way, I was concerned enough about this to secure an E Production number in Mid Div for 2006 in case the SB issue went the other way.

I have a few more things to do the G Prod deal before I send it off but I will get this done ASAP.

Jake, Other ITAC members

Regarding my G Production request, can I reference HP documentation that is/was used to class this car in IT? I ask because the proposed car would use IT induction on a non-ported, non port matched 12A engine.

Seems to me it would help if I could reference what the club already knows about this car.

Thanks