Spherical "Bushings"

[Greg Amy]

Just to clarify: I have no hidden agenda, no motivation other than I truly do not believe spherical suspension bearings meet either the letter or the spirit of the rules. I can find no redeeming value in these parts within the philosophy of Improved Touring.

Please note that I'm reading all these responses, but I have nothing further of value to offer. Andy, Jeff, and Earl are doing a fine job of expressing my sentiments exactly.

Try this: clear your mind of what you know and what you've seen. I tell you that bushing material is free, and you cannot change anything unless it's specifically allowed. How can you possibly justify spherical bearings?

In listening to those trying to support it, I remain unconvinced; this is a classic case of incrementalism, of "just one small step past one small step past one small step". Of the classic Dewhurst rules CREEP. - GA

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 05:39 PM
I have made my point and don't need to reiterate it over and over. Frankly, you guys are getting way too technical for me now.

A spherical bearing as a bushing (where one did not exist prior) is not simply a 'change in material'. I can't see how anyone could argue that.

Yeah but...

...this isn't a yes-no, same-different kind of question. Your point - which is reasonable, certainly - requires as its basis an argument that there is a DEGREE of "differentness" that is no longer OK. Isn't a bushing that has three parts like the one in the pic above (metal, urethane, metal) a different design than a one-piece rubber thingie? If the flanges that keep the soft bit inside the bracket are thicker, is it different? Where is the line?



^^^ This is a stock rear, inboard "bushing" from my front A arm. First, would you consider this a bushing? How about if we recognize that to work, it MUST flex such that the axis of the inner and outer holes are no longer aligned - in direct violation of the only purpose in the GCR definition. Am I allowed to even change it? Or, since it isn't a "bushing" by the GCR, does IIDSYCYC kick in?



^^^ This is the front, inboard bushing for the front A-arm - same questions. If the replacement piece doesn't have these sexy curves, is it illegal?

Now, I haven't extended the questions above to explicitly ask about the things that we call "spherical bearings" rather than bushings. Is the different name enough to make them different for the purposes of this rule? What if their designs are radically different but they function in an identical fashion, in terms of axes of motion for example, to the OE parts?

I honestly cannot define a place in the continuum between "stock" and "spherical" that leaps out at me as being a natural, bright line between OK and not OK, that isn't arbitrary and based on what I want or don't want, rather than on intellectual honesty.

K

Edit - all three of these things are called "bushings" in the parts catalogs.

Edit edit - I had a sway bar bushing in the examples, which makes no sense since they are free under a different rule.

[kthomas]

This one has to be argued on what the intent was. I doubt anybody's replacements are legal according to the verbage in the rulebook whether they're a spherical bearing or not (no "dimensional" allowance). The rule needs clarified or rewritten. I'm willing to bet the intent was to allow them. Go forth with the protest.

[JeffYoung]

Katman -- were you around when the rule was written? I'm curious if it was just to allow the poly bushings you can get for any car or if the idea was to allow sphericals. You know anything about the genesis of this?

I agree on one thing -- healthy debate. Interesting topic too.

[ddewhurst]

Healthy debate is GOOD.

Dick, you are correct about the foam bushings. <_< BUT, your foam bushing is tublar or a sleeve.

Now back to the spherical bearing that is a bushing. :119:

K, or anyone else, if you can find an OEM bushing that has the parts of a spherical bearing design (per the GCR glossary, one part concave & one part convex that allow angular displacement) then you have convinced me that a bearing is a bushing.

By definition a bushing is tublar or a sleeve, the GCR don&#39;t spec one part of a bushing is a convex shape & the other part of the bushing is a concave part that allow angular movement.

The rule spec is bushing material is unrestricted. The rule don&#39;t say the bushing design is unrestricted.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 11:44 AM
Metal bushings are ok in my mind, but a SB - as a bushing - allows the mounted piece to pivot in ways that the stock - or replacement of different material - can not. So I do not believe it fits the definition of a bushing in the GCR because it works outside the stock range of functionality.

[snapback]70039[/snapback]

I don&#39;t see that. Rubber bushings allow movement in all directions.

[Knestis]

Hmmm.

Okay - I&#39;m seeing something now that I completely overlooked, but has been right there the whole time: The fact that the glossary actually defines "spherical bearing" makes it unnecessary to infer the differences between the two. I concede what might be an important point to DD.

That doesn&#39;t however answer the question of "how different is different?"

If the argument is that the rules don&#39;t say "spherical joints are OK," and further define "spherical joints" clearly, as the things that some people are using where "bushings" used to be, then OK - a nice, self-contained argument that could be the basis of a protest. Those are, by GCR definition, spherical joints and there is no provision to put them there. Sorry May-beee.

If however the protest moves forward on the proposition that the only allowable change is MATERIAL, then ANY change in design - even the most piddly dimension - would logically be equally illegal. You got harder rubber bushings that protrude farther beyond the bracket than the stock pieces? Bzzzrrt. Sorry - your outta here, too.

Kirk (who&#39;s really trying to understand)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:00 PM
I don&#39;t see that. Rubber bushings allow movement in all directions.

[snapback]70097[/snapback]

Rubber bushings allow FLEX in all directions. They are &#39;compliant&#39;. SB&#39;s allow pivoting on a fixed axis. There is a designed range of movement. They are not compliant. Very different in my eyes.

Kirk,

I have been working on the assumption that everyone knew that both were defined in the glossary. Eccentrics specifically allowed, no mention of sphericals. To me, this is classic IIDSYCYC stuff.

Trying to define why I think a SB is not a bushing as defined by the GCR and not doing a good job.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 4 2006, 09:02 PM
Hmmm.

Okay - I&#39;m seeing something now that I completely overlooked, but has been right there the whole time: The fact that the glossary actually defines "spherical bearing" makes it unnecessary to infer the differences between the two. I concede what might be an important point to DD.

That doesn&#39;t however answer the question of "how different is different?" If the argument is that the rules don&#39;t say "spherical joints are OK," and goes on to define them clearly as the things that some people are using where "bushings" used to be, then OK - a nice, self-contained argument that could be the basis of a protest.

If however the protest moves forward on the proposition that the only allowable change is MATERIAL, then ANY change in design - even the most piddly dimension - would logically be equally illegal.

Kirk (who&#39;s really trying to understand)

[snapback]70098[/snapback]

Kirk, you lose a rules nerd point for not knowing (and using) the spherical bearing definition. It is an important point, especially when many suspension now use "bushings" similar to the first picture you showed. That design clearly is not a bushing per the GCR definition and is indeed a spherical bearing, per the GCR. So, if that is the case and only bushing material may be changed then anyone with non-oem parts for that type of "bushing" is illegal. Not even a material change is allowed as they don&#39;t fall under the bushing material rule so you couldn&#39;t even use an energy suspension kit or something similar.

Really, did we need to rehash this argument again? Has anything new been said that wasn&#39;t put forth before? The best bet would have been to file the protest and let the chips fall as they will. It does have the potential to suddenly make a LOT of cars clearly illegal with a LOT of expense to convert back. Is that a good reason to allow it to continue? Maybe or maybe not, but we aren&#39;t going to be the ones to decide that.

But just as a reference point I don&#39;t see sphericals being any more expensive than the alternative. A set of front a-arms for a neon (the only way to get stock bushings) is $472. The costs to put a set of spherical&#39;s in was $120 and it will be $45 dollars to replace the bearings, or antoher $472 to put new arms in when the bushings wear out at a faster rate. So the cost issue doesn&#39;t fly with me.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 04:35 PM
Because a SB as a bushing does not flex. It allows the bolt that passes through it a range of motion that was not available stock - or in a stock replacement of alternate material.

[snapback]70082[/snapback]

Incorrect. If anything a spherical bearing/bushing would limit the range of motion.

[Geo]

Originally posted by kthomas@Jan 4 2006, 05:49 PM
This one has to be argued on what the intent was. I doubt anybody&#39;s replacements are legal according to the verbage in the rulebook whether they&#39;re a spherical bearing or not (no "dimensional" allowance). The rule needs clarified or rewritten. I&#39;m willing to bet the intent was to allow them. Go forth with the protest.

[snapback]70090[/snapback]

I don&#39;t know the original intent, but I could conceive of how they could very well be the original intent depending upon when the rule was made to allow alternate material.

Huh, you say?

Well, urethane bushings are common today, but were they when the rule was changed. Perhaps they were allowed because only a handful of cars had urethane bushings available? If that was the case, SBs would be one way to make an allowance for all cars that would be relatively equal.

Greg and I have discussed this privately before and I know he thinks I&#39;m nuts (hi Greg ). For the record, I do think they are legal. I&#39;m not so sure they should be, but like Kirk, I don&#39;t see how to define a line between stock and SBs. Also for the record, I would like nothing better than to not have to spend the cash on SBs if they are illegal.

Lastly, I am the one who wrote to Sven quite some time about about SBs and he stated that they are in fact legal. As Greg and others have noted, this is not the definitive ruling, so take it for what it&#39;s worth. I can try to find the e-mail, but I think it goes back so far that it must be on my old computer.

I&#39;m OK with it if they are illegal and I&#39;m OK with it if they are legal. Just so we all have the same interpretation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:22 PM
Incorrect. If anything a spherical bearing/bushing would limit the range of motion.

[snapback]70102[/snapback]

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my statement. A SB has a defined range of motion. That range of motion is DIFFERENT than what a standard bushing would provide. It is, in 99.99% of the cases, MORE than stock. SO what? It is a different technology alltogether and not specifically allowed by the rules from what I can see.

Frankly, I don&#39;t even know why we are comparing the two. Traditional bushings provide INSULATION between bolts and mounting holes. Poly bushings provide that same insulation, in a much less compliant way - inherantly better for racing as well all know. SB&#39;s typically are used to provide the bolt that runs through it a range of motion on different axis&#39;, eliminating inherant bind, it didn&#39;t have to begin with, no?

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 4 2006, 09:49 PM
I&#39;m OK with it if they are illegal and I&#39;m OK with it if they are legal. Just so we all have the same interpretation.

[snapback]70104[/snapback]

I am with you there 100%.

AB

[erlrich]

This has been an interesting debate, and if nothing else it shows that reasonable people (an I use that term very loosely ) can and usually do disagree when it comes to rules interpretations. I think the one thing we can agree on, however, is that none of our opinions mean squat unless and until the Court of Appeals rules on the issue. With that in mind, I have to wonder aloud if there are 9 of us who would be willing to toss $25 into Greg&#39;s hat and send this question to the Court (assuming of course Greg would be interested in going this route)? Admittedly this issue is probably more important to me than many of you, since I was (and am) just about ready to dump a bunch of $$$ into sphericals for my car, but I would hope anyone who feels strongly either way would want to get a definitive answer.

So, how about it? I&#39;m in, any other takers? Greg, would you be willing to file the request?

[JeffYoung]

In. Far preferable to me (and definitely for Greg) than an at-track protest.

Let me know where to send the $25.

[Bill Miller]

Because a SB as a bushing does not flex. It allows the bolt that passes through it a range of motion that was not available stock - or in a stock replacement of alternate material. A change in DESIGN.

Sorry Andy, you can&#39;t apply one standard to the spherical bearing, and not apply it to alternate material bushings.

Let&#39;s go through this stepwise.

1) It&#39;s a given that a stock, rubber bushing, similar to the ones that Kirk has provided pictures of, will flex and deform, under load, allowing the item that is attached to it (for purposes of this discussion, a control arm), out-of-axis movement.

2) It&#39;s generally accepted that a spherical bearing will allow out-of-axis movement, of the the item that is attached to it.

3) An alternate material bushing, made of some non-compliant material (e.g. billet aluminum, brass, Delrin, etc.) will not allow out-of-axis movement.


You contend that a spherical bearing, as a replacement for a stock bushing, is illegal, because not only does it constitute a change in material, it constitutes a change in design. You further claim that a spherical bearing will provide a differnt (you claim greater) range of motion than provided by the stock bearing. You state that this allowance of a different range of motion, constitutes a design change.

Well, that&#39;s exactly what the bushings mentioned in 3) above do. It is a design change that provides a different range of motion than the stock bushing (in this case, no out-of-axis movement). That constitutes a different design, and by the standard that you have applied, would also be illegal.

Like George, I&#39;m not convinced that a spherical bearing will necessarily provide a great range of out-of-axis movement, than a stock, rubber bushing. But, if a different range of out-of-axis movement, over stock, is your criteria, than any alternate bushing material, that provides a different range of out-of-axis movement, over stock, is illegal. It doesn&#39;t matter if if that range is great than, or less than stock.

I think what is bothering people about this, is how a spherical bearing works. A stock, rubber bushing, will give you in-axis movement (i.e. rotation, a good thing), out-of-axis movement (probably a good thing), and also deflection, a change in the relationship of the axis to the mounting point (probably not what you want). So, w/ a stock bushing, you get two good things, and a bad thing. With a non-compliant bushing (made of say Delrin, or aluminum), you get in-axis rotation, but no out-of-axis movement. You also get no deflection. So, you get 1 good thing and no bad things. With a spherical bearing, you get both in-axis and out-of-axis movement, but no deflection (2 good, no bad).


Here&#39;s a scenario for you. On an A1 VW chassis (i.e. Rabbit or Scirocco), the spherical bearing design is as follows: For the front control arm bushing (Kirk&#39;s 2nd picture, on his car), the spherical bearing solution is essentially a cartridge, that has two bearings connected by a metal sleeve, that the mounting bolt goes through. This cartridge slides into the control arm in the same manner that a stock bushing, or aftermarket delrin or urethane bushing does. It allows no out-of-axis movement at all. The rear spherical bearing is essentially a pillow block. Like the aftermarket delrin, or urethane bushings, it provides no out-of-axis movement. The only difference in the design of the spherical bearing solution, over the aftermarket delrin or urethane bushings is, that it ha ball-bearing races, to facilitate a lower friction coefficient for the in-axis movement (rotation).

Even by your standards, these should be legal, as they don&#39;t offer any different range of out-of-axis movement, than the aftermarket delrin/urethane/aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

[Bildon]

I admit I have not read every post. But in all seriousness, what is the concern over spherical bearings? Does somebody think they are an unfair advantage such that without them you&#39;ll never win a race?

Because from what I&#39;ve read, we&#39;re still doing a great job of chasing people away with all this negative nit-picking. Again I didn&#39;t read every post so I may have missed the "killer con argument"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 4 2006, 10:29 PM

Here&#39;s a scenario for you. On an A1 VW chassis (i.e. Rabbit or Scirocco), the spherical bearing design is as follows: For the front control arm bushing (Kirk&#39;s 2nd picture, on his car), the spherical bearing solution is essentially a cartridge, that has two bearings connected by a metal sleeve, that the mounting bolt goes through. This cartridge slides into the control arm in the same manner that a stock bushing, or aftermarket delrin or urethane bushing does. It allows no out-of-axis movement at all. The rear spherical bearing is essentially a pillow block. Like the aftermarket delrin, or urethane bushings, it provides no out-of-axis movement. The only difference in the design of the spherical bearing solution, over the aftermarket delrin or urethane bushings is, that it ha ball-bearing races, to facilitate a lower friction coefficient for the in-axis movement (rotation).

Even by your standards, these should be legal, as they don&#39;t offer any different range of out-of-axis movement, than the aftermarket delrin/urethane/aluminum ones.

Thoughts?

[snapback]70110[/snapback]

This is a great example. You are right in that I believe the functionality of this scenario to be within the intent. It&#39;s the out-of-axis movement that I have trouble with.

Having said that, just because your example &#39;works&#39; like a traditional bushing doesn&#39;t stop you from designing a single-bearing unit that does provide that out-of-axis movement. Maybe not that application - but there are some that certainly could.

If one is legal, so is the other - I don&#39;t think either are because of the componentry involved. I stick by the definitions in the GCR and what is written as allowed. Just because they function as they should doesn&#39;t mean they are legal. If a full-prep E36 325 motor puts 205hp to the ground and a 3.0L E36 M3 motors puts down the exact same number - FUNCTIONALLY the same, does it make it legal?

If a GTI gets a weight-break in the woods, and nobody is there to build one, will it get faster?

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 09:51 PM
This is a great example. You are right in that I believe the functionality of this scenario to be within the intent. It&#39;s the out-of-axis movement that I have trouble with.

Having said that, just because your example &#39;works&#39; like a traditional bushing doesn&#39;t stop you from designing a single-bearing unit that does provide that out-of-axis movement. Maybe not that application - but there are some that certainly could.

If one is legal, so is the other - I don&#39;t think either are because of the componentry involved. I stick by the definitions in the GCR and what is written as allowed. Just because they function as they should doesn&#39;t mean they are legal. If a full-prep E36 325 motor puts 205hp to the ground and a 3.0L E36 M3 motors puts down the exact same number - FUNCTIONALLY the same, does it make it legal?

If a GTI gets a weight-break in the woods, and nobody is there to build one, will it get faster?

AB

[snapback]70112[/snapback]

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&#39;s even possible)? Like I said, if that&#39;s going to be your standard, you&#39;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.

And please stop w/ examples like the BMW one, they make you look desperate. That logic fails, becuase they&#39;re both not prepared to the same level. You&#39;re a smart guy Andy, you don&#39;t need to do that.

You&#39;re arguing this one based on emotion, not on the facts at hand. You&#39;re not even sure if spherical bearings will provide a greater range of out-of-axis movement over stock.

To Andy and the rest of the ITAC folks, why not just ask the CRB what the interpretation is on this? This is going to go the same way as the forged piston debate. Reasonable people will disagree, and we will need a definative ruling in the ITCS.

Like George, I don&#39;t care if they are or they aren&#39;t legal, but there&#39;s too much difference of opinion to just leave it open.

[tderonne]

An alternate to a protest, or rules clarification, ask for them.

Write a letter to the CRB and ask for spherical bearings on IT cars. Yes, no, rules sufficient as is, are a couple answers you could get. Should be pretty clear what the CRB thinks.

And while you&#39;re at it, ask to be able to tack weld sleeves to control arms to make it easier to put them in.