Spherical "Bushings"

[lateapex911]

I'm making my "bushings" out of metal. You all don't mind if the metal is in two peices, with zero tolerance?

Andy, I think you have been appointed the King of the rules nerds!

Greg is veeery close, but you posted on this a dozen times....slow day at work?

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

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.

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

Wrong again. You are looking at it from a VW view. You have to see all the possibilities, applications and potential inequities from allowing this DESIGN. SB's CAN provide more, less or similar range of motion - it just depends on the design.

OK, this is a dead horse. I will put it on the next agenda for discussion. It see this one as two factions reading the rules two different ways. I will discuss it with the CRB. The piston debate is different IMHO, the rules are clear and the perceived original intent is mucking up the works.

Regardless, decent debate. Winter sucks. See my washer bottle thread later today. :P And thank God I found a source for OEM Mazda air for my tires this fall - phew!

AB

[ddewhurst]

***It does have the potential to suddenly make a LOT of cars clearly illegal with a LOT of expense to convert back.***

***But just as a reference point I don'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'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't fly with me.***

Matt, ya been spending way to much time on the Production site. I beleive they started this cost saving CREEP logic & look where they are today.

My 1st gen RX-7 has a Tri-link with spherical bearings & the rear lower control arms also are different than OEM & have spherical bearings. BUT, IMHU the spherical bearings are legal per rule 17.1.4D.5.c.1. "may be added or substituted"

***with zero tolerance***

Jake, I have known all along that your really special. BUT, zero tolerance. Anyone who would write zero tolerance looses NERD points. :P

ps: My bet is that the bushing rule in the glossary is NOT ment to define suspension bushings. But, it's the only rule in the glossary for bushings.

[Bill Miller]

Actually Andy, I'm looking at it from a pretty generic point of view. I see it as this, you've got an attachment point, that incorporates a stock bushing (most likely rubber). You can't change the attachment point, or what attaches to it, only the bushing. I'll admit that I don't know all the suspension designs, for all the cars in the ITCS, but most of the control arms we're talking about, attach at 3 points (sometimes 4). Without changing those points, I just don't know how much MORE range of motion you can get.

I included the VW example because A) I know the cars, and it is an example where there is no different out-of-axis movement, over a solid bushing. Let me ask you this, if I made the previously mentioned 'cartridge', using a sleeved bearing (similar to a wheel bearing), would you consider that legal? There certainly is no opportunity for out-of-axis movement.

I agree that suspensions will bind when cars are lowered. That even happens on a VW. But, you could use that as justification for the allowance of spherical bearings, as bushings. We will let you lower your car, we know that it will bind the suspension, so, you can use this alternate bushing to help minimize/eliminate this bind.

What I have issues with is *DIFFERENT* movement. You know that a SB can provide movement that is totally different than a stock DESIGN.

Again, how can you only have issue w/ one type of 'different' movement? A solid delrin/urethane/aluminum bushing provides totally different movement than a stock design. It provides NO out-of-axis movement, whereas the stock design, due to the compliance of the rubber bushing, does provide out-of-axis movement. No matter how you slice it, THAT is a different design.

If allowing differnt than stock movement is the test, neither the spherical bearing solution OR the solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution are legal. I'm sorry, but you're not being objective about this one Andy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 5 2006, 09:38 AM
Actually Andy, I'm looking at it from a pretty generic point of view. I see it as this, you've got an attachment point, that incorporates a stock bushing (most likely rubber). You can't change the attachment point, or what attaches to it, only the bushing. I'll admit that I don't know all the suspension designs, for all the cars in the ITCS, but most of the control arms we're talking about, attach at 3 points (sometimes 4). Without changing those points, I just don't know how much MORE range of motion you can get.

I included the VW example because A) I know the cars, and it is an example where there is no different out-of-axis movement, over a solid bushing. Let me ask you this, if I made the previously mentioned 'cartridge', using a sleeved bearing (similar to a wheel bearing), would you consider that legal? There certainly is no opportunity for out-of-axis movement.

I agree that suspensions will bind when cars are lowered. That even happens on a VW. But, you could use that as justification for the allowance of spherical bearings, as bushings. We will let you lower your car, we know that it will bind the suspension, so, you can use this alternate bushing to help minimize/eliminate this bind.
Again, how can you only have issue w/ one type of 'different' movement? A solid delrin/urethane/aluminum bushing provides totally different movement than a stock design. It provides NO out-of-axis movement, whereas the stock design, due to the compliance of the rubber bushing, does provide out-of-axis movement. No matter how you slice it, THAT is a different design.

If allowing differnt than stock movement is the test, neither the spherical bearing solution OR the solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution are legal. I'm sorry, but you're not being objective about this one Andy.

[snapback]70138[/snapback]

I don't think you understand my point. Just because something holds something else in place better (solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution) does not CHANGE it's movement, it limits the original movement. If you want to call that a change, then we will agree that it's symmantics we are arguing.

SOME SB designs allow a bolt to pivot in ways not designed for originally. This is EXACTLY why people use them as bushings. You brushed off my BMW example but you didn't get it. Just because your new VW set-up FUNCTIONS as originally intended, doesn't mean I have to agree it is legal because I feel the parts you used to do so are not legal. We disagree on WHY I think it is illegal, but you get my point.

You could use any 'improvement to a difficiency' as the justification for an allowance - and that is how we CREEP! Hell, we just got a request to allow alternate connection rods!!!

Done.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Wow, a long one for a simple discussion. Seems illegal to me but I'm still not even sure exactly why I'd use them. Just my 0.02 cents.

I wonder if it has reached this stage yet?


Just kidding!!! It'll be interesting to see what the CRB or a protest situation produces.

[Bill Miller]

I don't think you understand my point. Just because something holds something else in place better (solid delrin/urethane/aluminum solution) does not CHANGE it's movement, it limits the original movement. If you want to call that a change, then we will agree that it's symmantics we are arguing.

Like I said Andy, you've lost some of your objectivity on this matter. To say that limiting (or eliminating) movement, over the original design, is simply a symmantical change shows one of two things, either you don't understand the situation (which I highly doubt), or that you don't want to acknowledge it, because it doesn't support your arguement. It's ok if I limit (eliminate?) my out-of-axis movement, but it's not ok if I improve my in-axis movement (through reduced friction/binding)? Once again, you can't apply the standard to only the parts that you want to. It's all about internal consistency.

And you just don't understand my point. Anything that changes the amount or degree, of motion, over stock, is a change in design, period.

SOME SB designs allow a bolt to pivot in ways not designed for originally. This is EXACTLY why people use them as bushings.

Gee Andy, in the VW example, they're used because they lower the rotational friction of the control arm. Has absolutely nothing to do w/ the bolt pivoting in ways it was not designed to (unless you mean eliminating deflection, but that's the same as w/ a solid bushing, so it's a non-issue).

Also, you didn't comment on the wheel bearing-like scenario.

BTW, the piston debate I was referring to, was the forged vs. cast one, not the most recent one.

But, since you brought it up, the "improvement to defficiency" arguement is essentially what's being used to justify an 0.040 over piston for cars that never had them available from the factory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 5 2006, 10:44 AM


But, since you brought it up, the "improvement to defficiency" arguement is essentially what's being used to justify an 0.040 over piston for cars that never had them available from the factory.

[snapback]70146[/snapback]

Yup, and I don't believe in either allowance as the record will show.

We don't agree. Oh well.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

So let me ask this, if a specific car has a suspension "bushing" that meets the GCR definition of a spherical bearing would you (Greg and Andy) still say that using a metallic spherical bearing in that instance is illegal? The functionallity is not altered as the original design depends on it acting as a spherical AS DEFINED BY THE GCR. And because it also meets the GCR definition of a bushing a material change is allowed. And Greg, based on your past racing history and my signature you should be bale to figure out the design I'm referring to.

[bldn10]

After this came up in a previous thread and I was appalled to hear that a SB was deemed a bushing, I e-mailed Jeremy and asked about it. He confirmed that his/SCCA's opinion was that it was a bushing because it reduces the dimension of an existing hole.

I think that's crap. What is being missed here for the most part is the entire definition. The purpose is one thing but the first requirement is that is be a "sleeve or tubular insert." It is not either/or it is both/and. To me that means a solid cylinder (of any material) whose outside diameter is roughly the same as the "existing hole" and that has a hole bored or molded in through the length of the cylinder (i.e. a tube). There is nothing in the rule about a ball or spherical joint or anything else inside the cylinder. You can argue all you want that a SB only performs the same function as an OEM bushing, but that can win you only half the argument - you still have a piece that is something more than a "sleeve or tubular insert."

As to intent of the rule, I think it was clearly to allow different material only, primarily for durability under the extreme conditions of racing w/ use of stiffer springs, etc.

Frankly, I'm not sure if my car has SBs or not, but that does not matter one iota to me - the rule is the rule and I interpret it the way I think it was meant to be - not how it might benefit me.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 5 2006, 10:37 AM
After this came up in a previous thread and I was appalled to hear that a SB was deemed a bushing, I e-mailed Jeremy and asked about it. He confirmed that his/SCCA's opinion was that it was a bushing because it reduces the dimension of an existing hole.

I think that's crap. What is being missed here for the most part is the entire definition. The purpose is one thing but the first requirement is that is be a "sleeve or tubular insert." It is not either/or it is both/and. To me that means a solid cylinder (of any material) whose outside diameter is roughly the same as the "existing hole" and that has a hole bored or molded in through the length of the cylinder (i.e. a tube). There is nothing in the rule about a ball or spherical joint or anything else inside the cylinder. You can argue all you want that a SB only performs the same function as an OEM bushing, but that can win you only half the argument - you still have a piece that is something more than a "sleeve or tubular insert."

As to intent of the rule, I think it was clearly to allow different material only, primarily for durability under the extreme conditions of racing w/ use of stiffer springs, etc.

Frankly, I'm not sure if my car has SBs or not, but that does not matter one iota to me - the rule is the rule and I interpret it the way I think it was meant to be - not how it might benefit me.

[snapback]70151[/snapback]

Ok Bill, does that mean that you can't put a metal sleeve inside that solid delrin/urethane bushing you're using? Even the OEM rubber ones come w/ a metal sleeve inside the rubber (well, maybe not all of them, but several of the ones I've seen have).

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by erlrich@Jan 4 2006, 10:10 PM
Greg, would you be willing to file the request?

[snapback]70107[/snapback]

Of course. My interest is in getting the issue put to bed in the most expeditious and least expensive way possible. Since I am currently willing to "invest" at least $75 ($25 protest plus $50 appeal) I'll start with that into the pot. Anyone that submits will also be involved in writing the request, both pro and con.

A related question: does anyone know how, once the decision has been made, this decision is posted/saved for future "generations"? IOW, how does the membership as a whole find out?

Greg

On edit: I'm reading with interest the debate of decreasing or increasing movement, vis-a-vis a prohibited function. I would suggest this is a red herring: given what I know from days gone by, the original intent of alternate bushing material was likely to allow Delrin and/or poly bushings to replace the crappy soft rubber ones (remember, this was back in the days of cushy econosheisboxes, not sporty cars). Given that, the intent of the rule is apparently to restrict the movement of the suspension, make the car "tighter" (no arguments - Geo - about my not knowing the true intent 'cause I wasn't in the meeting. I understand that, but I was part of the club - and racing - when these rules were written; I think I understand the hitorical context.)

So, if one were to accept that the intent of the rule was to change the limitations within the bushing, it is not a stretch to assume that allowing more movement is also acceptable (e.g., RX7 rear suspensions.)

I do not dispute this point. What I do dispute is that the rule says alternate "material" is allowed, not alternate designs, and no matter how many times you quack it, a spherical bearing is not a suspension bushing, and its design is significantly different than probably any factory suspension or crossmember bushing ever installed on a passenger car. You can increment yourseld to anywhere you want, but when you put one in your left hand and one in your right hand, no one can possibly confuse the two... - GA

[Greg Amy]

edit: double post.

[Knestis]

I THINK that the only way that a finding can "stick" is for it to be translated into expansion/explanation/etc. in FasTrack and subsequent GCRs. Seems that the only sure way is to first get a ruling, then request a rule change to make things "clearer."

Now, we all know that more verbage ain't necessarily going to make things clearer but...

K

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 12:32 PM
I do not dispute this point. What I do dispute is that the rule says alternate "material" is allowed, not alternate designs, and no matter how many times you quack it, a spherical bearing is not a suspension bushing, and its design is significantly different than probably any factory suspension or crossmember bushing ever installed on a passenger car.

[snapback]70156[/snapback]

From the GCR:

Spherical Bearing - A load-bearing connector in which the central portion is convex and the outer portion is concave, allowing both angular displacements of the axes and relative rotation.

The design (sorry I can't find a pciture) I am thinking of is both load bearing, with a central convex and outer concave portions. It allows angular displacement of the bolted axes and rotation. Per the GCR by definition it IS a stock OEM equipped spherical bearing. It just happens to be partly made out of rubber. So I'll ask again Greg, would you consider it illegal/legal to use a metal spherical and why based on the rulebook? If it's meets the GCR definition of a spherical that's what it is, at the same time it meets the definition of a bushing and therefore material changes are allowed. We allow for substituing shocks which have different designs because they are all shocks so the concept of different design doesn't apply if the function of a component is the same, right?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 5 2006, 07:01 AM
The piston debate is different IMHO, the rules are clear and the perceived original intent is mucking up the works.

[snapback]70134[/snapback]

Not to rehash that here, but I disagree on this point as well. Forged pistons require different clearances and that muddies the waters IMHO.

I only bring this up because we can find conflicts in all sorts of rules if we nit pick and read literally enough.

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 10:32 AM
Given that, the intent of the rule is apparently to restrict the movement of the suspension, make the car "tighter" (no arguments - Geo - about my not knowing the true intent 'cause I wasn't in the meeting. I understand that, but I was part of the club - and racing - when these rules were written; I think I understand the hitorical context.)

So, if one were to accept that the intent of the rule was to change the limitations within the bushing, it is not a stretch to assume that allowing more movement is also acceptable (e.g., RX7 rear suspensions.)

[snapback]70156[/snapback]

Hey Greg, I wouldn't give you ANY grief for the above because:

1. You modify your statement with "apparently" an I can certainly accept that as an opinion.

2. Given no. 1 above, I think your statement about historical context is germane.

3. You further continue your discussion with "if one were to accept..."

Not that my opinioin matters, but it would be easier if people would just do this more often. Statements without modifiers appear to many as facts. However, something like the above quote is clear that it's an opinion. As such as newbie won't search and take such statements as gospel fact. It also makes further discussion on the topic more rational.

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

If you file a 13.9 then you get the results and may or may not share them at your will. Obviosly if others join in the investment then I think that you would share with the rest of the people who invested. If everyone that invests wants to share with the world then post it here. If you want to keep it a secret for yourselves then don't share it.

Someone on the Spec Miata site sent in a 13.9 on a radiator issue, which I had to deal with twice when acting as an SOM. I was happy to see that the person posted thier 13.9 results on the web for all to share (although I might not have done that) and I was correct in my opinions when I was on the SOM

Anyway other than a 13.9 I am not sure if you could just write a letter to SCCA? I was thinking that we should write to the powers that be for clarifications on this rule along with the .040 rule as they seem to be "hot topics" with very rational arguments either way. I think a "free" responce would be for the good of its members and the integrety of the rules. I think requiring a 13.9 to resolve issues that a large number of members has is a bit rediculouse, but at the same time it is a lot better than ruining the Stewards day by dealing with a protest that will just get appealed anyway.

If you do file a 13.9, send me a PM of what sort of financial investment you would want, I would be glad to invest in a copy of the results for myself as a steward and as a compeditor.

Raymond

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 5 2006, 01:22 PM
Per the GCR by definition it IS a stock OEM equipped spherical bearing. It just happens to be partly made out of rubber.

[snapback]70164[/snapback]

Matt, if I understand what your saying, then you're trying to take a GCR definition of a spherical bearing and apply it to a bushing, thus allowing you to use one in place of your control arms bushings (for example.) Sorry, it doesn't fly with me. If SCCA considered them one and the same part, why offer two separate and distinct definitions? Further, I can probably find a lot of items that meet the GCR "definition" of shperical bearings but that you would laugh at me for saying it's a suspension bushing (like maybe an ice cream scoop?) What you're trying to do here is reverse logic, where you're trying to fit a definition to an item, rather than defining the item itself; that's not what definitions are for.

Sorry to be redundant, but I'm pointing right back to the ITCS allowance that "alternate material" is allowed and nothing else. No one has yet to sufficiently support how this allows spherical bearings in lieu of suspension bushings.

Raymond: OF COURSE I would want to publish the results; what would be the point of keeping it secret (except to use as ammo in a protest, which is childish)? In fact, I would submit the results of that 13.9 - pro or con - to request a change in the verbiage of the rules to fit the ruled intent.

Having had a day or so to think about it, I'll take the plunge and file a 13.9 on it rather than taking the contentious route. Anyone that wishes to contribute should send me a PayPal to grega(a)pobox(d)com (cash/checking account only please; I cannot accept credit cards). I'll hold the money in the account until we file the request, and if for whatever reason it doesn't happen you'll get it back. Any overage will be refunded pro-rata. Further, anyone that contributes will have full input into the submission; I sincerely hope someone who believes these are legal gets involved as well so your position is represented.

Keep the debate going; this is very good useful info. - GA

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

Not sure how to respond or thank you... I was not excited about having to deal with this protest (from the Stewards side) this season to clarify this issue (I don't like to be the bad guy, and I think that no matter how a ruling would be made, someone would be upset) This will sureley be a more impartial and "true" answer to our question.

I think that it is increadably awsome that you are doing this!!! Once I figure out the PayPal thing I will be sending you something... not sure what (as I am a poor young boy), but something

Raymond