Booger bushings. Legal?

[marka]

Howdy,

Preparing my car, and ran across another "I'm not sure that's legal" part...

The car is an ITA Neon. It has the standard, in the Neon world, 'Booger Bushings' installed on the transmission shift cables. These are poly bushings/washers that replace the factory rubber bushings / washers that are at the end of the cables attaching to the shifter and transmission levers.

The only thing my newbie eyes can see in the rulebook that might allow them is:

4.d: "Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by similar items performing the same fastening function(s)."

These washers/bushings are a press/clip fit that connect the end of the cable to the trans or shifter levers.

I figure this has come up before though, and wondered what the group answer was.

Thanks!

Mark

edit: Info on these with pictures is here: http://www.boogerracing.com/boogerbushings.html

[pitbull113]

my thoughts are not legal. it's a bushing not hardware.

lol you said booger

[Greg Amy]

IMO, not compliant to the regs.

I'm entertained that our panties are all in a wad over guibos and booger bushings. I wait with bated breath for the next iteration...

[marka]

Howdy,

Ok. Are they legal if I color them black with a sharpie?

:-)

Mark

[Greg Amy]

Are they legal if I color them black with a sharpie?

That's called "Spec Miata Tech Shed Legal".

[ShelbyRacer]

EXCEPT, as Mark said, these particular bushings (both stock and Booger) have a ridge that fits in a groove on the pin on the shift lever, and a shoulder that prevents the end of the cable from sliding off. This is the only "fastening" method that retains the cable on the lever...

I'm NOT saying that makes it compliant, but if confronted with paper, I'd certainly make the argument.

[joeg]

As I suggested in the other thread, let's make the "rubber list".

[Greg Amy]

My manifold is what "fastens" my throttle body to the engine...is that free, too...?

Remember, "fastener" is a noun, not a verb. If you open the idea(l) up to anything that fastens (verb) anything to anything, the box is Pandora's playground... - GA


Edit: from the GCR:

Fasteners – Any mechanism which serves no other purposes than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc.).

Looks like my manifold is "free", as long as it serves no other purpose (insert )! Does the booger serve any other purpose than as a "fastener"?

[mtownneon]

I've had a set of Boogers in mine for some time now, never even thought about the legality of them. I just didn't want to shell out the money for a set of cables only because the bushings were shot. Never had anyone question them.

[marka]

Howdy,

Does the booger serve any other purpose than as a "fastener"?

Arguably not... Its role is to fasten the end of the shift cable to the shifter or transmission lever.

Mark

[Knestis]

... Never had anyone question them.

Evidence not of legality but instead, of apathy.

K

EDIT - Pandora would have lots of fun with the half-dozen VW shift linkage bits that "fasten" wherever they connect, until they get cooked by the header and have to be replaced every year.

EDIT^2 - Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but it would be a wee bit inconsistent, pushing on this one while squawking about Chris's engine mount idea that's equally compliant with carefully parsed language of the applicable rule. You aren't actually doing that but...

[Greg Amy]

Arguably not... Its role is to fasten the end of the shift cable to the shifter or transmission lever.

Then, unlike my "reductio ad absurdum" intake manifold example, you may have a leg to stand on. However, keep in mind that the common acceptance of the definition of "fastener" tends to be more toward examples you'd find in the hardware aisle of Home Depot... - GA

[lateapex911]

Do these transmit forces for the shift action?

IF the new "mounts in the drive train are free" rule goes through, then things like this are going to be minced over and considered fair game.

[marka]

Howdy,

EDIT^2 - Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark, but it would be a wee bit inconsistent, pushing on this one while squawking about Chris's engine mount idea that's equally compliant with carefully parsed language of the applicable rule. You aren't actually doing that but...

:-)

I'm not 100% sure what Chris's engine mount idea is, but there's absolutely no question that I'm trying hard to read into the rule what I want to see there.

And Greg, the hardware aisle in my Home Depot has plastic spacers and rubber bushings both. :-)

Mark

(if the end result of this is "most everyone thinks they're illegal", then I'll probably get around to changing them out after I've got the rest of the car sorted. Depends on how much I want to push the rules. I was really hoping that I'd missed the clear allowance though.)

[marka]

Howdy,

Letter:

Please consider adding an allowance to the transmission section, 4: "Shifter linkage cable bushings may be replaced."

The intent would be to allow the common 'booger bushings' and similar products that replace the factory rubber bushings on shift linkage cables.

For example: http://www.boogerracing.com/boogerbushings.html

These bushings tend to break down on older cars, rendering shifting imprecise and sloppy. For many older IT cars, new replacement OEM cables are hard to find. Sloppy and imprecise shifting is a recepie for an expensive 'money-shift'.

As an alternative, consider opening up all shifter related bushings: "Shifter and shifter linkage bushings may be replaced. Replacement bushings must maintain stock geometry." This would allow cars like the E36 BMW to replace the sloppy factory shifter mounting bushings, again helping to reduce the chances of a money shift.

Costs for these bushing replacements generally are very affordable and this allowance seems consistent with the other bushing allowances in the IT category. Indeed, many ITA Neon owners seem to already run the booger bushings, presumably thinking that they are already legal (which is arguably true, under the 4.d hardware allowance, though I don't feel that is very clear).

Thanks for your time.

Mark

[marka]

Howdy,

Grrr.

1. #6503 (Mark Andy) Allow alternate shift linkage bushings
Thank you for your input, the rule is adequate as written.

What the hell does that mean? That its legal via 4.d? Otherwise I'd have expected something like "That change isn't consistent with class philosophy" or whatever.

Mark

[Greg Amy]

What the hell does that mean? That its legal via 4.d? Otherwise I'd have expected something like "That change isn't consistent with class philosophy" or whatever.

I was actually hoping to see something more clear, too...

I still contend "no bueno".

[lateapex911]

No, it means they aren't changing the rule.
You wrote requesting a rule change, right?
Your call to action was to add the wording that would allow shifter cable bushings to be replaced. (or all shifter bushings)
They obviously don't think your request was something they wanted to do, and that things are fine as is.
Simply put, you said: "Change this"
They said,: "no change, fine as is"

IF you were asking for a clarification, (which you weren't), they're not in that business. That would go to the other department, for a fee, or you could run it up the flagpole via the protest/appeal process.
You added, almost as a side comment:

"Indeed, many ITA Neon owners seem to already run the booger bushings, presumably thinking that they are already legal (which is arguably true, under the 4.d hardware allowance, though I don't feel that is very clear)."

But you didn't actually call them to action to respond to that. You didn't ASK them if it were, or were NOT legal. Clearly you don't think they are legal, or you wouldn't have asked for an additional allowance.

[marka]

Howdy,

Clearly you don't think they are legal, or you wouldn't have asked for an additional allowance.

Actually, I think they are in the grey area and I can make a case for them being legal or illegal. I was asking for the explicit allowance to make it clear.

I want them to be legal on my car, so guess which case I'm going to go with. :-)

Mark

[ShelbyRacer]

Unfortunately, this response seems to be the new version of "not within class philosophy," but is actually less clear than that statement ever was. That, combined with "Thanks for your input," makes the answer appear to lead toward Mark's statement above.

It appears to read:
"Thanks for asking for an allowance, but we think the current rule is enough to handle most situations."

The committees will take the time to publish intent on a new rule (when mounts went out for member input), but won't give us any idea of the intent of an existing one? If the committee is unsure of the intent of the rule, how do you make informed decisions about how things fit into the overall class philosophy (stating a real question, not making a sarcastic punchline)?

Personally, I think one of the reasons why we have issues with rules creep is that we keep adding on, pushing further and further, and ignoring how an allowance in one area will affect interpretation in another (see also, Mounts). The ITCS, along with many of the other spec books and the GCR itself, has become a double-wide with a garage, sunroom, master suite, and rec room. Asking to turn a fire escape into a normally used door, and being told "no", doesn't mean you can't keep going in and out the fire escape. Someone saying, "No, because an entry/exit door there causes problems," sends the message that you shouldn't be doing that, and if you do, you could get in trouble.

I truly think the current ITAC has a good vision overall, but the implementation of that is often extremely vague, at times can be confusing, and in other instances it's downright contradictory.

In this case, an answer of "That additional allowance is not needed at this time," makes it clear that the suggestion is not within the scope of the intent of that rule, and that they don't want to go there. While I personally can't agree with that, I can respect it as a clear response.

Jake- I don't think it's obvious that "They obviously don't think your request was something they wanted to do, and that things are fine as is." I could just as easily read it and say, "It's obvious they feel that the current rules allow it and they don't need to be changed and open the door for other things..." I'm not saying I'm correct or that you are, but if we both can come up with "obvious" meanings that are completely opposite, then obviously the response was ambiguous.