Booger bushings. Legal?

[lateapex911]

I would think, that since the foundation is IIDSYCYC, that they would have stated that it's actually allowed, and the rule was fine as is. Or they'd change it as it wasn't clear, considering somebody wrote asking for an allowance. But I see your point.

[marka]

Howdy,

How about as a compromise I just color the booger bushings black with a sharpie?

:-)

Mark

[Chip42]

I aappolize for the distant and uncomital response. I completely agree that we should do a better job of spelling out the rational for the responses. I will make a point of that in the future.

the problem with the neon is that the shifter bushing is the attachment mechanism for the shift cables at both sides. most cars have a bolt or a pin etc... to hold the bushing in place and thus aren't arguably replaceable under 4.d. the neon's are. how successful that argument is will depend on the phrasing and the audience.

We did not see enough support or need for a full shifter bushing rules change at the time. if you think I'm wrong, please write in and let us know. www.crbscca.com

as of right now, barring clever interpretations like the above that I (not an official response) believe are legal but unintended, shifter bushings are to remain stock.

[ShelbyRacer]

Dammit Chip, I had this great dissertation on the exact topic you mentioned that I was hashing out on the way home. To sum up:

In the Neon, the "bushing" is the only fastener.
Fasteners may be changed.
There is no breach of prohibited function (allowed change doing something not allowed).
If it says you can, you bloody-well can. (GR)

My line of thinking:
The ITAC saw this.
They knew it was an isolated issue, and that it could be "allowed" via the above thinking.
Putting in more words might allow something else beyond the current "leeway".
Using that response, the TIAC didn't endorse it, but didn't disallow it either.

If the purpose was intentional ambiguity, message received. I'm not saying that you specifically confirmed this, and if asked I'll disavow making the assumption based on anything you said (since it truly wasn't).

If that was not the idea, I'd consider amore direct formal response in the future.

[Knestis]

So I can change the "fasteners" that "fasten" the shift rods to the levers on my linkage? Oh, please say "yes." I'd need, let's see - about 10 little spherical fasteners...

K

[marka]

Howdy,

Its cool. It was a little frustrating, but I also realize that the level of explanation possible in a forum like this isn't possible via Fastrack.

I appreciate the further clarification.

The letter was intended to suggest opening up shifter / shifter linkage bushings for replacement overall. That, to me, seems to fit what I know of IT philosophy... Off hand I can't think of too many other places where a rubber bushing on an IT car has to remain stock. Particularly now with the drivetrain mount change.

But if a guy on the ITAC sees the argument I'd make with the existing rules to justify booger bushings, that's good enough for me unless I run into someone selling some NOS cables or something. :-)

Mark

I aappolize for the distant and uncomital response. I completely agree that we should do a better job of spelling out the rational for the responses. I will make a point of that in the future.

the problem with the neon is that the shifter bushing is the attachment mechanism for the shift cables at both sides. most cars have a bolt or a pin etc... to hold the bushing in place and thus aren't arguably replaceable under 4.d. the neon's are. how successful that argument is will depend on the phrasing and the audience.

We did not see enough support or need for a full shifter bushing rules change at the time. if you think I'm wrong, please write in and let us know. www.crbscca.com

as of right now, barring clever interpretations like the above that I (not an official response) believe are legal but unintended, shifter bushings are to remain stock.

[shwah]

As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

[Matt Rowe]

As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

A hardware item used to connect two components? Sounds like a fastener.

Of course if you replace the words "shift linkage" with "motor mount" those two reasons above are the same ones that were used to justify aftermarket motor mounts.

[ShelbyRacer]

The difference, however, with the Neon in particular, is that the rubber insert is the ONLY part that secures the cable end to the lever arm. Also, in this particular case, I believe the "bushing" is not available for replacement, and even the whole cable assembly is soon to be (if not already) NS1.

I'll go one better than your Sharpie suggestion Mark. I'll grab a 1/32" drill and make a ring of holes between the ID and OD, and then cut/abrade the top down so it's rounded. Viola- a "stock" replacement bushing.

Personally, I see no benefit other than longevity/durability with going to full spherical rod ends. But then again, I guess being able to consistently shift the car is one of those "warts and all" things, huh? Because A1/A2 VWs and Chrysler L-bodies are running away with IT, or they would be if they didn't have a shift linkage that could fall apart, right?

If we just add one more room onto this here double-wide, it'll be a gall-dern mansion...

[Chip42]

So I can change the "fasteners" that "fasten" the shift rods to the levers on my linkage? Oh, please say "yes." I'd need, let's see - about 10 little spherical fasteners...

K

if you can make that argument with a straight face.

the neon's bushings snap-on to the pin at the trans through an eyelet in the linkage. I know early VW's shifters were some german's kinematic design project, with multiple seemingly unnecessary levers and a couple of snap-on ball and socket connecting rods, but I'm not sure about the A3. I could see an argument about the socket caps on those connecting rods though, for the same reason. again, I see it as legal and unintended, and I'd LOVE for the COA to rule against it.

and to Matt - I still think we could have done better on the reply, even with the desire to maintain the status quo.

[lateapex911]

When comparing the current discussion to that of engine mounts, keep in mind that the original authors of the IT ruleset intended us to be able to control engine movement. But, at the time, aftermarket mounts didn't exist. So, they allowed the use of stayrods.

They have never allowed any improvements to shifting action, other than to allow the shifter to be bent.

[marka]

Howdy,

As Kirk points out. If we were really able to justify these items as fasteners and replace them, every VW IT racer will rejoice at no longer needing to A. run illegal shift linkage, or B. replace the shift linkage every season or less.

I don't much care if they are allowed or not going forward.

Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

[lateapex911]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

In before Kirk. (just cuz I want to beat him, LOL)
You wouldn't want it if it wasn't SOME kind of an advantage, and in racing, every advantage distills into a performance advantage.
Pedantic? maybe, but I'm sure you understand.

[shwah]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

Plastic socket that snaps over a metal ball at nearly every pivot point in the system, routed right by the exhaust header. This is a case of the warts and all reality of the IT rule set. There is always some advantage to an allowance, even if it is simply more time and money available to put towards going faster rather than being more reliable.

[JLawton]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

Yeah, I gotta call BS on this one........ Warts and all. That's how we pick our cars. Both the maintenance argument and the safety argument don't cut it. We all have things on our cars that would be great to not have to "maintain" or tom improve "safety" Like the rear drums on the early VWs or upper shock mounts on the BMWs. But many of you may not have been around for those arguments but the BMWs were a great example. The upper shock mounts begins to rip up the rear shock towers. So guys were going in and reinforcing the hell out of them. Yes it made it safer. Yes, it made it less likely to rip out in the middle of the race.......... but clearly not legal. But that's what racing is all about. Making it to the finish line........

I always use "intent" of the rule when looking at these debates. The intent of the rules was not to allow them. If you try twisting the intent you're not fooling anyone.

All that being said, if you hadn't said anything about it and drove it as is, i don't think there is anyone in the country who would have protested you.

[Knestis]

Howdy,



Any pictures of the shifter and how it works?

To me, a rule that requires people to maintain the hell outta something but which doesn't do much to contain performance isn't all that great a rule. Clearly that can be abused. But I just can't see where having a reliable (particularly in terms of longevity) shifter is a huge performance advantage.

Mark

Yeah, that's it. Just like that. Yup.

K

[marka]

Howdy,

In before Kirk. (just cuz I want to beat him, LOL)
You wouldn't want it if it wasn't SOME kind of an advantage, and in racing, every advantage distills into a performance advantage.
Pedantic? maybe, but I'm sure you understand.

You really can't understand wanting something because I'd like to fix it one time, vs. have to continually maintain it, rather than because I think it gives me an advantage on the track?

But whatever. My shifter bushings are legal. :-)

Mark

[ShelbyRacer]

Yeah, that's it. Just like that. Yup.

K

That's some nice lookin' warts you got there Kirk.

[lateapex911]

Howdy,



You really can't understand wanting something because I'd like to fix it one time, vs. have to continually maintain it, rather than because I think it gives me an advantage on the track?

But whatever. My shifter bushings are legal. :-)

Mark

'
The advantage is that you aren't spending your time fixing it (or I'm not spending time fixing MY issues), you're spending the resources elsewhere.

Listen, I'm zen about your parts, you can do whatever. I'm just being pedantic, or the devils advocate, or whatever. Besides, Kirk sends me a check when I save him typing...

[marka]

Howdy,

'
The advantage is that you aren't spending your time fixing it (or I'm not spending time fixing MY issues), you're spending the resources elsewhere.

Eh, pretty tenuous in a grass roots sport, at least to me.

Can we write some rules to equalize between the guy that works 30 hours/week and the one that works 60? :-)

I buy "reliability as competitive advantage" arguments if it occurs during a race distance. But if we can give someone the ability to fix a longer terms recurring problem area so that it stays fixed without giving them an advantage during the race, that seems like a nobrainer to me.

The law of unintended consequences / racers push everything to get an advantage means that opportunities for this aren't that common of course, but I'm not understanding how allowing someone to replace shifter bushings is going to upset any competitive applecart.

I'll stop arguing about it now. Honest. :-)

Mark