Spherical "Bushings"

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 8 2006, 09:24 AM

But, George, isn't that the way the rule reads? If you believe that an allowance (or restriction) in material allows (or restricts) dimensional changes as well, why did you - as part of the current ITAC - recommend the following words in ITCS 17.1.4.C in regards to aftermarket replacement parts? Why qualify the difference if there is none?

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I believe the ITAC/CRB mentions both material and dimensional because they believe - as I do - that there is a distinct difference. Given that, the implication vis-a-vis suspension bushings is clear.

GregA

[snapback]70406[/snapback]

Greg, you're mixing rules.

The rule you quote is to make an allowance for non-OEM parts that previously were not allowed, despite being in all ways the same as the OEM part.

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I'm fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can. However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.

Back to the bigging of this post, you are mixing rules and one has nothing to do with the other.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 8 2006, 11:32 PM

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I'm fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can. However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.

[snapback]70447[/snapback]

Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 8 2006, 09:40 PM
Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB

[snapback]70449[/snapback]

Andy, I don't think anyone will disagree that if a rule says you can do something, you can do it. Notice I followed up with the statement we were disagreeing on what the rule specifically allows. So, I stand by what you quoted.

Y'all can go back to arguing about what the rule specifically allows.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 8 2006, 11:32 PM
Greg, you're mixing rules.

[snapback]70447[/snapback]

George, you're so missing the point...

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 9 2006, 07:09 AM
George, you're so missing the point...

[snapback]70453[/snapback]

Nope. I got your point. But they are two different rules making very specific allowances. My point is you cannot use the allowances under one rule to argue for or against the allowances under another rule