No way, dude. Not even a gray area.Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Administrator
No way, dude. Not even a gray area.
Senior Member
I disagree, this is perfectly legal.
Reasonable minds differ. But hey whats new, people have differing opinions on many things....
Just like i think that taking a non sun roofed chassis turning it into a model that was ONLY available with a sunroof and NOT adding the extra bracing that the sunroof equipped model has, is not legal. Not even close to being a gray area.
Last edited by jimmyc; 01-29-2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason: spelling
Administrator
I, and most of the people I race with, are WAY too conservative and concerned about being legal. Man these discussions are eye openers.
Administrator
Excellent. Let me know when we'll be at the track together and for $25 I can get the stewards' reasonable opinions.
GA
(P.S., No personal offense intended. But, you're wrong. And I have a very low tolerance for rules intorturation and/or outright cheating.)
Senior Member
But you are doing it with the non sunroof car, and turning it into a sunroof car without adding in he extra bracing. (out right cheating)Excellent. Let me know when we'll be at the track together and for $25 I can get the stewards' reasonable opinions.
GA
(P.S., No personal offense intended. But, you're wrong. And I have a very low tolerance for rules intorturation and/or outright cheating.)
No personal offense taken.
PS i don't currently race IT.
Last edited by jimmyc; 01-29-2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason: clarification further clarification
Administrator
Not that it's relevant, but "even if" I were cheating, that doesn't make "your" cheating legal or acceptable, nor does it make my premise that you're cheating incorrect or out of line.
And, you too have the ability - nay, the responsibility - to protest me if you truly believe the above (assuming you were racing in IT, and since you're not I hardly understand why you're stepping into this discussion other than just to argue...though you're certainly entitled to your misguided opinion.)
And finally, despite its irrelevance, you have zero clue about what I'm actually doing.
GA
Senior Member
No but it does make you seem a bit hypocritical. Here you are calling me out for for something that i see as perfectly legal, and you spent i don't know how many pages arguing that you didn't need to have a structural part of the car on the car.
No i don't have any clue about what you are actually doing, but, again, you spent many of post in that thread saying how it was legal, and so on and so on.
You see my opinion as misguided and i see your as the same.
It is the internet, people have different opinions and life goes on.
Last edited by jimmyc; 01-29-2009 at 11:43 PM. Reason: spelling
Senior Member
So because mini ball joints are used on the sway bar, we can't change to spherical bearings for the sway bar link?If suspension bushings are allowed to be swaped out with sperical bearings, all of them, then why not any ball joint like bushings? IISYCTYBWC Doesn't the 240sx use ball joints to locate the rear? I seem to remember it had a roll steer system built in. It's not like I purchased this kit, but I thought given the spherical bearing debate it was legal.
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Administrator
Swaybars are free. Ball joints are not.
Because ball joints are not suspension bushings....then why not any ball joint like bushings?
Yes, sphericals are used in place of suspension bushings, explicitly allowed as per ITCS.Doesn't the 240sx use ball joints to locate the rear?
Sorry, man...
GA
Senior Member
Sorry, maybe I'm confused... first you say ball joints are not suspension bushings, then you say they are??
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Administrator
Where did I say that ball joints are suspension bushings?Sorry, maybe I'm confused... first you say ball joints are not suspension bushings, then you say they are??
On edit:
James, just to make sure we're not cross-posting on terminology, look at your graphic above. #6 is not a ball joint, as you stated; it's a suspension bushing which may, depending on its design, incorporate a bearing. It is legal to replace #6 with a spherical bearing.
Your #3 is interesting, in that it is a suspension attach point that incorporates a ball joint, but it's not a suspension bushing. This one is open to reasonable interpretation, and could possibly be a gray area in regards to ITCS allowance. But, by the same token, since it's not a suspension bushing, one can also argue it is not eligible for "alternate material" consideration.
Your #s 16 and 17 are swaybar end links, which use a type of ball joint, but are not considered THE ball joint. And, under the ITCS allowances for swaybars, are free in design.
Your #4 is "the suspension ball joint", which is not a suspension bushing, and thus not legal to replace with alternate material under the suspension bushings ITCS allowance.
This #4 part is the one in question when we're talking about "the suspension ball joint". If you're trying to say someone is claiming that your #4 is considered a suspension bushing, and thus can be replaced with a spherical bushing/bearing and spaced out to correct roll center, they are incorrect. That part must remain equivalent to stock.
This is not to be confused with Tom's discussion above in regards to the Mazda RX-7 design. In that case, since the strut incorporates all the attach points for the tie rods and ball joints, then those attach points can be moved around to correct geometry under the "open strut" rule; however, the stock-equivalent ball joint must still be used. - GA
Last edited by Greg Amy; 01-29-2009 at 11:54 PM.
Senior Member
Right there
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Administrator
I do not know what the rear suspension design is on a 240SX. But, if they use the same design as your #3, then my same position applies (read my edit in the above post).
But that still doesn't allow #4 to be replaced with anything but a stock-equivalent ball joint. - GA
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks