Spherical Bearings for upper and lower A arm bushings..need

I heard the ball joint issue on the A/S cars was related to using longer post ball joints w/ spacers (to aide front roll center on a lowered car). I've also heard that the spherical bearings that Shine sells for VW's must be welded into the LCA. To me, this violates the 'unmodified' rule that governs IT suspensions. However, it would be legal in a limited-prep production car as they are allowed 'alternate' or 'reinforced' control arms. Personally, I use Delrin bushings w/ a metal sleeve inside for the pivot bolt.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
 
The culprits that were found to bending the rues were Ross M and Eric Curran, this issue had been a burning issue in AS for years before this too. They were using the altered ball joints, not the Steeda extended-shank ball joints, but they became illegal due to this ruling too.

As Chris Herzog says:
"The clarification was something along the lines of that a ball joint was *not* a "bushing" and therefore had to be kept stock. This meant the monoballs had to go. This also means the Steeda ball joint with the extended shank is not "legal" but not as obvious..."

On the issue of the "a solid metal bushing is actually a bearing and therefore is illegal" it looks like I am mistaken. Sorry if seemed to be rude or arrogant.

But the issue I guess I have is that we used the spherical bearings in the trailing control arms in the 1st Gen Rx7's, and for some reason they were disallowed the year I bought my set, I ran them once and were superior, but I had to go back to my old ones. Why was this? I understand that to retain most of the Spherical Bearings they have to be welded into place, is this somehow construed as alteration to the control arm?

Confused,

K

[This message has been edited by NoRaceCarYet (edited December 05, 2001).]
 
Originally posted by NoRaceCarYet:
I understand that to retain most of the Spherical Bearings they have to be welded into place, is this somehow construed as alteration to the control arm?B]
Click to expand...


Boy, I would sure think so...

Kirk
 
Not to start an arguement, but I would think that if the bushing is "free", then the method of attachment of said bushing would be free. I don't see how a simple weld to keep a bushing located in a control arm would "modify" the arm. The weld is simply the method of attachment. It does not alter, relocate, strengthen, weaken, or modify the arm in any way. Why the fuss?

The spherical bearing setups I have seen do not weld, however. The bearings are centered in the arm, then sleeves are used to take up the remaining space in the bushing shell, then the sleeves are staked or pinned on the outside edge. That keeps the bearings from moving laterally. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

However, opinions do vary.
smile.gif


------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7
 
Guys,

The ITCS says: Bushing material is unrestricted. Including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis.
Unrestricted means: Un= NOT or REVERSE OF Restricted = LIMITED
Not limited to me means free, any, whatever I want to use.
I mount my subframe to the tub with solid aluminum bushings. A spherical "bearing" is a "load bearing" to allow angular motion. Mine came with machined tapered steel sleeves that simple tap (machined interference fit)in both sides so when they are both sleeves are in they are flush with the ends of the control arm. They're not welded in. When in place the sleeves are retained by the subframe control arm mounting brackets they fit in.
I'm just going by what's in the ITCS and my ol dictionary.
Harry
 
Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Not to start an arguement, but I would think that if the bushing is "free", then the method of attachment of said bushing would be free. I don't see how a simple weld to keep a bushing located in a control arm would "modify" the arm. The weld is simply the method of attachment. It does not alter, relocate, strengthen, weaken, or modify the arm in any way. Why the fuss?

The spherical bearing setups I have seen do not weld, however. The bearings are centered in the arm, then sleeves are used to take up the remaining space in the bushing shell, then the sleeves are staked or pinned on the outside edge. That keeps the bearings from moving laterally. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

However, opinions do vary.
smile.gif


Click to expand...

Chris, it's these exact kinds of interpretations that lead to rules creep. Just because it says that the bushing material is free DOES NOT mean that the method of attachment is free. And if an OEM LCA did not come w/ the bushing/bearing welded in, welding in a replacement bushing/bearing, regardless of how small the weld is, is altering the LCA. And, it can be argued that since you welded additional metal to the LCA, you have indeed reinforced it, which is expressley prohibited.

This gets back to the "Even though it violates the rules, there's no competitive advantage to be gained, so protesting it is chickenshit." attitude. Point is, if you have to weld a spherical bering into the LCA, that weld has in fact given you a competitive advantage, because it's allowed you to use the spherical bearing.

I looked into trying to engineer some spherical bearings for the LCA's in my VW ala what Harry is talking about as I felt that it was w/in the rules (and that welding the Shine kit in was not).

I look for loopholes in the wording of the rules as much as the next guy, but your interpretation is too much of a stretch. I really don't see how you can argue that welding something to an LCA is not altering the LCA.

But, opinions do differ...

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
 
I gotta go with Bill here.
I think he could have said it a bit simpler though. The rules tell us exactly what we need to know. Unrestricted is not the key word there, "material" is. The material is unrestricted. The design, mounting, number, etc. can't be changed.
 
Good stuff - good stuff..

OK, So if I bring a Gen.1 Rx7 to your next race, with full metal bushings, aka spherical bearings in my Control arms, front and rear, and a tri-link setup for the rear axel and run 1 3/4 seconds faster than I did before, then I would be legal?

Method of attachment for said bearing's accomplished via your approved method of course. (boy.. sacrcasm doesn't make it in the written word does it).

K
 
axel?
Grabbing dictionary....nope don't see it, not in the GCR either.
Illegal!

Where does that spelling come from? I see it all over, in print too. British? Bad Japanese translation?
 
You need a better dikshonery

AXEL
A jump in figure skating that is initiated from the outer forward edge of one skate, followed by one and one-half midair turns and a return to the outer backward edge of the other skate. [After Axel Paulsen (1856-1938), Norwegian figure skater.]

NER

yeah still, wrong...
 
Still looking for understanding here (and understanding that I believe that ANY modification to suspension components or pick-ups is illegal - welding, cutting snap ring grooves, drilling, pinning, staking or whatever)...

Is there a difference between a bearing and a bushing, if they both provide rotation only about the axis defined for movement of the original part?

If I put metal-on-metal roller bearings in a suspension pivot, WITHOUT changing the suspension component or chassis pick up point in ANY way, would that be legal?

Would things be any different if I used a spherical bearing that provided movement in all directions? What if that bearing were made of plastic or a steel ball element that rode on a composite suface?

Has anyone seen a car found illegal for JUST the composition/design of the bushing/bearing (in a case where the suspension component and pick up were completely unmodified)?

Kirk (the other "K")
 
OK,
So you feel it's the material. Well the material is steel and teflon. I haven't changed the mounting or the number of bushings. Any bushing you replace the original with will be of a different design unless it's absolutely the same in everyway except the material. Ever dimension would have to be the same for it not to change in design. Possible but highly unlikely.

The spherical bearing serves the same function as the original. It's metal / teflon / metal the original was metal / rubber / metal. Just the material changed. They are both press fit.
How many people use camber plates that have spherical bearings?
Harry
 
Interesting thread. I don't have my GCR in front of me (lent to a friend), but doens't the ITCS say somehting like the following.

1) Fasteners are free provided they perform the same fastening function?? This would allow substitution of one weld for another.

2)If I recall, somewhere in there it says that you can repairs can be facilitated as long as they use " standard methods" (or somthing like that.. This clause would also seem to permit welded location if you climed that the old bushing was "worn out".

3) I see no problem with shoerical bearings. Heim joints have been used for years on 510 rear subframes. (heck, I even think that is says that you can specifically use them on suspension). To me a sperical bearing is no different (in principle) than a heim joint.

Scott Matre
124 Spider 2.0 - ITB
 
No, fasteners aren't "free"
It's a topic that's been discussed here before.
"Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced..." in a few areas:
Engine
Transmission
Suspension mounting points
Cooling system (clamps, hoses, different wording)
Wheel studs/bolts (again unique wording there)

While suspension mounting points would cover alternate hardware in a spherical bearing setup, a weld isn't a "hardware item", so, no.

As for seam welding the body. According to the ITCS as it's written, body hardware items must be stock. (That can of worms has been opened already, as I mentioned.)

Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:
Interesting thread. I don't have my GCR in front of me (lent to a friend), but doens't the ITCS say somehting like the following.

1) Fasteners are free provided they perform the same fastening function?? This would allow substitution of one weld for another.

2)If I recall, somewhere in there it says that you can repairs can be facilitated as long as they use " standard methods" (or somthing like that.. This clause would also seem to permit welded location if you climed that the old bushing was "worn out".

3) I see no problem with shoerical bearings. Heim joints have been used for years on 510 rear subframes. (heck, I even think that is says that you can specifically use them on suspension). To me a sperical bearing is no different (in principle) than a heim joint.

Scott Matre
124 Spider 2.0 - ITB
Click to expand...



[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited December 07, 2001).]
 
wait a sec, how can a weld (in the sense of retaining a bushing) be considered different from a bolt?? I don't see the separation. (maybe I need to re-read the ITCS?) I say the still repair clause includes this mod, even if the fastener clause does not.. Also, maybe we should include the interpretation of the rule. If heim joints are allowed, make a sperical bushing from brass. then it is a bushing, same as a heim.
Maybe we need to send a formal clarification request to Denver?? (Topeka?)
 
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:
wait a sec, how can a weld (in the sense of retaining a bushing) be considered different from a bolt?? I don't see the separation.
Click to expand...


Tony, nothing personal, but if you don't see the seperation between a weld and a bolt, regardless of the context, then you need to do more than re-read the ITCS. Talk about strained and tortured!
rolleyes.gif



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
 
Bill, I disagree in context. The IT rules say "fastener"; this could be a bolt,screw, clevis, Dzus, C-clip, cotter-pin, lock-nut, racers tape, hood pin, or a "weld". My opinion goes only though as long as the weld is used to fasten a replacement part. A weld to fasten a re-enforcing saddle would not qualify.
 
I guess we'll agree to disagree.

By the way, where do you buy your 'welds' from?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top