Spherical "Bushings"

Originally posted by Geo
...what additional consequences can there be that don't exist today?
Click to expand...
HAH!!! George, you're just not imaginative enough. Trust me, son, I've got some SERIOUS ideas, and the implications of a "no dimensional limitations" ruling in regards to alternate bushing material will be something you will NOT be pleased with.

Think "MoTec" for McPherson strut suspensions.

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:21 PM
...how about a simple letter to the CRB?
[snapback]70614[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the CRB can accept such a request for clarification, given that there's a defined process in the GCR. Earl suggested an alternative of asking for a specific rule change, such as "Allow spherical bushings" or change rule to read "Bushings are free."

The problem with that (good) idea is that it will most likely NOT result in a definitive conclusion. The most likely result of such a request will be either "Thank you for your input" or "Rules are acceptable as written" which tells you absolutely nothing. The best you could hope for, if they thought that these do not belong in IT, is a "Not within the philosophy of Improved Touring", but there's really no way you'd get an "Already allowed" response to the request.

So, we revert back to GCR 13.9. - GA
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:21 PM
For a very current example of this, read some of the discussions on the Prod board, about limited-prep cars.  They're now requesting dry-sumps, full-prep suspensions, modified rods, fully ported heads, etc. etc.  Warning, it's not for the faint of heart!

Greg,

Before you guys spend money on a 13.9, how about a simple letter to the CRB?  Could save some folks some money, and may get us to the point we need to be (a yes/no answer).
[snapback]70614[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

All that will get you is an opinion, not an official ruling where people need to sit sown and discuss, no?

I actually did this for the piston debate and got two different interpretations from the two people I copied...

AB
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 01:05 PM
P.S. Earl and I are finalizing our 13.9 submission; Earl pro-SB, I opposing. We are significantly short of the $250 required for the request. If you want to put your 2 cents (or more) into the idea, best speak up soon.
[snapback]70609[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Greg, what is the address again that you use for Paypal?

I'll send some money.
 
Greg and Andy,

I'm going by what happened w/ the l-p rear disc brakes. I don't believe that anyone filed a 13.9, there was just a question that was asked of the CRB (at the '04 Runoffs Tent Mtg, IIRC), and it ended up making it's way into the rule book. Andy, I'm not suggesting that you improperly use your position on the ITAC, but I can't see where it would hurt to ask this during your next con. call. Or better yet, maybe Peter can bring this up.

If you don't get the result that you want, and still feel the need to file a 13.9, I'll kick some money in too.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 03:42 PM
Andy, I'm not suggesting that you improperly use your position on the ITAC, but I can't see where it would hurt to ask this during your next con. call.  Or better yet, maybe Peter can bring this up.

If you don't get the result that you want, and still feel the need to file a 13.9, I'll kick some money in too.
[snapback]70619[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I knew that! I just think that we are looking for an official ruling, not any one persons interpretation.

AB
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 10 2006, 04:05 PM
I was there back when the class was first subscribed. My mind isn't even that fuzzy, as I was a 19-ish-yr-old college student scratching to be able to keep racing on the odd weekend I didn't have to study for a Mechanical Engineering exam.
[snapback]70609[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

You must play a mean game of shuffleboard, Oldtimer.

Although Greg was familiar with the way that the rule was interpreted at that time, it doesn't mean that any of the current differing 'other' opinions are wrong, it just means that the rule interpretation has changed over time. It's an 'opinion', not a fact. That's why Supreme Court rulings are called 'opinions', not 'facts'. The only 'facts' are defined when something is specifically allowed or disallowed in the rules. Absent that...we're all just throwing darts.

Was the phrase 'alternate materials' used in the first draft because that's all that anyone imagined would be available ? History (racing and otherwise) is replete with examples of people who couldn't read the future.

I'm certainly not a 'strict constructionist', and I feel that 'originalists' are ballast on classes that want to/need to grow. I like...and applaud...innovative interpretations of technical rules, within bounds. Don't mean to keep dragging him in as a 'poster child', but when I saw Bob G's BHP 'Volvos from Hell' rear shock/swaybar linkage, I reread the rulebook and yelled 'BRILLIANT !!!' It was freakin brilliant. That doesn't make him (or me, by proxy) an evil cheater.

I'm agnostic on this issue. The one IT car that actually runs is 'for sale', and the garage is occupied by two different 'Spec' cars, a vintage racer and lotza other crap. In the late 90's I came to love true 'spec' series cars, as it takes all this drama away. Hell...I was probably the very last IT VW guy to still be running stock upper strut bearings instead of spherical bear-ushing camber plates (half-life of a stock VW strut bearing at Nelson Ledges is about 90 minutes...if you wanted to know...). But...future costs to be competitive in any class have to weigh in on any interpretation.

I have no sympathy/empathy for those who argue "...got a big investment in helium-cooled Heim-jointed Wartburg lower control arms, and it's unfair to make me throw them away". Boohoohoo. The remote reservoir shocks thing ? Har...tough luck. I've got over $2K in new/nearly new 'spec' tires that are no longer the 'spec' tire in one series. Boohoo. Nobody ever said this was going to be cheap.

I need to resist the gravitational pull of this thread. Help...
 
Great posts John!

Greg, lets take the next step. It seems to me you've made the case that you think that it's all gone too far, and that the rule clearly doesn't allow us to be where we are!

By my reading, the rule really effectively might as well state, "Suspension bushings must be stock, AND must retain stok characteristics", if we are to take the current material only allowance and follow it to the "No other designs or functions" letter of the law.

And sure, I have schemed of "cassettes" of offset SBs...adjustable too!...sitting in my control arms. Haven't gotten around to them...or a lot of other "cool ideas" I have.

So, we have a situtaion where the rule effectively allows nothing, but everybody has buckets of these things in their car.

Assuming your "inquiry" results in a strict definition, what do we, collectively as a club, do??

Rewrite the (as I stated earlier) poorly written rule?

Make the entire category switch back to stock busings, in new condition? (The oft mentioned, but rarely seen act of stuffing the Genie back in the bottle)

Allow whatever you want just so the actual suspension and body mount components are unmodified? (ie, NO welding, drilling threading etc.)

Add a comment requireing the dimensional centerlines to remain as stock?

Thoughts?
 
"Suspension bushings or bearings not falling under another rule in the ITCS may be modified or replaced with bushings or bearings of alternate material and/or design, as long as (1) no other part is modified to facilitate installation and, (2) such modification or replacement does not effectively relocate the suspension mounting point."

Any rule that just says "bushings" leaves us in the "bushings aren't bearings" pickle.

This would give a lot of people what they seem to say that they want. I confess that I'm not sure WHAT I'd personally like, mostly because I'm still wrestling with the problem of defining ANYTHING in particular, that isn't either "stock" or "free."

K
 
Agreed...drawing the line on an exact definition is difficult, esp as so many varieties exist...even stock.

Pragmatically, I have been thinking along those lines. Good rule writing.... esp on such short notice!
 
IDEA!! just make them legal because we can't enforce the old ecu....my bad, wrong topic. FWIW I have them on my golf because I thought it would be neat to try to make them myself..I'd like to think they take away the movement by the old rubber ones....but I think the guys up front would be there with sb' or blocks of pine. I think the bigger issue as John said, is what is natural progression, rule creep, or taking steps backward. We're at 11 pages for suspension bearings and its been a pretty mild winter!!
jerry

PS Make sure when you protest this you throw in about 95% of camber plates couse they have sb's.
 
Originally posted by HOOSER 99@Jan 10 2006, 10:47 PM


PS Make sure when you protest this you throw in about 95% of camber plates couse they have sb's.
[snapback]70651[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

And why would those be illegal?

AB
 
I don't understand what the big deal is? What are you afriad of with spherical bearings? Does it give someone else an advantage that you do not have? Get real! I just can't see anywhere in the rules where a spherical bearing does not apply as a bushing! :bash_1_:
 
Originally posted by Rabbit07@Jan 11 2006, 06:12 PM
I don't understand what the big deal is?  What are you afriad of with spherical bearings?  Does it give someone else an advantage that you do not have?  Get real!  I just can't see anywhere in the rules where a spherical bearing does not apply as a bushing! :bash_1_:
[snapback]70729[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I don't know who you are asking this of but it really doesn't matter. We are debating the legality of spherical bearings as bushings as it pertains to a rule that says a MATERIAL only change may be made. Some agree, some don't.

It has nothing to do with advantages or not.

AB
 
Just to throw a little more confusion into the mix. From the WCTC rules

2.9.8.6: Suspension components shall be the stock OE pieces, but they may be
reinforced. Heim joints are permitted on suspension components. Standard suspension
bushings may be replaced with solid, or spherical, bushings.
Click to expand...

:o
 
Is there now an expectation that the Club Racing Board sets rules in parity with Pro Racing series language and intent - is a ruleset not even in the GCR valid as support for interpretation? They aren't the same group are they - the series has its own rule board or am I missing something?

Oh and that must suck for the WCTC - nowhere in that rule is alternative materials permitted. So while the replacements may be solid bushings or spherical bushings they must be OEM material. :P I don't see any indication of free or unrestricted in the rules!
 
Ed,

I put that in there simply to point out the use of the term spherical bushing. I'm not saying that Pro rules should be used for Club Racing. We've had several people here claim that a spherical bearing is not a bushing, etc. By citing the section of the Pro rules, I simply wanted to show that there are some people w/in racing, and w/in the SCCA, that consider a spherical bearing a bushing. I put this up for the people that were saying "No way, no how is a spherical bearing a bushing, and to say it is, is a strained and tortured interpretation of the rules." The goal was to simply show that it's feasible to interpret it as such.

However, using Pro rules in Club Racing makes ALMOST as much sense as using GT rules in IT. :o ;)
 
Nice find Bill :023:
Further proof that we're wasting time here.
I love my spherical bearing attached suspensions.

I've got a new Mantra.... stop nit picking and lets fix the REAL problems... ...DISPLACEMENT and COMPRESSION! The SCCA needs to supply every region with 2 cheap tools. A compression guage and a displacement pump!

A) Compression Gauge - to get a rough figure on cylinder pressures. Simple and fast to check. Post everybody's cylinder pressure on a sheet over the course of a weekend. Random checks...Post during practice a few car #s that need to tech to have it done...or whever method works for whatever region. Simple!

B ) Displacement Pump - check using a simple plastic graduated cylinder with a floating plastic piston in it. Crank the engine over a few times (no ignition), check one cylinder and Voila!

Doing these 2 things would virtually eliminate all the real effective cheating.
 
The only other thing I'd add to that Bill, is a dial indicator, to check cam profiles with. Displacement, compression, and cam profile will get probably 80 - 90 percent of the real performance gains.
 
Ah figures I mistook your post's intent Bill. I thought it was an argument for when a ruleset intends SBs they list them. Sorry for the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top