Spherical "Bushings"

[turboICE]

BTW I don't think a factory design limitation should be the justification behind the legality of a part. It is legal or not.

I think SBs are legal and as a result the 240SX can be taken to full prep of 5" ride height and as a result the 100lbs added in the process for the items mentioned are fair. But if I can't get to 5" legally that is another story.

If SBs are deemed illegal - OK. But then that changes mine and I think many others views of the competitive potential of the 240SX. I don't think 5" should be arrived at illegally (altering the geometry of the pivots to not bind at 5" for instance). But if a car cannot legally get to 5" that is a factor affecting performance potential - that should offset torque displacement etc.

If full legal IT prep results in a higher than 5" ride height that should be a subtractor as torque can result in an adder.

Yes I believe there are front running cars that don't need SBs - but that doesn't mean they are or should be illegal.

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:40 PM
But if a car cannot legally get to 5" that is a factor affecting performance potential - that should offset torque displacement etc.

[snapback]72349[/snapback]​

So, does that mean you would support dropping 100# off my car (and all others with McPherson struts)? If SBs were intended to assist in a suspension geometry problem, what do the McP cars get? I can't lower the car much below stock ride height without the suspension geometry going into "dangerous scary" territory...

Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:32 PM

As was said in the process thread - full prep was assumed in the process.  To me full IT prep is lower the CG as much as legally possible. If you don't do that, well then it just isn't full IT prep any longer.  The easiest way to lower CG is to lower the car to the allowed 5".  5 1/4" or 7" isn't full IT prep and the competitor should not expect to compete against fully prepped cars of the same class if they are not fully prepped.  Full IT prep for suspension should have the same principles as a discussion of whether or not an engine and its exhaust have been fully prepped.

[snapback]72345[/snapback]​

We will agree to disagree here. Certain cars can utilize rules/limitations/allowances in different manners. Just because the minimum spec is 5" doesn't mean that it defines 100% IT prep. You lower your application as low as it can go and be fast.

IT engine prep for non-rotories is all equal. Some engines can take advantage of alloances more than others. Does that mean those 'Porsche-type' (factory optimized) engines aren't built to 100% IT-prep?

Some cars have to run higher than others in order to 'work'. There is no way to quantify 1/2 inch. 1 inch, 2 inches more ride height...then compensate for additional shock travel please...

I hear you, but it can't/shouldn't be done.

AB

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 02:58 PM
So, does that mean you would support dropping 100# off my car (and all others with McPherson struts)? If SBs were intended to assist in a suspension geometry problem, what do the McP cars get? I can't lower the car much below stock ride height without the suspension geometry going into "dangerous scary" territory...

Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

[snapback]72353[/snapback]​

If the relative nature of your car's suspension vs others was not considered in its process and you were able to support that it should have been been a contributing factor, then yes I would support you persuing that.

If something were in the rules that permitted you to legally be lower would you utilize it? Or would you say ahh forget it I will stay at a higher ride height?

If you were to identify additional modifications over and above the McP rules already in place that would help you lower the car and fit in the IT spirit - I would also support you persuing that course.

It would be a lot easier to accept and get on with it, if my legal car wasn't subject to an intended protest.

I can accept and get on with it when I know if there is something major I need to do that completely changes the core nature of my car.

As part of "we" accepting, you also could have accepted things, sucked it up, etc - you picked the battle. I would never have told you to accept something that sincerely bothered you, I have gone on accepting that it was and is your right to persue a sincere belief, even while disagreeing with your view. My hope would be that you wouldn't expect more of someone else than yourself and that maybe they have the right to persue their sincere beliefs especially when it is theirs that is being attacked.

My real concern now is that hopefully there is some resolution with sufficient time for me to do something about it.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 03:16 PM
I hear you, but it can't/shouldn't be done.

AB

[snapback]72358[/snapback]​

You heard what I am saying, how much more can someone ask for I do appreciate it.

And if my expectations are or have been such that the process would have to be more complex than it can or should be, then having that communicated to me is excellent as well. (Even if I disagree because it takes me no effort to disagree that it would be more of a burden than justified as opposed to the extraordinary effort the ITAC put forth without being told to make the process even more complex. )

In all honesty I can understand, appreciate and respect that, and thanks by the way. My question was answered and now I know.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 01:58 PM


Or, do we just accept and work within the limitations that God and the auto industry gave us, suck it up, and go racing...?

[snapback]72353[/snapback]​

Bingo!

We all chose our horses, and we have to live with that choice.

And.....IF SBs were disallowed, I absotively posilutley GUARANTEE, that some ingenious guy will figure out a way so that you can lower your car to whatever height you like, and keep your suspension happy and non binding. Might be expensive, might be a pain, but it COULD be done. Do we WANT that? Well, no, but this path of "was my suspension considered completely before weight was added" thinking is a moot point.

One, you don't know the answer to the SB issue, and
Two, it is not unworkable regardless of the answer.

 

[turboICE]

If Greg's interpretation were to prove out I couldn't calculate the lowered angles and have the poly bushings formed with an static angled inner cylinder to prevent binding as Greg's interpretation would mean that the static inner cylinder would have to be at a right angle to the edge as oem would be.

 

[turboICE]

Also we choose our horses with a certain amount of expectations - until Greg brought it up in an unrelated thread six months ago - I had never heard anyone interpret them as illegal. I buy a car from a steward with SBs that had had SBs since 1997 and all I hear about is SBs aren't only legal but necessary for the car, for 2 years I am competing in a car I believe to be legal and if I was to be told now that my car was illegal that whole time yeah it would be much more than annoying. It isn't like I was coming in clueless, I did the research, I asked around, I bought a car. As a new competitor it is going to annoy me that I didn't get the horse I chose.

Greg was my instructor at my second school, he knew the car I drove, apparently knew that the majority of these cars have at least some SBs in their rear suspension and never said a word about it then. It would have been nice for that kind of instruction as well as the quality instruction received on my driving.

The thing is I like Greg but not so sure about his feelings about me now and it is likely my instructor is going to protest me the next time I see him.

If these are deemed illegal - consider what the impact of poorly written rules combined with unenforced rules that are apparently being knowingly broken without protest previously has on newcomers to the class when all of sudden the clarification is on them.

None of this should be taken to mean in anyway do I think the longevity of their existence and use should make them legal - rules should not work that way - they are legal or not in their own right. It goes back to my question on short shifters and extended periods of nonprotest though - you only hurt the class and new comers when you don't protest what you believe is illegal. If Greg felt they were illegal for over a decade - why protest in 2006 all of sudden - why not protest it when you know it. The class would be better off and no one since that point would be having any issues if it had been cleared up back then. If all of you have been letting this fester for this long it isn't my fault - and I didn't get the horse I chose.

If they come out of this illegal - I am going to be pissed because they could have been determine illegal a long time ago and I could have removed them when I got the stupid car along with the short shifter I removed.

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 06:38 PM
Greg was my instructor at my second school...would have been nice for that kind of instruction...

Dude, low blow! Driving instructors neither know nor care about the legality of students' cars. If I see something obvious I'd be happy to point it out, but I hardly spent time looking over your car in detail...

...not so sure about his feelings about me now...

Unchanged (that should get him to overthinking WAY too much... )

...why protest in 2006 all of sudden - why not protest it when you know it.

The whole SB discussion popped up because I started to realize just how many people were using these things and I truly do not believe they are within either the spirit or the letter of the rules.

Why now? Hell, because I've thought they're illegal it never even crossed my mind that folks were using them until I heard about it a year ago or so. I'm guessing some time in 04 it was brought up on this forum (by Geo, IIRC) and that's when I first learned of them; we had a spirited argument then, too!

As I paid more attention I learned their use was rapidly increasing, and some time last year we learned a major Honda parts guy was actually modifying the control arms on CRXs to make them fit! At that point it became a bit more than veiled disinterest; added to the cramming of MoTec into stock ECY housings it became a festering wound.

Couple that to the fact that until 2004 I was wallowing in ITS (so rules infractions didn't matter); it finally came to a head and I want(ed) to nip this flower right in the bud.

In the end, I strongly suspect that this issue will be resolved at either the CRB or CoA level, and I fully expect the Club to come back and declare SBs legal. However, this allowance will very likely not be due to the fact that they've been legal to the letter or spirit rules as written, or that anyone made a clear logical argument in their favor, but rather they'll be declared legal in the same light as Motec is clearly illegal to the spirit but legal to the letter: a clever, tortured genie that has been released from the bottle but the Club does not have the intenstinal fortitude to cram it back in.

The final result will be an official blessing of a tortured interpretation of a basic and clear rule, leading competitors (including myself) to deep-read the rules to the point of exhaustion, looking to get that next loophole installed on my car for such a length of time that the statute of limitations iexpires and we can consider it to be de facto - and de jure - legal. - GA

 

[ddewhurst]

Ed, you talk about your rearend with S.B. I don't know or understand your rearend but I will ask a question. When you read the rules of what can & can't be done to your rearend might the S.B. be legal through some rearend rule ? Other than the Bushing Material rule.

This on going verbal match is going no place.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy
Dude, low blow! Driving instructors neither know nor care about the legality of students' cars. If I see something obvious I'd be happy to point it out, but I hardly spent time looking over your car in detail...

By no means intended as such (and certainly accurate enough for most instructors but I had put you on a higher pedestal ) - if this just boiled over in your mind recently, my bust. But if the temptest was brewing back then, as a potential future competitor I thought it may have come to mind that hey alot of these cars have SBs. I mean almost everyone I had spoken with up to that point at some point in the conversation about my preparation (at the summit school for instance) had brought up "you know that car really needs SBs, right?" I mean this topic came up a bunch when I talked to SCCA people at NASA and started going to SCCA events - but I hadn't had any warning that there was underlying backlash to it. Expectations may have been misplaced - I am sure if it was on your mind you would have said something then. Probably in my frustration I am grabbing at straws at how I could have prevented being in this situation of uncertainty as I get to the end of January.

Also, hey maybe you were too focused on keeping me on course and not locking up to worry about anything else...

Originally posted by GregAmy
Unchanged (that should get him to overthinking WAY too much... )

LOL - Nah as long as it is unchanged.

As I paid more attention I learned their use was rapidly increasing, and some time last year we learned a major Honda parts guy was actually modifying the control arms on CRXs to make them fit! At that point it became a bit more than veiled disinterest

Now see that is just wrong. (Not sure if that is in reference to racing a honda or modifying the arms themselves - but still just wrong.)

In the end, I strongly suspect that this issue will be resolved at either the CRB or CoA level, and I fully expect the Club to come back and declare SBs legal. However, this allowance will very likely not be due to the fact that they've been legal to the letter or spirit rules as written, or that anyone made a clear logical argument in their favor, but rather they'll be declared legal in the same light as Motec is clearly illegal to the spirit but legal to the letter: a clever, tortured genie that has been released from the bottle but the Club does not have the intenstinal fortitude to cram it back in.

I hope so on the first part. However, I don't hope so for that reason. I hope so because it was intended. If it wasn't intended despite how unhappy I will be I hope not - because one day that way of making decisions is just going to bite me to someone elses benefit when I feel as strongly as you do. I want the right answer, not the convenient one. But we all want stuff...

The final result will be an official blessing of a tortured interpretation of a basic and clear rule, leading competitors (including myself) to deep-read the rules to the point of exhaustion, looking to get that next loophole installed on my car for such a length of time that the statute of limitations iexpires and we can consider it to be de facto - and de jure - legal. - GA

See you need to be asking your students do they really know what they are getting themselves into and do they really need all this?

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 26 2006, 08:39 PM
Ed, you talk about your rearend with S.B. I don't know or understand your rearend but I will ask a question. When you read the rules of what can & can't be done to your rearend might the S.B. be legal through some rearend rule ? Other than the Bushing Material rule.

This on going verbal match is going no place.

[snapback]72413[/snapback]​

Not sure if that is some sort of bizarro code or not! I never mentioned my rearend - that only involves getting a seat that I fit in that also fits in the car!

Eccentrics don't work - it isn't a camber toe issue with lengths between the link pivots. The geometry changes at dropped heights takes the link movement off plane - it is the angle at the pivot not the location of the center. (If that was what you were getting at.)

 

[lateapex911]

Dude...In a million years, Greg isn't going to go through your car and render judgement. His job is to help you get through the process, to hit the high points. There is just not enough time in a school to get too deep into it.

He (the club) wants you top drive consistently, to have your eyes open and your wits about you, to have a good GCR knowledge as it relates to procedures, to pay attention to yellow flags etc, and of course, to not wreck your car or hit anyone!

I submit that I am sure he made those points clear to you!

IF you had asked his opinion on other subjects, I am sure my friend would have been happy to render just that....and it's usually a good one.

I don't often disagree with him, but on the bushing issue I do. I think the intent was to allow you to swap the stock parts for whatever you wanted to put in there, so long as you weren't adding gussets, boring out larger holes or otherwise mucking with the stock components. I say that because the rule, if taken in the most strict manner, is essentially a rule that allows nothing. And I know thats not the case.

Regardless of my thinking, I am sure the subject WILL be cleared up in short order. Stay tuned and lets not jump off bridges prematurely!

 

[turboICE]

Yeah the instructor shoulda asked me about it was definitely over the top - so it is probably time for me to step back a bit...

He made those points and more very well - there was no lacking of quality on his part. The same couldn't be said for me, especially coming out with spent tires.

 

[Tristan Smith]

This whole debate is moot. Spherical Bearings are legal. They have been for years. They have been questioned by folks to SCCA National, and they were deemed legal. So let it go people. If SBs get your panties in a wad. Don't use them. The rules say any bushing material may be used. That means metal that swivels. Last I check metal was a material. You can use rubber that distorts, or delrin which doesn't. It's all good. We can also sit here and debate all sorts of rules and their intent, but the fact still remains, that SBs are legal.

 

[Greg Amy]

Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying that for us! God, that was sooo easy...

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith@Jan 27 2006, 10:06 PM
This whole debate is moot. Spherical Bearings are legal. They have been for years. They have been questioned by folks to SCCA National, and they were deemed legal. So let it go people. If SBs get your panties in a wad. Don't use them. The rules say any bushing material may be used. That means metal that swivels. Last I check metal was a material. You can use rubber that distorts, or delrin which doesn't. It's all good. We can also sit here and debate all sorts of rules and their intent, but the fact still remains, that SBs are legal.

[snapback]72530[/snapback]​

WOW,

While your at it two more questions;

What is the meaning of life?
Why is the sky blue?



Philosopher and beer drinker........R

 

[ddewhurst]

Tristan, if bearings are bushings & bushings are bearings why are there two seperate rules for Production cars ? One ruel for unrestricted suspension & one rule for restricted suspension. Being that you have the IT bushing rule figured out it should be real simple for you to explain these two production rules. I need most of the suport understanding the rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

PCS Rules:

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are unrestricted. Adjustable Spherical bearings or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.

 

[Knestis]

Don't bother there, DD. He had 12 pages of presentation of that position. It's a lot easier to just believe, rather than think critically about something (see also, US Foreign Policy, Culture Wars, and Tooth Fairy, et al.)

K

 

[Joe Harlan]

Tristan, if bearings are bushings & bushings are bearings why are there two seperate rules for Production cars ? One ruel for unrestricted suspension & one rule for restricted suspension. Being that you have the IT bushing rule figured out it should be real simple for you to explain these two production rules. I need most of the suport understanding the rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

PCS Rules:

PRODUCTION car UNRESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule 17.1.1.D.5.d.4.

Suspension bushings are unrestricted. Adjustable Spherical bearings or rod ends are permitted on all suspension components.

PRODUCTION car RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) rule 17.1.1.D.6.d.5.

Bushing material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.
[/b]

David please do not bring that unwashed production rule over here. In the unrestricted section of the book they are indicating that Heims and specicals may be used every where since noon of the parts have to be original anylonger. The limited section falls on stock parts with bushing replacement and baby a bearing is a bushing and all of the pissing around here won't chnge that fact..

 

[Bill Miller]

This whole debate is moot. Spherical Bearings are legal. They have been for years. They have been questioned by folks to SCCA National, and they were deemed legal. So let it go people. If SBs get your panties in a wad. Don't use them. The rules say any bushing material may be used. That means metal that swivels. Last I check metal was a material. You can use rubber that distorts, or delrin which doesn't. It's all good. We can also sit here and debate all sorts of rules and their intent, but the fact still remains, that SBs are legal.
[/b]

NOW you tell us. You could have saved us all 12 pages of this stuff!!!