Spherical "Bushings"

[turboICE]

The thing is Greg, you now have me second guessing. Not that I didn't need more tuning on the car at any rate, but now I am wondering if I focused too much on CG, compensating with spring and static camber and not enough on whether I could get the same or better results rasing the car (out of bind), lighter springs and stiffer ASBs to reduce the body roll contributing to the "beyond level" LCA...

If I could raise the car an inch with the same or better results - it would help in so many ways including possibly the shell being prepped now could use the brand new energy suspension bushings I already have on the shelf rather than $2,000 in sphericals yet to be bought for the new car and I might actually be able to put the car on and off the trailer without all sorts of gyrations regarding the terrain the tow vehicle and the trailer are on and approach angle so as not to rip up the ramp or the exhaust yet again.

 

[Bill Miller]

The thing is Greg, you now have me second guessing. Not that I didn't need more tuning on the car at any rate, but now I am wondering if I focused too much on CG, compensating with spring and static camber and not enough on whether I could get the same or better results rasing the car (out of bind), lighter springs and stiffer ASBs to reduce the body roll contributing to the "beyond level" LCA...

If I could raise the car an inch with the same or better results - it would help in so many ways including possibly the shell being prepped now could use the brand new energy suspension bushings I already have on the shelf rather than $2,000 in sphericals yet to be bought for the new car and I might actually be able to put the car on and off the trailer without all sorts of gyrations regarding the terrain the tow vehicle and the trailer are on and approach angle so as not to rip up the ramp or the exhaust yet again.
[/b]

:119: :119: :119:

Geez Ed, are they stainless or gold??

 

[bldn10]

To me there are 2 reasons that I remain in this discussion: First, because I think SBs are illegal and perhaps, just perhaps, someone reading this may be empowered enough to file a protest and we can get a definitive ruling. Or it could lead to a Rule clarification/modification. Second, I think there is something to be gained in the long run if people's thought processes re Rule interpretations are harmonized. Forgive me but I am a lawyer and I try to approach these issues objectively and apply the same techiniques to interpreting the GCR as I would to a statute, contract, or administrative regulation.

I am impressed w/ the creativity and intricacy w/ which many here on both sides have posited their arguments. However, IMO many of the arguments are simply faulty in logic and/or rely on extraneous factors that should never come into play. Any person's subjective desire that a Rule be interpreted a certain way because it will benefit him/her is totally irrelevant. Likewise, that a particular car needs a certain questionable mod in order to be competitive has nothing to do w/ the determination of whether that mod is legal or not per the Rule. That is starting w/ the conclusion and working backwards. Words are generally given their usual and plain meaning unless otherwise defined. Objectively unambiguous language is not to be subjected to interpretation and parsing to the nth degree. Indeed, GCR 1.2.4. says right up front that "The GCR shall not be given a strained or tortured interpretation and shall be applied in a logical manner...."

Thus, when the GCR simply says that bushing material is free, the only possible questions are the meanings of "bushing," "material." and "free." (Now, if Bill Clinton was an SCCA driver we could debate what "is" is but that's another topic altogether. ) For better or worse, right or wrong, "bushing" is defined in the GCR glossary as a "sleeve or tubular insert" that has a certain purpose. The proposition that, therefore, anything that serves that purpose is a bushing w/i the meaning of the GCR is not correct. Indeed, if anything, the inclusion of the purpose language would tend to restrict the definition rather than expand it; i.e. it provides the standard by which ITCS 17.1.4.D. ("No permitted component /modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.") can be applied. It says that the purpose of a bushing is basically to fill a hole - it says nothing about freeing up the suspension, allowing movement in other planes, etc. "Material" is pretty straight forward - the substance of which the bushing is made. "Material" does not implicate any particular design or function, it's just the stuff the thing is made of. And the thing is a sleeve or tubular insert. So all it says, people, is that you can use a sleeve or tubular insert made out of something different from your OEM sleeve or tubular insert. I do think that, because of the "stock" basis of IT, the design of the OEM bushing is acceptable even if it is not a simple sleeve or tubular insert.

So, when Tristan says: "Much like spherical bushings. They fit the letter of the current rule. 'Bushing materials are free'. But many here seem to argue that SB's don't fit the intent.", my response has to be (and is) absolutely not! SBs DO NOT fit the letter of the rule NOR the intent. You cannot call a drastic change in OEM bushing design, one that even takes it out of the realm of a sleeve or tubular insert, only a change in material. While I disgree w/ Tristan's logic and conclusion, he (and Ed) has made compelling arguments why SBs should be allowed, at least in some circumstances, and his position may well ultimately carry the day.

Now, about "free" - if the rule says bushing material is free why have I been paying for them?

FWIW I was just talking to a buddy who recently installed a set of SBs all around and he said he heard that the ITAC (or someone - he called it ad hoc committee) was in the process of taking some action that would make SBs clearly legal. If that is so, so be it - if the Club wants them to be legal, it is our Club and we can allow whatever we want, but the way to do it is by changing the rules not by strained interpretations of the existing ones. While I would personally have rathered the change go the other way, I am encouraged that perhaps this discussion did lead to something worthwhile. Democracy in action!

 

[turboICE]

:119: :119: :119:

Geez Ed, are they stainless or gold??
[/b]

OK - $1500. Alot of joints.

Front lower arm bushings $237

Front tension rod bushings $237

Rear lower arm/upper arms bushing set (10 bushings total) $750

Rear upper spindle bushings $288

I am impressed w/ the creativity and intricacy w/ which many here on both sides have posited their arguments. However, IMO many of the arguments are simply faulty in logic and/or rely on extraneous factors that should never come into play. Any person's subjective desire that a Rule be interpreted a certain way because it will benefit him/her is totally irrelevant. Likewise, that a particular car needs a certain questionable mod in order to be competitive has nothing to do w/ the determination of whether that mod is legal or not per the Rule. That is starting w/ the conclusion and working backwards. Words are generally given their usual and plain meaning unless otherwise defined. Objectively unambiguous language is not to be subjected to interpretation and parsing to the nth degree. Indeed, GCR 1.2.4. says right up front that "The GCR shall not be given a strained or tortured interpretation and shall be applied in a logical manner...." [/b]

I will agree with most of the substance of that particularly the logic flaws of interpreter desired outcome in attempting to determine the meaning.

Thus, when the GCR simply says that bushing material is free, the only possible questions are the meanings of "bushing," "material." and "free." (Now, if Bill Clinton was an SCCA driver we could debate what "is" is but that's another topic altogether. ) For better or worse, right or wrong, "bushing" is defined in the GCR glossary as a "sleeve or tubular insert" that has a certain purpose. The proposition that, therefore, anything that serves that purpose is a bushing w/i the meaning of the GCR is not correct. Indeed, if anything, the inclusion of the purpose language would tend to restrict the definition rather than expand it; i.e. it provides the standard by which ITCS 17.1.4.D. ("No permitted component /modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.") can be applied. It says that the purpose of a bushing is basically to fill a hole - it says nothing about freeing up the suspension, allowing movement in other planes, etc. "Material" is pretty straight forward - the substance of which the bushing is made. "Material" does not implicate any particular design or function, it's just the stuff the thing is made of. And the thing is a sleeve or tubular insert. So all it says, people, is that you can use a sleeve or tubular insert made out of something different from your OEM sleeve or tubular insert. I do think that, because of the "stock" basis of IT, the design of the OEM bushing is acceptable even if it is not a simple sleeve or tubular insert.[/b]

However, as a CPA who spends far too much of his time in the areas of securities law and financial instrument contracts editing legal documents in negotiations to make them readable because lawyers don't want to I will disagree here.

The relevant definition from the glossary is not bushing. As the bushings being discussed are in the suspension "suspension bushing" is the relevant glossary term to be relied upon. It is implicit by the location of the rule in the section that it is in, that they are referring to suspension bushings in the rule not just any old bushing on the car.

Suspension Bushing - A hollow cylindrical mounting component which acts as a bearing, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension component and attachment point.[/b]

And the use of the term bearing in that definition is further defined in the glossary:

Bearing - A mechanical component provided to allow connected parts to move with respect to one another in a manner consistent with durability and minimal friction.[/b]

By substitution, making the full definition of what the component being refered to as material is free:

A hollow cylindrical mounting component which acts as a mechanical component provided to allow connected parts to move with respect to one another in a manner consistent with durability and minimal friction, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension component and attachment point.[/b]

That is an objective nontortured interpretation of the subject of the material free rule - without regard to desired usage or outcome.

A spherical bushing/bearing meets that definition and does not perform an otherwise prohibited function and is made out of a "material"; which as has been stated is free - though my wallet disagrees.

And now there have been multiple indications within this thread that an answer will be coming to clarify in any event.

 

[Greg Amy]

Hmm, then is the above McP or not?[/b]

No, it is not.

Note that your knuckle is located at the top via the "rear upper arm", not the shock. The spring and damper assembly is a load-carrying device, but not a suspension-locating device. If you removed the shock/spring assembly the car would simply drop but the knuckle would still be located in all other planes. As such, your suspension geometry is not determined by the shock/spring assembly, the shock/spring simply keeps the fuel tank from sparking on the pavement...

...could use the brand new energy suspension bushings I already have on the shelf rather than $2,000 in sphericals...[/b]

As I understand it, the problem with the S13/14s suspension is not necessarily geometry, per se, it's that as you lower the car some of the bushings get bent in such a way that the suspension binds, creating a significant rise in effective spring rate. In that case, an articulating spherical bearing eliminates that bushing bind and allows the suspension to move freely...

 

[turboICE]

No, it is not.

Note that your knuckle is located at the top via the "rear upper arm", not the shock. The spring and damper assembly is a load-carrying device, but not a suspension-locating device. If you removed the shock/spring assembly the car would simply drop but the knuckle would still be located in all other planes. As such, your suspension geometry is not determined by the shock/spring assembly, the shock/spring simply keeps the fuel tank from sparking on the pavement...
[/b]

OK same page then. My assumption had been that link support for the lower knuckle only (whether A arm or dual linkage) was McP and lower/upper support for the knuckle was other than McP which I would normally think of as "multi-link".

The locating function rather than support function was where I was off in my understanding.

 

[RacerBill]

The relevant definition from the glossary is not bushing. As the bushings being discussed are in the suspension "suspension bushing" is the relevant glossary term to be relied upon. It is implicit by the location of the rule in the section that it is in, that they are referring to suspension bushings in the rule not just any old bushing on the car.
And the use of the term bearing in that definition is further defined in the glossary:
By substitution, making the full definition of what the component being refered to as material is free:
That is an objective nontortured interpretation of the subject of the material free rule - without regard to desired usage or outcome.

A spherical bushing/bearing meets that definition and does not perform an otherwise prohibited function and is made out of a "material"; which as has been stated is free - though my wallet disagrees.

And now there have been multiple indications within this thread that an answer will be coming to clarify in any event.
[/b]

Ed. Thanks for bring back the glossary definition of 'suspension bushing'. I quoted that back in post 174, but it went right by!!!

I am not sure that I like that they are legal, but have to agree that they are.

 

[Gary L]

However, as a CPA who spends far too much of his time in the areas of securities law and financial instrument contracts editing legal documents in negotiations to make them readable because lawyers don't want to I will disagree here.

[/b]

Ed

I think you've been hanging around the lawyers way too much... you're beginning to think just like them.

If we're going to rely on the glossary to define the legality (or lack thereof) of SB's used as suspension bushings, I would submit the following, much simpler logic:

- As you have pointed out, the glossary defines a Suspension Bushing as "... a component that acts as a bearing....". (Emphasis mine)

- The glossary definition of "Bearing" is separate and distinct from the glossary definition of "Spherical Bearing". This is because a spherical bearing has additonal features, and is capable of additional functions, beyond those of a bearing. Please note the use of the words "concave", "convex", "axes" (plural), etc., in the SB definition.

Spherical Bearing - A load-bearing connector in which the central portion is convex and the outer portion is concave, allowing both angular displacements of the axes and relative rotation.[/b]

- This makes SB's illegal for use as suspension bushings. A suspension bushing can be (and is) a bearing, by glossary definition. But it's definition does not include the separately defined device known as a spherical bearing.

 

[turboICE]

A valid view and position that could be taken indeed, though not necessarily conclusive to exclusion of other views.

Would you say that such an interpretation is a uniquely attainable result? Or is the wording such that alternate valid views can legitimately be held that would require authoritative judgment to reasonably settle?

All spherical bearings are bearings, not all bearings are spherical bearings.

Does the definition of bearing or its contextual use within the definition of suspension bushing, limit in anyway the design characteristics of the bearing used as a suspension bushing?

The bearing definition is one which focuses on the function of the subject of the definition covering many bearing constructs and designs without excluding any specific design of them from its own definition. Spherical qualifies the the functional definition of bearing by adding specifics surrounding its design. The design qualification of the function of a bearing does not eliminate its ability to meet the function of a "bearing".

Wheras the rule by implication limits the bushing to be discussed to suspension bushings, the definition of suspension bushing or bearing does not exclude the use of a spherical bearing as a bearing in the suspension bushing.

A view I believe is validly held and supportable - but likewise is not one that is a uniquely attainable result. I believe only authoritative judgment could settle the alternate views that can be validly held with the existing language and no precedent to reference.

 

[bldn10]

My apologies to Ed and RacerBill for missing the existence of a definition of "suspension bushing."

However, I don't think that changes my analysis or conclusion. Ed, I agree w/ you totally up to the point of your conclusion, which (sorry to sound like a broken record) I do not think logically follows from your expanded definition. The reason I disagree is the same as before - first, you are using the "purpose" or "function" language to modify the defining language. The new definitional portion simply uses the words "hollow cylindrical mounting component" instead of "sleeve or tubular insert." So I'm back at the same place as before - you first have to have a hollow cylindrical mounting component, and you don't have that if it has a ball or rotating joint inside. [Does someone have a cross-section view of one of these things?] Just because a suspension bushing "acts as a bearing" does not at all mean that all bearings are (suspension) bushings. Second, you are still ignoring the fact that the only allowed modification to the OEM bushing is to the material from which it is made - it simply does not say that you can use a different design altogether. Let me ask you this: is there any design of suspension bushing that you don't think would be legal under the current rule? How about a superconducting magnetic levitating frictionless no-contact bushing/bearing thingamajig? And what about the "constrained motion" part? Aren't we talking about SBs allowing virtually unconstrained motion?

 

[turboICE]

In my view there is no bushing design that would fit in the unmodified OEM linkages and structural components that I know of that wouldn't be legal.

Oh absolutely if it wouldn't need a power source which itself would be illegal I would be totally for maglev bushings! Perhaps if the power source were minaturized and was wholely integrated and selfcontained - along with wheel bearings and strut cartridges maglev style. (Sorry too much GT4 in the Nike prototype - specs and pix: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php...7&postcount=25)

As I brought up earlier in the thread, when installed spherical bearings constrain motion more so than their poly brethren. The angle off of the plane perpendicular to the outer race surface is a spec measurement in spherical bearings. Poly would allow to squish off that plane much farther than the outer race would permit the inner race to move when you have a bolt going through the inner race. I would think that constraining motion more would satisfy the definition more as well, rather than less so.

Of course this all has the underlying assumption that the constrained motion referred to is constraining motion away from the axis or the designed plane of travel. SBs constrain both motions much better than poly bushings.

The minimal friction piece would indicate that the motion about the axis and within the designed plane of trave is intended to be unconstrained to the extent physics permits.

Ed, I agree w/ you totally up to the point of your conclusion, which (sorry to sound like a broken record) I do not think logically follows from your expanded definition. [/b]

Couldn't that be the definition of poor language in a rule when parties are able to agree with each other totally up to the point of conclusion? And well written when they agree with each other through the conclusion? (I know this is extreme and unrealisitic - but idealized goals are sometimes useful in striving towards them rather than away from them just the same.)

And by the time threads get into the teens most of us start to sound like broken records.

"Hmmm, maybe they didn't understand me the first ten times I said this...."

 

[Gary L]

Wheras the rule by implication limits the bushing to be discussed to suspension bushings, the definition of suspension bushing or bearing does not exclude the use of a spherical bearing as a bearing in the suspension bushing.[/b]

Actually IMO, the definition does exlude the SB. To quote you, "...not all bearings are spherical bearings". Absolutely true, and stock suspension bushings fall precisely in that category; they are bearings, but not spherical bearings. To replace them with spherical bearings breaks ITCS rule number one... If it doesn't say "yes", it means "no".

A view I believe is validly held and supportable - but likewise is not one that is a uniquely attainable result. I believe only authoritative judgment could settle the alternate views that can be validly held with the existing language and no precedent to reference.[/b]

In response to this, I can only say WRT my earlier comment about you and lawyers... "Your Honor, I rest my case.

 

[lateapex911]

Wow...you guys must have long lunch hours, or type awfully fast, LOL.

Just a little advice, stay tuned on the whole matter and it will be resolved shortly. (in other words, there shouldn't be any needs for protesting someone to get a definitive ruling.)

 

[turboICE]

What about cartridge bearings? LOL

 

[lateapex911]

What about cartridge bearings? LOL
[/b]

:119:

 

[Geo]

What about cartridge bearings? LOL
[/b]

It depends upon what your definition of the word "is" is.

 

[bldn10]

"In my view there is no bushing design that would fit in the unmodified OEM linkages and structural components that I know of that wouldn't be legal."

Well then, there we go. Now you have to concede that a rule that simply says that bushing material is free could not possibly have really meant that bushings themselves are free as long as they require no other mods. If that were the case then they'd have just said that, as they did numerous times throughout the GCR. You have now essentially admitted that your interpretation leads to an absurdity, and that is the death-knell for any interpretation, especially in the face of alternative interpretations that do not lead to absurdities, that seem to implement the drafters' intent, are more w/i the Class Philosophy, etc., etc.

"Oh absolutely if it wouldn't need a power source which itself would be illegal I would be totally for maglev bushings! Perhaps if the power source were minaturized and was wholely integrated and selfcontained - along with wheel bearings and strut cartridges maglev style."

But, have you not noticed that there is also a not uncommon thought process on this forum that goes like this: If the rules allow X; but for X to work correctly it needs Y, which is otherwise illegal; then Y must be allowed too as part of X? E.g.: the rules allow an aftermarket fuel pump and pressure regulator; for the regulator to work correctly you may need to modify the fuel rail; so you can modify the fuel rail although no where does it say you can. Indeed, just the other day a guy contended (to the point of wanting a 13.9) that he should be able to add a diff. cooler because the diff. the rules allowed him to use really needed one! So, if the rule allows a maglev "bushing" why wouldn't it also allow a small nuclear reactor like those that power deep-space probes to run it?

Bringing your point back to SBs, I see that Flatout (for example only) sells a rear outer trailing arm SB kit for the 2nd Gen. RX-7 (Yes - I'm shopping - you guys have made me do it!) but it says that some welding to the arm is required. Also, my buddy who just installed a set from another source told me that it was not a simple bolt-on - some mods were required. So, is that OK?

"Ed, I agree w/ you totally up to the point of your conclusion, which (sorry to sound like a broken record) I do not think logically follows from your expanded definition."

"Couldn't that be the definition of poor language in a rule when parties are able to agree with each other totally up to the point of conclusion? And well written when they agree with each other through the conclusion? (I know this is extreme and unrealisitic - but idealized goals are sometimes useful in striving towards them rather than away from them just the same.)"

Diametrically opposed conclusions could be the result of a bad rule but only if both meet all criteria for a valid conclusion. What I am saying is that I don't think yours does for the reasons stated above. You are loading the term "material" w/ implications is does not normally have. You can only change the material - not the basic design. This is a very simple rule and IMO clearly does not encompass SBs. In that regard I find it unambiguous. I do think it gets cloudy as you start to move away from the OEM design - I don't know where the line would be drawn on such deviations. But SBs are over it no matter where you draw it.

Frankly, what we have here is a rule (and this may not be the only case of this) that perhaps unduly hampers some cars, that apparently has been violated widely over a period of years, and is felt by a large number of drivers and some people in Topeka to be out of step w/ "modern" multi-link suspension technology. If that is the case, the solution is to change the rule - not to cleverly come up w/ strained and tortured interpretations to get around it. We can't let the desired result drive our interpretation of the rule. If we do that we are really arguing in favor of a position - not trying to discern what the rule means. You guys have been good advocates for your position while I have been acting more like a judge. Let's just refer this matter to the legislature (CR and retire to the saloon.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bringing your point back to SBs, I see that Flatout (for example only) sells a rear outer trailing arm SB kit for the 2nd Gen. RX-7 (Yes - I'm shopping - you guys have made me do it!) but it says that some welding to the arm is required. Also, my buddy who just installed a set from another source told me that it was not a simple bolt-on - some mods were required. So, is that OK?

[/b]

It is if you are running an EP car!

You r point is excellent however. There are grey rules that resonable people will disagree on the interpretation. When the 'allowed' side is the commonly accepted version, do you clarify it as such (SB's) and do you consider that creep? Tough call.

AB

 

[lateapex911]

Tough call, UNLESS you could go back and ask the guys who write the rules, guys that have long standing history, what the rule really means.

"Did you mean that JUST the material is free?"

or,

"Did you mean that the actual component IN the arm (or whatever) is free?"

and if so,

"What about attachment?"

If you could get those answers, then you could clarify the rule so that it leaves no ambiguity.

 

[bldn10]

Jake, the way courts deal w/ issues like this is NOT to go interview the legislature on what they meant when they passed a particular law. Established techniques for statutory interpretation (which is really what we have here) do not allow that. Legislative intent is first and foremost to be determined if possible from the words of the law itself. A cardinal rule is that a law that is unamiguous on its face is not subjected to further scrutiny - you just apply it as written. I.e. it is presumed that that they meant what they said. Here, the rule simply says material is free. That's it. It is unambiguous. End of story.
I think that moots any questions about attachments

Andy, actually the point I was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) was just the opposite. I do not think this rule is grey - it is black and white - you can only change the material. I am saying that what we want has nothing to do w/ proper interpretation; indeed, I am usually wary of anyone's interpretation that just happens to benefit them. [And this includes myself - I have to be careful when I find myself rationalizing "good" reasons why I shouldn't do something I just don't want to do.] It just appears that this is a rule that the majority of us (not me) wants changed.

If EP 2nd Gen. RX-7 guys use them then I suppose there is some benefit from them - right?