Spherical "Bushings"
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
That definition is completely inadequate for any automotive suspension - all vehicles have suspension bushings which do considerably more than that definition.
An SB does no more in an automotive suspension than any other suspension bushing - the only difference among any of them is compliance.
Typical definitions of "bushing" all include the word or notion of "bearing" because a bushing is a simple bearing.
Also I was IM'd by someone on this topic in another thread that one of their additional objections was that IT modifications should be standardized street tuning aftermarket type modifications. I don't know if that is a valid basis for a rule being allowed or not (certainly not for legaility). On my car there is not a single joint component of the suspension that isn't available with a SB from at least three manufacturers.
That is going to be tough to do nonconfrontationally. Consider that illegal pieces are taken away never to be returned - if the initial ruling at the track is illegal, someone is at the track and has every joint of their suspension removed, that is hardly anything if not confrontational. Forget about oh my motor won't run so I have to hoist the car on the trailer - the car can't be moved without significant damage.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
OK, the line to too fine to have any concensus. What else can we debate while the snow is on the ground, the engine is at the builder and the car is out to paint?
I will take the contrary opinion that any newbies who read this stuff, if they have the stomach to be making big piles of money into small piles of money doing this rediculous sport, would benefit from 'Rulebook Interpretation 101".
The answer to the Final exam is simple. Read the GCR, know the GCR, love the GCR. People can - and will - see two sides to different rules. Tread lightly and be prepared to defend how you have prepared your car when you present it as legal. I have ultimate respect for people who are willing to defend a modifciation as legal (like this calm debate) as opposed to people who exploit a known loophole and then bitch and moan when it gets tightened or clarified.
AB
I will take the contrary opinion that any newbies who read this stuff, if they have the stomach to be making big piles of money into small piles of money doing this rediculous sport, would benefit from 'Rulebook Interpretation 101".
The answer to the Final exam is simple. Read the GCR, know the GCR, love the GCR. People can - and will - see two sides to different rules. Tread lightly and be prepared to defend how you have prepared your car when you present it as legal. I have ultimate respect for people who are willing to defend a modifciation as legal (like this calm debate) as opposed to people who exploit a known loophole and then bitch and moan when it gets tightened or clarified.
AB
Matt Rowe
New member
Hmm, can we have the forum automatically insert this into every rules debate? Simply stated, Andy is flatout right.
Interpretations vary but as a driver you're responsible for knowing why everything on your car is the way it is. If it's stock you need to be able to show documentation that is how the factory made it, if it's modified you need to know where the rulebook allows the change. Putting a part on your car just because everyone else is doing it is asking for trouble unless you can logically explain why the rules allow it.Now, I will to attempt to use the glossary definition of "breather vent" to explain why I can remove the washer bottle from my car.
*** I have no problem with the interpretation that put 14 of them in my car before I bought it (note, I am counting the panhard bar and the tri-link). If I started an IT project car today I would install them.***
Scott, your car is a ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 correct. IMHU of the rule for addition or substituted of panhard bar & traction bar 8 are legal in the rear of the car. Please explain where the remaining 6 are located that had OEM rubber bushings ?
Scott, your car is a ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 correct. IMHU of the rule for addition or substituted of panhard bar & traction bar 8 are legal in the rear of the car. Please explain where the remaining 6 are located that had OEM rubber bushings ?
mustanghammer
New member
Sure, they are in the front suspension:
Lower Control arms = 2
Strut rods =2
Camber Plate = 2
All of them are Aurora spherical bearings in bearing cups. The bearings are retained by snap rings in the cups. The bearing cups are welded into the control arm or suspension location on the body where appropriate.
So, let me get this straight: not only are you installing - IMO - illegal parts, you're making illegal modifications to the car in order to do so?
This is quickly becoming...well I don't know how to describe it. We've got a lot of people trying to call bearings bushings (or is it bushings bearings?), some who say they heard from the grapevine it was legal (but offer no supporting documentation or references), only ONE person that has received a semi-official - yet totally unbinding - opinion from someone who no longers works at National, some that say (or imply) they heard it was officially approved but can't support that either (despite the rule never being changed to accomodate it), more that figure it must be legal 'cause other people are doing it and have been doing it for years, yet another person that figures you can modify your car in any way to install them ('cause that's the way it's been done for a long time), and yet nobody - NO ONE - has made a reasonable, cogent, logical case for their being a reasonable modification to the letter or spirit of the rules, instead relying on a distorted, tortured discussion regarding the GCR definitions to circularly support the use of the products.
Am I in an alternate IT universe or something...?
Matt Rowe
New member
Greg, just because you don't agree with a viewpoint doesn't mean that a reasonable, cogent, logical case hasn't been presented. It's just hard to see thru all the crap flying around.
And if you expected anything different when you started this cluster@#$& than you are definitely in an alternate reality. This is pretty much par for the course for ANY rules discussion.
Now if you want to start another debate, something came up on the production car forums that got me thinking with regards to the forged piston debate here. Generally when running forged pistons you run full floating pins for a number of good reasons. Many stock rods rely on pressed fit pins though and off the top of my head IT doesn't allow a change. How many people are illegally converting the rods over to full floating when they drop in forged pistons?
Well I think in the response to GA, do we know when the rule on busing material changed? If we know when that change went into effect, that could it not be possible that one of our very own IT.com packrats might be able to dig out their monthly fasttracks and scan for the published decisions? At least that would clarify where the precidence came from.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Some would say this is the 'same old' universe!
Which is why I'm staying out of it.Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 6 2006, 05:19 PM
And if you expected anything different when you started this cluster@#$& than you are definitely in an alternate reality. This is pretty much par for the course for ANY rules discussion.[snapback]70296[/snapback]
As an aside, wasn't the original intent of the rule to allow people to substitute poly bushings for the OEM rubber versions, hence the reference to "material"?
Just asking.
<redherring> There's an IT BMW in the SportsCar classifieds this month that specifically lists "plexiglass rear windows" among its features. </redherring>
I'm tending, having given it a good thinkin', to lean toward Greg's position. It kind of comes down to what "rule of law" is being applied:
Does the rule, including present definitions of "bushing" and "spherical bearing," allow SBs to replace rubber suspension bushings, where another rule doesn't specifically do so? I don't think so.
Is it a common, current interpretation that it IS allowed? I DO think so.
I'll bet you a cookie that if asked, the folks in the Club Racing office are going to be of the opinion that this is okay but not because that's what the rule says. They will be loathe to piss off a bunch of people who have been doing this for years and, if followed to its full conclusion, this pursuit will result in the current, looser interpretation being codified as legal.
Now - does this mean I can weld (or cut, machine, reinforce, or otherwise diddle) my A-arms? That's a whole 'nother question, isn't it? It should be asked at the same time as the former.
K
EDIT - it's my recollection that the alternate bushing material allowance has been on the books for EVER. The problem is that technology - in the form of readily available SBs for normal people - makes it way easier to do now, than when the rules were written. This is like the coilover rule, wherein when the first ruleset came out, NOBODY thought of putting "real" race springs on an IT car.
I'm tending, having given it a good thinkin', to lean toward Greg's position. It kind of comes down to what "rule of law" is being applied:
Does the rule, including present definitions of "bushing" and "spherical bearing," allow SBs to replace rubber suspension bushings, where another rule doesn't specifically do so? I don't think so.
Is it a common, current interpretation that it IS allowed? I DO think so.
I'll bet you a cookie that if asked, the folks in the Club Racing office are going to be of the opinion that this is okay but not because that's what the rule says. They will be loathe to piss off a bunch of people who have been doing this for years and, if followed to its full conclusion, this pursuit will result in the current, looser interpretation being codified as legal.
Now - does this mean I can weld (or cut, machine, reinforce, or otherwise diddle) my A-arms? That's a whole 'nother question, isn't it? It should be asked at the same time as the former.
K
EDIT - it's my recollection that the alternate bushing material allowance has been on the books for EVER. The problem is that technology - in the form of readily available SBs for normal people - makes it way easier to do now, than when the rules were written. This is like the coilover rule, wherein when the first ruleset came out, NOBODY thought of putting "real" race springs on an IT car.
mustanghammer
New member
Originally posted by gsbaker@Jan 6 2006, 09:30 PM
Which is why I'm staying out of it.
As an aside, wasn't the original intent of the rule to allow people to substitute poly bushings for the OEM rubber versions, hence the reference to "material"?
Just asking.
[snapback]70299[/snapback]
I wish I had stayed out of it :119:
If they wanted to allow POLY bushings and only POLY bushings then why didn't they spec it that way?
mustanghammer
New member
EDIT - it's my recollection that the alternate bushing material allowance has been on the books for EVER. The problem is that technology - in the form of readily available SBs for normal people - makes it way easier to do now, than when the rules were written. This is like the coilover rule, wherein when the first ruleset came out, NOBODY thought of putting "real" race springs on an IT car.
Agreed. I have set this up on a Solo II car (C Prepared - a Solo II GT1 car) in the past and it is not hard or expensive. And it needs to be both of these things for me to do it.
[snapback]70301[/snapback]
[/quote]Agreed. I have set this up on a Solo II car (C Prepared - a Solo II GT1 car) in the past and it is not hard or expensive. And it needs to be both of these things for me to do it.
Hi, I realize I'm coming to this party really late, but anyway... Without venturing much else of an opinion, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Greg's original line of reasoning that implied that a material change is not a design change. Generally a design of a part like a bushing is a dimensioned drawing with callouts for the materials and other relevant design information. If you want to change the material you make a change to the drawing, and therefore the design has been changed. I am not saying that by implication from that allowance any other changes are thereby explicitly allowed, just that whenever you change a material you are in fact changing the design.
As an aside, good design practice would require you to go back and re-analyze your margins and factors of safety on your part after you make a material change, and it is possible that by changing the material you are now required to make other design changes in order to maintain the original design margins.
Now, I think this is just another case of the GCR having a sloppy wording that ends up causing controversy, and I believe the rule should be changed to say the bushings are free provided they fit in the stock location. The interpretation that allows spherical bearings as bushings I think has been let to stand for a decade or so at this point and we should simply recognize this fact by explicitly codifying it...
As an aside, good design practice would require you to go back and re-analyze your margins and factors of safety on your part after you make a material change, and it is possible that by changing the material you are now required to make other design changes in order to maintain the original design margins.
Now, I think this is just another case of the GCR having a sloppy wording that ends up causing controversy, and I believe the rule should be changed to say the bushings are free provided they fit in the stock location. The interpretation that allows spherical bearings as bushings I think has been let to stand for a decade or so at this point and we should simply recognize this fact by explicitly codifying it...
handfulz28
New member
Why is this any more difficult than writing a letter asking for either a clarification or rules change? What does it take to add/delete/change a definition in the GCR? Which type of letters/requests go out to the membership for comments versus letters/requests that just get accepted or denied?
If I write a friggin letter requesting a definition of a suspension bushing that includes a reference to the word bearing and any other syntax that literally, spiritually, intentionally, philosophically allows SBs in the suspension, how would that go over?
I can also write the letter for the specific allowance of SBs in an otherwise unmodified part (no welding, etc...).
Instead of freezing your arses off in the cold, take a trip down here to sunny & warm south florida and enjoy some good National and regional racing. I miss my days racing T1/T2...
Now where do I send these letters?
Thanks,
Michael
If I write a friggin letter requesting a definition of a suspension bushing that includes a reference to the word bearing and any other syntax that literally, spiritually, intentionally, philosophically allows SBs in the suspension, how would that go over?
I can also write the letter for the specific allowance of SBs in an otherwise unmodified part (no welding, etc...).
Instead of freezing your arses off in the cold, take a trip down here to sunny & warm south florida and enjoy some good National and regional racing. I miss my days racing T1/T2...
Now where do I send these letters?
Thanks,
Michael
Greg, I'd like to see the written protest how you plan on demonstrating that a monoball doesn't perform the same function as a stock suspension bushing. The definition's in the Glossary don't mention material at all, material is unrestricted, a monoball meets the criteria of a bushing by the glossary's definition, and a monoball doesn't perform a function that the stock bushing can't perform.
My post is not an attack or meant to be taken in a sarcastic tone.
bernardo martinez
My post is not an attack or meant to be taken in a sarcastic tone.
bernardo martinez
"They" did exactly that: "they" said alternate material was allowed, encompassing polyurethane, Delrin, plastic, what-have-you. How else would you suggest it be worded if the actual intent was to allow a material change, and a material change only? How about "Bushing material...is unrestricted"?
Alternatively, if the intent was to allow anything, including spherical bearings, wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to state "Bushings are unrestricted"?
Evan, you're over-thinking this like the superb NASA engineer you are. The rule doesn't say "there's been a blueprint supercession", it says you can make the same part out of any substance you want.
In addition, is it your implication that wherever a "material" change is allowed, the entire part is thus unrestricted?
I hate to get led off these irrelevant red herring yellow-brick-road sidetracks, but if you truly believe they are the same part, then you should be able to demonstrate that a stock suspension bushing performs the same function as a monoball. Because, if A equals B, then B must equal A...I sincerely doubt you can do that.
And - again - the rule states nothing about allowable change in form or function of the part. All it says is material is unrestricted. You want to play semantics? Then look up the definition of the word "material". Here's the first one from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material):
"The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made."
I'm still looking, but I can't seem to find anything anywhere in regards to form, function, dimensions, sizes, shapes, or anything like that. Do please let me know if you find it... - GA