Spherical "Bushings"

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 6 2006, 03:46 PM
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.

[snapback]70287[/snapback]​

By "strut rod" do you mean the rods that bolt to the out end of the control arm, and pivot on bushings that are sandwiching a fram bracket in the front? AKA, "drag rods" or "control arm locating rods"?

If so, I would be interested in HOW you have converted those to Aurora (or any make) of SB???? I can't see that in my minds eye at all!

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 6 2006, 11:58 PM
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"?

[snapback]70329[/snapback]​

You have made that statement alot but we would have the exact same thread as you have also said that a bushing isn't a bearing - this alternative wording still wouldn't have satisfied you. I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

A spherical bearing fits in the same space, having the same OD and ID as the OEM part (hence serving the function of reducing the dimension of the existing hole), it locates pivot points of the suspension, it reduces compliance, it focus the most movement along a single plane with compliance in other planes and reduces friction - all the same things that any other aftermarket replacement of OEM bushings does. Just because they do it better and you don't want to use them doesn't make them illegal - I haven't found your arguments that they are illegal to be compelling. I look at the OEM, the suspension techniques poly, and sphericals and I see the same part serving the same function made out of different materials. They each have an outer race for the OD and inner race for the ID and different materials between them that reduces the dimension of the existing hole as an SCCA defined bushing should and they perform no other prohibited function in any of the cases put forth. Resistance to rotation, binding or friction whatever you want to call it can be improved with any material, there is nothing in the rule preventing the use of the material that imrpoves these characteristics the most.

 

[B90278]

"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."

Well, GA, I'm sorry that I took such a fantasy approach to trying to understand your question in your thread. I was curious how you were going to write the protest. I gather from your response to me that your going to just submit the definition of Material. I think I could show that a Monoball does meet the definition of a bushing in the GCR, and does perform the same function on my car. But judging by your response you don't really care.

good luck

b.

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by B90278@Jan 7 2006, 02:56 AM
... if A equals B, then B must equal A. ...

Point of order here - you might have the wrong logic rule going on. Instead, you might think of this as, "while a square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square."

The way I'm reading the GCR def's, a case can get made that a spherical bearing IS a bushing, but it's a MUCH harder proposition to suggest that a bushing is a spherical bearing - necessary to install an SB where a bushing used to live? The spherical bearing does serve the defined function of a bushing but adds some other functions - again, per the GCR if we accept that we are stuck with those terms for the sake of this argument. If your car came with spherical bearings, it might logically be OK to replace them with bushings, but the other way 'round?

I'm reminded that the question might have been posed, "Do you think we should be allowed to replace rubber suspension bushings with spherical bearings?" and the results here would be pretty much exactly the way they are today.

K

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by turboICE
I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

Take it easy on the ad hominum attacks, Ed. If the rules state that spherical bearings are allowed, then I'm fairly confident (damn near 100%) that I'd agree they were allowed.

Ed, it's simple: our rules state IIDSYCYC. The only change the rule allows is material. Period. You can try and twist it into anything you want, but that don't make it so.

Originally posted by turboICE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(turboICE)</div>

A spherical bearing fits in the same space...blah, blah, blah.[/b]

Just 'cause a spherical bearing fits in the same space and can perform the same function (along with additional functions), does make it the same part. OPen your mind: the only allowed change it in material.

Originally posted by turboICE+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(turboICE)</div>

Just because they do it better and you don't want to use them doesn't make them illegal...[/b]

By the same leap of logic, just because your original bushings aren't as good and you have SBs in your car (or want to) doesn't make them legal.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278@
I was curious how you were going to write the protest.[/b]

B, as noted before, everything I write and submit will be posted publicly.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278
...your (sic) going to just submit the definition of Material.

Uh, is this a trick question? Of course I'm going to ask for a clarification on "material"; that's the whole point of the debate in question! The rules say you can change the material and we got folks out there replacing their bushings with spherical bearings; I see that as exceeding the definition of "material", plain and simple.

Originally posted by B90278+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B90278)</div>

I think I could show that a Monoball does meet the definition of a bushing in the GCR...[/b]

...but can you show that this change from a rubber bushing to a metallic monoball/shperical bearing is fully allowed under a rule that states only a material change is allowed?

You see, this is where I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall: No one seems to disagree that the rule allows material change in the common sense of the word, yet everyone who supports using spherical bearings starts going off on sidetracks about form, function, does the same thing, can be defined as the same part, so forth and so on. The rule states nothing about all that. It states...oh, never mind.

<!--QuoteBegin-B90278
But judging by your response you don't really care.

Oh, don't be an ass. Read the whole damn topic; I've made it clear I'm looking for input on both sides of the debate, and if you'd take a moment you'll see I've specifically stated I plan to make both viewpoints available as part of my submission. - GA

 

[Greg Amy]

I want to address the underlying financial arguments that people are bringing up as yet another red herring for supporting SBs, that being the cost to the competitors. These are typically described as "genie out of the bottle" or "cat out of the bag" and such. The latent issue is that this "will be an enormous expense" to the club if people have to convert their cars back to factory suspension bushings. This is false economy and nonsense. The cost to "the Club" for such an action is exactly zero. Nil, nada, nothing. Any expenses due to a specific limiting of the rules to a change in material only will be borne by each individual competitor that has chosen beforehand to convert their car, and this cost will be limited to their one car. Further, had they done this change with no other modifications to their car (and they should have) the switch should be at least as easy as the initial installation.

So let's address the costs of pro and con. What percentage of our IT "fleet" do you figure is using SBs? 10%, 20%, 50%? I ahve no clue. However, I'd wager that it's certainly a minority of the cars out there. Given that we - especially on this forum - browbeat people into "100% prep" before we give them the benefit of the doubt on relative car performance, allowing SBs effectively makes them a requirement. So, if we were to compare the cost to the few that have already done it, versus the cost to those that have not, which oen do you think would be a bigger economic impact? Next time you want to wave your hand and complain that it would cost "the club" or competitors too much money to change back, don't forget how much it would cost the community if we specifically allowed them... - GA

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 7 2006, 08:22 AM
Point of order here - you might have the wrong logic rule going on. Instead, you might think of this as, "while a square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square."

[snapback]70340[/snapback]​

You are absolutely correct, Kirk; I have been keeping that exact same logical argument in my mind throughout this debate. It is, in fact, the only logical argument that the pro-SB can make (and have been in a roundabout way). It works only if one accepts that a SB is a bushing. My point above is that a lot of folks *are* contending that A=B and B=A, that these parts are interchangeable.

However, let's put your above logical argument in context: if I gave you a specific rectangle (of different H:W ratio) in black and told you to draw the rectangle in any color would it be acceptable to present to me a blue square? Would my art teacher flunk me because I did not draw that rectangle properly?

The core of the pro-SB camp is that a spherical bearing is a bushing. I don't dispute that point though I don't necessarily agree with it. However, my position is that this argument of A=B - whether correct or not - is irrelevant, because the only allowed change to our suspension bushings is...<all together now>...

We're getting redundant now, and we're repeating ourselves, too. Looks like an impasse. I'll submit my position; no one yet has offered to write a counterpoint, so we'll see how it goes. - GA

 

[ddewhurst]

IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

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.

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings.

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_<

 

[erlrich]

Greg - sorry I haven't gotten back to you, I've had a couple of crazy days. In fact, I'll have to keep this short as I need to get out and finish putting the engine on the 240 back together. I'll work on a detailed counterpoint this evening; trying to incorporate the arguments presented in this thread (well, the cogent ones anyway ). A couple of points I did have though, and you guys in favor of SBs can rip them apart or endorse them as you see fit:

1. the GCR definition of 'bushing' is not really relavent here; I don't believe it was intended to define suspension bushings, rather just as a broader general definition of bushings (e.g. "holes drilled in the roll cage shall be properly bushed..."). If you do a google or yahoo search you'll find that at least half of the definitions from automotive glossaries define bushings as 'a type of bearing'.

2. if you're going to stick with the strict, literal interpretation that only the material may be changed, you're not only going to rule out SBs but also many other types of bushings commonly used, effectively defeating the intent (as I understand it anyway) of the rule. For example, the stock suspension bushings on my 240SX are all basically the same; a solid (steel in this case) outer cylindrical sleeve, a solid inner cylindrical sleeve, and a compliant (rubber) 'filler' material between the two, all bonded together to create a single part.

Now look at the spherical bushings available from SPL Parts: they consist of a solid outer sleeve, a solid inner sleeve, and a spherical bearing attaching (between) one sleeve to the other, also allowing one part of the assembly to rotate independently (which the OEM bushing does not) of the other. Obviously not just substituting one material for another, but changing the design of the bushing. No disagreement there.

But, now let's look a the Whiteline polyurethane bushings for my car, which I believe are similar to many, if not most, of the poly bushings made for other cars. They have NO outer sleeve, a solid inner sleeve, and a compliant filler material between the inner sleeve and the control arm. Furthermore, the bushing is designed so that the inner sleeve is free to rotate independently of the polyurethane. Same design as the OEM units? Not even close IMO.

The point I'm trying to make is it would appear to be generally accepted that in order to incorporate different materials into suspension bushings there will naturally be some changed in the design of the bushings, either to a) accommodate the needs of the new material or b ) take advantage of the strengths of the material. The question then becomes not whether we will accept some change in the design, but how much change in design we are willing to accept.


As I said, I'll try to send you something this evening. If anyone here has anything they would like included in the pro-SB side, you can pm or e-mail it to me and I'll add it to the response. I think once the entire letter is ready we should probably post it here, not so much to invite debate on the subject, but to allow for critique of the content and ensure we are presenting both sides fairly.

edit: damn, and I said I was going to keep this short!

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 10:15 AM
IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

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.

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings. 

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_< 

[snapback]70351[/snapback]​

David,

You need to emphasize ALL the important words. Or, if you're going to look at the Prod rule, since it clerarly says ADJUSTABLE spherical bearings or rod ends are permitted, how would you justify using a non-adjustable spherical bearing? I'm pretty sure that it falls under the 'suspension bushings are unrestricted' section.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by turboICE
I suspect that on this topic unless they were to say "bushings may be replaced with anything that performs the exact same function including spherical bearings" you would still claim them as illegal.

Originally posted by GregAmy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregAmy)</div>

Take it easy on the ad hominum attacks, Ed. If the rules state that spherical bearings are allowed, then I'm fairly confident (damn near 100%) that I'd agree they were allowed.[/b]

Greg, I made no attack on you rather than the arument central to the debate. I made no comment claiming an invalid position or argument due to any characteristic of you as the arguer on the opposite side of a debate. I identified a flaw in comments made by you which is not an attack on you. I would have to object to the claim that I have fallen subject to the logic fallacy trap of ad hominum.

You have said repeatedly that you wouldn't have a complaint if they had said unrestricted. My response whether taken in its entire context or even just the snippet you quoted, was that your complaints would not be satisfied with the simple change to unrestricted language since it is your belief that SBs in no way can be bushings. As a result, I said any language lacking SBs specifically would not satisfy your complaint. Your argument that SBs are not bushings would remain even if bushings were unrestricted. Read the the entire section that you quote from me again or even just the quote.
<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy
Just 'cause a spherical bearing fits in the same space and can perform the same function (along with additional functions), does make it the same part.

(I took your comment to be "doesn't" rather than does.) Again what are these additional functions that they perform when installed in suspension arms not performed by a part you deem legal?

Originally posted by GregAmy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregAmy)</div>

Open your mind:[/b]

Talk about attacking the person rather than the argument, accusing those on the other side of a debate of being closed minded and not capable of independent thought. I hardly think the definition of a closed mind is disagreeing with you - I don't think my mind is closed nor that my conclusions regarding the part are unreasonable. My mind is just as open to SB being illegal as yours is to them being legal. I have considered the written words and the presented interpretations and made a decision with an independent and open mind - a different conclusion than you doesn't make it otherwise.

Originally posted by GregAmy@
By the same leap of logic, just because your original bushings aren't as good and you have SBs in your car (or want to) doesn't make them legal.

I never made any argument that they were legal for this reason, then again you didn't make the argument that they were illegal for the reason I had listed - you could have pointed out a logical fallacy here on my part rather than inverting it. I believe them to be legal for the reasons I have previously listed - the material has been changed legally and no additional function is performed.
<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy
Read the whole damn topic; I've made it clear I'm looking for input on both sides of the debate, and if you'd take a moment you'll see I've specifically stated I plan to make both viewpoints available as part of my submission.

I will accept that you sought debate, but in your first post you dismissed all prior arguments as lacking either reasonableness, cogency, or logic. So I find it unlikely you sought any of the prior arguments to be put forth or that you were at all inclined to accept any prior argument at inception of this thread. Your mind was made up based on both sides being presented several times before and I don't see anyone on either side, including myself, changing their mind as a result of the rehashing of the same items again.

On a separate issue, it is a shame that such a debate can't be held without leaving with a feeling that people veiw the otherside harshly at a personal level over these debates on this forum.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 12:15 PM
IMPROVED TOURING car rule 17.1.4.D.5.d.6.

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

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.

Might these rules give anyone a clue what the CRB/BoD (I hate this word.) intent is/was when the rule was written. Could it be that if the CRB/BoD wanted spherical bearings used within the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION (limited preparation) they would not have added the RESTRICTED SUSPENSION rule to the Production car rules. Then the same would go for the IT cars, no spherical bearings. 

Scott, the camber plate rule allows the 2 spherical bearings to be used in place of the OEM ball bearings at the top end of the strut rod. Both are called bearings when you buy them. Therefore you are 10 legal, 4 illegal. <_< 

[snapback]70351[/snapback]​

I have found no internal consistency in the rules such as internal reference elsewhere can be applied reliably as a basis for conclusion. In rulings I have never seen cross reference for judgments. By all appearances protested rules are judged in isolation the same way they have been included. As a codification of a set of rules the GCR is a poor example of internal consistency IMO.

 

[kthomas]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 7 2006, 01:47 PM
Next time you want to wave your hand and complain that it would cost "the club" or competitors too much money to change back, don't forget how much it would cost the community if we specifically allowed them... - GA

[snapback]70343[/snapback]​

Uh, nothing. Just because a rule allows you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. Same BS "logic" was used in the remote reservior shock arguement. The rules allow you to run a new set of tires every session- doesn't mean you have to spend the money to do that.

Now I don't really have a vested interest in which way this particular rule goes, and I'm not saying in this case spherical bearings are legal, but the cost to me personally for changing rules from something clearly legal to something no longer allowed has been one shortblock and one set of shocks. Not trivial. Meanwhile, the cost to me for changes in rules that allow me to do something I don't chose to do has been zero. Don't they teach logic in colleges anymore?

 

[dickita15]

I must admit Greg you do seem a little more close minded that usual on this one. Not typical for you. While there have been quite a red herrings and drifts off point I do believe that it is legal to remove a stock bushing and replace it with a cartridge that has a bearing as part of that assembly. It still meets the definition of a bushing in the GCR, it requires no modification of any stock component to install and it performs no prohibited function.

I wish I knew when exactly this was decided and how. I thought it had to do with the rx7 work done by Jim Susko ten years ago.

And yes I have a vested interest in this. Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. If you are successful maybe I will try to get my car moved to ITC.

 

[ddewhurst]

***Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. ***

Dick, talk me through this deal why you would have to raise your car 2 inches.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 7 2006, 03:34 PM
***Without this technology I will need to raise the car at least 2 inches and raise my spring rate a lot. ***

Dick, talk me through this deal why you would have to raise your car 2 inches.

[snapback]70362[/snapback]​

I would think that without SB 'technology' as bushings, a car with a certain type of suspension would develop binding when lowered beyond "X" point. Bushings of alternate MATERIAL ONLY, would not fix this. Bushings of any material and design, would.

AB

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me ask this question:

If you accept that SB's are allowed under the "Bushings of alternate material are allowed" premise, what COULD you do with these rules?

1. Valve guide material is unrestricted.

2. Alternate water pump, alternator, power steering, and
crankshaft pulleys of any diameter or material may be used.

Is it wrong of me to assume that those that are willing to accept a SB as a "change in material" over a rubber bushing would or could do just about ANYTHING with their valve guide or pulleys - including changing the technology in some way? Not sure what you would do, but I would think those 'pro SB' people would effectivly say that these are now free and wide open, no?

Just coming at it from a different point. I don't believe Bushings are "free", I believe that you can simply change the material - like the rules seem to state - and those who believe SB's to be legal, I think you think they are 'free'. Again, no?

AB

 

[turboICE]

Yes I believe if I was of a mind and desire to do so I could make the pulleys in such a way as to be vaned for instance which would result in air movement that wouldn't have otherwise occured in building a set of pulleys of alternate material and diameter. But I fail to see any additional functions performed by SB when used as joint bushings in multi-link suspensions.

I am still trying to get an answer as to what it is about SBs that are more than:

A sleeve or tubular insert (whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole) material, including that used to mount a suspension subframe to the chassis, is unrestricted.

That also isn't the exact same thing OEM and poly bushings do? They all play the same compliance, locating and friction/binding reducing roles. Some just better than others. What is the additional objectionable function that SBs have? The role of OEM bushings is that of a simple bearing in every engineering sense.

An SB is a tubular insert which reduces the dimensions of an existing hole made from a material that is unrestricted. What are SBs doing within their use in the suspension that are additional functions to OEM or any other aftermarket part?

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 6 2006, 12:25 PM
Typical definitions of "bushing" all include the word or notion of "bearing" because a bushing is a simple bearing.

[snapback]70274[/snapback]​

Correct.

This was the answer from a person in the bearing industry who is on Rennlist (Porsche forum/mailing list). I'll try to find the post.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by gsbaker@Jan 6 2006, 02:30 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"?

[snapback]70299[/snapback]​

Gregg, I don't think anyone involved with that original decision is posting here, so nobody knows the intent. We can all make assumptions. The above is a valid assumption. But so is assuming that the rule was changed specifically to allow SBs. Again, nobody knows.