Spherical "Bushings"

***I can see you point but if that were true would it not be generally accepted that you could just remove the upper links instead of rendering them inoperative with foam and leaving them in place.***

Dick, as I read/understand the dictionary meaning of the word "added" one wuld implement something extra such as the third link is "added" while leaving the 2 OEM upper links in place witrh foam bushing material. As I read/understand the dictionary meaning of the word substitute one would replace something with another something such as I did with the lower control arms. I substituted the OEM rubber bushed lower links with tie rods with Heim joints.
 
David,
Ok I get it, you believe that “adding or substituting” would not allow you to remove the two upper “traction bars” and substitute the third link. Interesting perspective thanks. :)
 
Originally posted by Dave Zaslow@Jan 8 2006, 12:21 PM
... So I posit a bushing must be a bearing, although a bearing may not be a bushing.
Click to expand...

...so if you can replace a bushing with another bushing, you can only replace it with a bearing that's a bushing? Why am I beginning to feel like the guy in that Dr. Seuss story:

When the tweedle beetles battle with their paddles in a bottle full of water on a noodle-eating poodle, it's a tweedle beetle noodle poodle water bottle paddle battle. ...

K
 
So.....

IF we accept that we can change the material ONLY, that means that we can take out a suspension bushing that is, say, metal sleeved in and out and rubber in between, (aka metal/rubber/metal) and replace it with....SOMEthing else...of the exact same size, and design.

So, that could be what...metal/rubber/and metal, right?

Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.

Right?

Seems to me the entire rule is a catch 22.

(I think/know this has been written here in earlier posts, but I just needed to sum it up.)

It seems to me that what we have is merely a poorly written rule that has issues under a microscope. Essentially, it is a rule, that, if followed to the letter of the law, allows you to do.......nothing.
 
Why am I beginning to feel like the guy in that Dr. Seuss story:
Click to expand...

Well Kirk, you are the one w/ the One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish Blue Fish hat! :o :023:

Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.
Click to expand...

Jake,

That's pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning. If you are using the "can't change the design" as the test for legality, than most of the aftermarket ones are illegal.

I think that what we have here, is a situtation that, if the intent was to not allow SBs as replacement bushings, it needs to be expressly codified. The rules, as written, don't preclude them. And, I don't know if you could write the rules to preclude them, w/o expressly calling them out as not being allowed.
 
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?

Thanks for the compliment Greg but I also went on to say :

"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"

So, I agree that the strict interpretation doesn't explicitly allow anything other than a material substitution in the design.

But I still think th cat is out of the bag and we ought to simply get the SCCA to change the wording to "bushings are unrestrricted" or similar... I think the most important thing to come out of this debate is the need for clarity one way or the other... Besides, the bushings on my Volvo are still rubber so I'll be interested to see how this works out...
Click to expand...
 
I can only imagine what a round table on interpretation/change of a tax code law would be like! :D
.....but I digress........

R
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 8 2006, 09:24 AM

But, George, isn't that the way the rule reads? If you believe that an allowance (or restriction) in material allows (or restricts) dimensional changes as well, why did you - as part of the current ITAC - recommend the following words in ITCS 17.1.4.C in regards to aftermarket replacement parts? Why qualify the difference if there is none?

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I believe the ITAC/CRB mentions both material and dimensional because they believe - as I do - that there is a distinct difference. Given that, the implication vis-a-vis suspension bushings is clear.

GregA
[snapback]70406[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Greg, you're mixing rules.

The rule you quote is to make an allowance for non-OEM parts that previously were not allowed, despite being in all ways the same as the OEM part.

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I'm fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can. However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.

Back to the bigging of this post, you are mixing rules and one has nothing to do with the other.
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 8 2006, 05:27 PM

It seems to me that what we have is merely a poorly written rule that has issues under a microscope.

[snapback]70429[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

IMHO this encompasses most rules.
 
Originally posted by Geo@Jan 8 2006, 11:32 PM

The rule we are discussing is a specific allowance and of course as everyone knows I'm fond of saying, if it says you can you bloody well can.  However, what we are discussing is just exactly what it says you can.

[snapback]70447[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB
 
***Because,if we, say......... replace it even with metal/polyurethane/metal, (or steel/aluminum/steel), using obstensibly the same dimensions and design, the arm will not move in the same X,Y, Z range of motion, which means a design change, as the function has been altered.***

Which means a design change, as the function has been altered through the use of an allowed rule change which is the bushing material change. That IMHJ dose not allow an open door to change the OEM designed bushing from the get-go. ;)
 
Dang! two hours and no new posts.

This thread is soooooo looooonnng I can't remember if anyone has thrown this out. It is extracted from the 2006 GCR glossary, with no added emphasis, editorial comment, or tortured interpretation.

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


Or, how about this from 17.1.4.D.5.d

9. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by
similar items performing the same fastening function(s).

There's a real bag of worms. What is defined by 'etc.', 'similar items' ? And I still want a definition of a 'total opening'!!!!


I am still on the fence with the whole issue. On the one hand I think that SB's would make better suspensions, are not that expensive, and are the type of upgrade that a lot of solo and tuner cars are installing. And we are allowing suspension tuning with coil overs anyway. On the other hand, I don't want to see IT creeping into the modifications that are allowed in Prod classes.

OK, I've said my piece. Let's go racing!
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 9 2006, 07:09 AM
George, you're so missing the point...
[snapback]70453[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Nope. I got your point. But they are two different rules making very specific allowances. My point is you cannot use the allowances under one rule to argue for or against the allowances under another rule
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 8 2006, 09:40 PM
Resonable people disagree with this whole-heartedly and most of us agreed that the original intent was to allow poly or other bushings of ALTERNATE MATERIAL (sound familiar?).

AB
[snapback]70449[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy, I don't think anyone will disagree that if a rule says you can do something, you can do it. Notice I followed up with the statement we were disagreeing on what the rule specifically allows. So, I stand by what you quoted.

Y'all can go back to arguing about what the rule specifically allows.
 
This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department:

Oh, they meant Suspension Bushings?

Racerbill; you da man!

Dave Zaslow

(now getting off at the Antelope Freeway)
 
Originally posted by RacerBill@Jan 9 2006, 06:35 PM

"Suspension Bushing - A hollow cylindrical mounting component which
acts as a bearing, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension
component and attachment point."
Or, how about this from 17.1.4.D.5.d

[snapback]70465[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Now, is a SB acting as a bearing, or is it really a bearing? IF a bushing which acts as a bearing allowed, is a bearing allowed to act as a bushing? :bash_1_: I'm confused...
 
***allowing constrained motion***

Now, if we look up the word constrain in a dictionary that will differentiate suspension bushing & spherical bearing.

Will a suspension bushing constrain motion? Answer: YES

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO

Will a air bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO


ps: We need 10 pages................ ;)
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 10 2006, 07:48 AM
***allowing constrained motion***

Now, if we look up the word constrain in a dictionary that will differentiate suspension bushing & spherical bearing.

Will a suspension bushing constrain motion? Answer: YES

Will a spherical bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO

Will a air bearing constrain motion? Answer: NO
ps: We need 10 pages................ ;)
[snapback]70548[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Actually David, the spherical bearing will constrain motion. You can only move something up to the angle of misalignment. After that, you've reached the limit of the range of motion for the bearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top