Spherical "Bushings"

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Jan 5 2006, 02:09 PM
Greg-

Not sure how to respond or thank you...  I was not excited about having to deal with this protest (from the Stewards side) this season to clarify this issue (I don't like to be the bad guy, and I think that no matter how a ruling would be made, someone would be upset)  This will sureley be a more impartial and "true" answer to our question. 

I think that it is increadably awsome that you are doing this!!!  Once I figure out the PayPal thing I will be sending you something...  not sure what (as I am a poor young boy), but something :)

Raymond
[snapback]70178[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Not offering an opinion either way but I would suggest that this has been ruled on in the past for IT or maybe Prod back in the day. The obviously is a precedence for them from somewhere.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 5 2006, 02:01 PM
What I have issues with is *DIFFERENT* movement.  You know that a SB can provide movement that is totally different than a stock DESIGN.  In your example the application may be the same but I am arguing that in some cars (the 240SX is a perfect example) the use of SB's provides a non-stock range of motion to the suspension.  Some cars, when lowered, develop bind in the suspension.  When you are able to use SB's, that bind can be eliminated.  But AGAIN, let's stop debating specifics on cars...a SB is a SB and a bushing is a bushing as defined by the GCR.  A bushing of any material may be used, not of any design.
You're wrong Bill.  You were arguing that, because the functionality was the same as the stock bushing (and it just made it more efficient), it was legal.  My example brings to the extream that just because something functions as stock, doesn't make it legal.
Click to expand...

Again, Andy I completely disagree with you here as far as your range of movement argument. The SB's providing a non-stock range of motion is, IMHO, incorrect. A poly or delrin bushing will cause bind. So people put the SB's in to get rid of that bind and usually the travel or axis of movement is the SAME as with the rubber in there that is compliant enough. And, on some cars the rubber is in there to allow a range of motion in multiple axis as intended and putting in a delrin or poly bushing actually will hamper that function. So, people will put in a spherical bearing to get back the ORIGINAL range of motion, even at a stock ride height.

So, I disagree with your argument about allowing movement outside of the stock range. Usually the only way to maintain the stock range of movement is with a spherical bearing. The only thing I would agree on is that a bearing is not a bushing, maybe. I'm not so convinced of that either. But, your range of movement outside of stock doesn't hold water in all cases.

steve
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 5 2006, 03:52 PM
Matt, if I understand what your saying, then you're trying to take a GCR definition of a spherical bearing and apply it to a bushing, thus allowing you to use one in place of your control arms bushings (for example.) Sorry, it doesn't fly with me. If SCCA considered them one and the same part, why offer two separate and distinct definitions? Further, I can probably find a lot of items that meet the GCR "definition" of shperical bearings but that you would laugh at me for saying it's a suspension bushing (like maybe an ice cream scoop?) What you're trying to do here is reverse logic, where you're trying to fit a definition to an item, rather than defining the item itself; that's not what definitions are for.
[snapback]70177[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Greg, if we can't use the GCR definitions to define what a part is then what do we use? Commonly accepted terminology and parts books listings have been thrown out in the past in favor of the definitions clearly stated in the rulebook. I agree that the glossary is poorly worded (although I don't think an ice cream scoop fits the definition) but poorly worded is all we have in print. You can't selectively decide what you do and don't take literally. I'm not trying to fit a definition to an item, I am trying to show that item X is more accurately defined by definition A (SB) than by definition B (bushing).

As for the SCCA never using multiple definitions for the same part try looking up aerodynamic device and then air dam, airfoil, spoiler and so on. I lost count of the number of different glossary entries that apply to the same part.

Keep in mind I am not arguing intent, I am arguing the literal interpretation of what is printed. You may not like it, but I could make the case for it. Of course, building the piece without illegal modifications to the a-arm or subframe is another matter.
 
I've been trying to read this thread somewhat objectively, but I bought my car with a complete spherical bearing set-up so I have a vested interest in seeing that spherical bearings are allowed. It seems, to me anyways, that the rules are currently gray enough that you could argue for or against them as evidenced by this discussion. Many racers have apparently taken advantage of this gray area (as racers will do) to equip their cars with said "bushings" for whatever reasons. It also seems that some informal letters/e-mails have been exchanged with various SCCA officials on the topic where those officals said spherical bearings were legal.

My proposal would be (if people think this is a big enough deal) to have the verbiage of the rule clarified so that it is clear spherical bearings are *allowed*. Most people have said they don't care whether they're allowed or not, they just want the rule to be clear. So I'm suggesting, for obvious reasons, that the rule be clarified allowing spherical bearings.

I can already hear the rules creep people jumping up and down. I don't disagree. However, I don't think you can let the cat out of the bag, let him run around for a few years, and then try to stuff him back in. I don't know how long this bushing gray area has existed, but I get the impression it's at least a few years. It'd be one thing if the rule was modified to explicitly not allow spherical bearings as soon as it was realized people were starting to use them. It's another thing to let it go on for a long time and then one day decide they're illegal. Call it apathy or whatever, but it seems that up to this point this has not been a big enough deal for somebody to file an official protest, rules clarification request, or other paperwork. IMO (admittedly biased) I think it's too late to go back.

Anybody ever wonder what F1 or LeMans rules debates are like? You've got hundreds of people on each team attempting to exploit every gray area in the rules they can find. We're just a bunch of guys who race on the weekends and don't even get paid for it.

David
 
Originally posted by DavidM+Jan 5 2006, 03:55 PM-->
I don't know how long this bushing gray area has existed, but I get the impression it's at least a few years.
[snapback]70192[/snapback]​
[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not it's even a grey area is in debate. I'm not so sure it is.

<!--QuoteBegin-DavidM@Jan 5 2006, 03:55 PM
Anybody ever wonder what F1 or LeMans rules debates are like?  You've got hundreds of people on each team attempting to exploit every gray area in the rules they can find.  We're just a bunch of guys who race on the weekends and don't even get paid for it.
[snapback]70192[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

In some ways F1 and to a lesser extent, LeMans rules debates are much easier because the population of competitors is significantly smaller and the sanctioning bodies have professional staffs to cater to this sort of thing. Of course, teams in F1 have been known to get Charlie Whiting's blessing only to have someone squack and protest and have the World Motorsports Council declare it illegal anyway, so even the FIA has the same problem.
 
Originally posted by stevel@Jan 5 2006, 05:33 PM
The only thing I would agree on is that a bearing is not a bushing, maybe.
steve
[snapback]70187[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Then guess what side of the arguement you fall on.

AB
 
Originally posted by rlearp@Jan 5 2006, 08:19 AM
Wow, a long one for a simple discussion. Seems illegal to me but I'm still not even sure exactly why I'd use them.  Just my 0.02 cents.
[snapback]70144[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Ron, since nobody has responded yet.....

The reason to use spherical bearings is two-fold.

1) The spherical bearings have significantly less friction and even bind in them then almost all other types of bushings. By removing the friction, changes in spring rates and swaybars will react more like one would expect. Introduce friction and the bushings develop a pseudo spring rate.

2) Spherical bearings have no defelction under load so the suspension alignment stays put and the car reacts more predictably.
 
Originally posted by Geo@Jan 5 2006, 06:35 PM
Ron, since nobody has responded yet.....

The reason to use spherical bearings is two-fold.

1)  The spherical bearings have significantly less friction and even bind in them then almost all other types of bushings.  By removing the friction, changes in spring rates and swaybars will react more like one would expect.  Introduce friction and the bushings develop a pseudo spring rate.

2)  Spherical bearings have no defelction under load so the suspension alignment stays put and the car reacts more predictably.
[snapback]70203[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Geo, your forgeting one thing. We race these cars, The binding in some applications actually causes failures on the mounting point from the extreme loads we put them through. Again I am not speaking one way or the other on the legality.
 
Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 5 2006, 06:41 PM
Greg, if we can't use the GCR definitions to define what a part is then what do we use? Commonly accepted terminology and parts books listings have been thrown out in the past in favor of the definitions clearly stated in the rulebook. I agree that the glossary is poorly worded (although I don't think an ice cream scoop fits the definition) but poorly worded is all we have in print.
Click to expand...

Matt and all others who refer to the glossary as some body of work written to completely define any and all items, I would like to let you in on some little known facts (not secrets). Many years ago a BOD member and a close friend of mine (names withheld) were discussing how a glossary could help others, particularly non-technical Stewards, better understand some terms used in the GCR and class specific rule books. My friend decided to start this by writing down all words in the SCCA rule books he found weren't defined in a standard dictionary, or had a different meaning when used in the specific context involved. He then attempted to give each a clear definition. This was submitted with the intent it would be proof-read, modified as appropriate, etc. What was not expected is that it would be published intact. Since that time, a few changes and additions have been made to the original. Also since that time, the glossary has become a source of pride and occasional amusement because of discussions like the above. You might also note GCR page 129 (beginning of glossary) and the reference to conflicts between terms and rules. If you think you can do better, or you think some of the definitions are incorrect, please feel free to submit your version of a glossary. I'm sure the CRB and BOD would take a look at it when they have time.

Cheers, and by all means continue on with your debate....
 
I wouldn't be surprised if that truly is the origin of the glossary. But like it or not if that is the only place a part is defined in the rules than that is what we must use. Remember we aren't supposed to base interpretations of the rules on intent? So you can't say a definition doesn't apply because what meets the definition is not what was intended.
 
Originally posted by mowog@Jan 5 2006, 10:58 PM
Matt and all others who refer to the glossary as some body of work written to completely define any and all items ...
Click to expand...
Oh, I can COMPLETELY see how this is plausible.

K
 
Forgive me if this was covered or mentioned earlier, but this "allowance" has been in place a REALLY long time.

In 1993 or 94 I installed spherical bearings on a ITA RX7 for Charlie Clark at KC Raceware. He had designed and built a bolt in kit for every pickup point on the car and my job was to make the spacers and install the kit. Basically it was a test to see if a below average mechanic (and believe me I was) using homeowner type tools could install it. I believe that car is still allive in CA although I don't know the status of the bearings!

Since that time every car that rolled out of the shop at KC Raceware for Charlie's use has had spherical busings installed. Most of the customer cars have received this treatment as well. They work, last a really long time, require no maintenance and are legal in our opinion.

My car has them too. Installed in 2000. :023:

So guys, the horse it out of the barn. It won the triple crown and was retired to stud. After passing it was made into glue. A little late to be shutting the barn door? :unsure:
 
Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 6 2006, 02:16 PM
Forgive me if this was covered or mentioned earlier, but this "allowance" has been in place a REALLY long time.

In 1993 or 94 I installed spherical bearings on a ITA RX7 for Charlie Clark at KC Raceware.  He had designed and built a bolt in kit for every pickup point on the car and my job was to make the spacers and install the kit.  Basically it was a test to see if a below average mechanic (and believe me I was) using homeowner type tools could install it.  I believe that car is still allive in CA although I don't know the status of the bearings!

Since that time every car that rolled out of the shop at KC Raceware for Charlie's use has had spherical busings installed.  Most of the customer cars have received this treatment as well.  They work, last a really long time, require no maintenance and are legal in our opinion.

My car has them too.  Installed in 2000.  :023:

So guys, the horse it out of the barn.  It won the triple crown and was retired to stud.  After passing it was made into glue.  A little late to be shutting the barn door?  :unsure:
[snapback]70235[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Oh, and is this an example of Rules Creep? Yes.

Rules Creep by definition is the unintended result of GOOD or BAD intentions that are exploited by creative SCCA members. If spherical bearings weren't the intended result of the bushing rule then make the rule say so......in 1992.

Because this much foresight is generally beyond most everyones thinking - I mean really, would you have caught the spherical bearing "allowance" way back then - rules should be left along as much as possible. This is the best justification for washer bottles and T/S stalks.

Why do I have spherical bearings in my car if I don't wnat rules creep. See my earlier post. I everybody is doing it........ B)
 
Chris,

We are debating the legality of a commonly accepted (by some) INTERPRETATION of a rule - not a specific allowance. It's not something that is specifically called out as legal in the rules, so just because it is being done doesn't mean it is legal.

It could be mind you, but people are disagreeing. What is your interpretation of the rule - seeing as how you did it to your car?

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 6 2006, 01:27 AM
Then guess what side of the arguement you fall on.

AB
[snapback]70202[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I said maybe. I'm still on the fence. I have to look into it more.

s
 
IMHO these are the kind of things that put newbe's off. When I was building my car I had thaught about installing SB's in my car. At the time I had too many other fish to fry so I passed. It is on the list of things to do. This seems like a big deal over not a very big deal.
BTW:
My car could realy bennifit from them, my front susp. realy does bind when lowered.
But I will wait and see what the fallout is from all of this.
 
For the sake of discussion, the VWs benefit from bushings or bearings in the LCAs in terms of increased toe control. They are typically at a ride height close enough to stock that binding isn't an issue.

K
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 6 2006, 02:35 PM
Chris,

We are debating the legality of a commonly accepted (by some) INTERPRETATION of a rule - not a specific allowance.  It's not something that is specifically called out as legal in the rules, so just because it is being done doesn't mean it is legal.

It could be mind you, but people are disagreeing.  What is your interpretation of the rule - seeing as how you did it to your car?

AB
[snapback]70239[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Let me be Chris. Normally I like to be Frank but I can be flexible. :)

Yes Spherical Bearings are bushings. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top