Spherical "Bushings"

Jake, ask yourself why within Production cars the main hoop diagonal is no longer (since the March Fastraclk IIRC) required to be attached at both ends to the main hoop.

When you have answered the above question you will have also answered the Spherical bearing question.

Being that you continue to push the bearing subject you have initated my RANT mood. Now that you are a ITAC member please explain the Fastrack CRB response of my question of why don't you the CRB use identical rules for IT & Production Side Protection rules. The CRB response in March Fastrack is that IT Side Protection is compatable in a Production car. That Jake is a bunch of crap. Read the Side Protection rule for IT & for Production cars & you should note the difference in the rules. Therefore IT Side Protecton IS NOT LEGAL in Production. It ain't the poor horse that should be :dead_horse:
Ya see, I talked to Bennett (he is always overhead in a black helocopter) & this whole deal is a consistency conspiracy. :wacko: :happy204: :023:

ps: I continue to have my 1st gen RX-7 stuff so that when Scott starts racing his NOW legal Spherical bearings in G Production upon his completition request for classing the car in G I can race with him. I will not convert to Sherical bearings in the lower control arms because I am not good enough to turn consistantly close laps. Close equals within .5 second.
[/b]
Click to expand...

David, rant all you like, but I am absolutely no closer to understanding your position on SBs.

I have NO idea about the diagonal...please explain or link a source.

If you would like to have me understand your point regarding side protection, explain or link me to the quotes you find bothersome.

I fail to see the connection between side bars and diagonals and SBs however......

Who the hell is Bennet? And what did he say that is so upsetting? Not sure what you're getting at with the G prod and Scott comments, but if they are actually germaine, spell it out.

Actually, I fail to see anything that fills me in on your SB position.
 
To Chris & all the other Folks who IMHU of the rule previous to the March Fastrack had been using illegal Spherical bearings within some locations of their IT race cars I had allready :birra: to you all upon the decision rendered. Again like I posted that when I can consistently turn laps within .5 second then I'll get concerned about more Spherical bearings in my car.

***I was concerned enough about this to secure an E Production number in Mid Div for 2006 in case the SB issue went the other way.***

Scott, it's easy to communicate with folks who thought Spherical bearings WERE LEGAL yet they were still on the fence. Hey, it's Saturday :birra: a few. <_<

Jake, I'll make my 3 item list of rules that have been responded to in the Fastrack & my belief of how they were answered by the party.

A. The Production main hoop diagonal Fastrack response is political so that the party don't aggravate members.
(& I will not get into a safety strength discussion about this issue with you or anyone. Ask the "X" leader of the party.)

B. The Fastrack response that the IT side protection tubes (IIRC) are compliant to the Production rule is not a fact. Therefore IMHJ, that is a political response. (The party should understand the written rule before responding.)

C. The Spherical bearing Fastrack response is political so that the party don't aggravate the members.
(The party can use all the not available parts, cost & what ever filler they can think up but I ain't buying what the party is selling. Hey, a decision has been made we all NOW understand the NEW defination of the words BUSHING MATERIAL IS UNRESTRICTED. The party is being consistant & soon we'll fit right in with Production. No class line to cross.)

Jake, how about when people from IT who are or start using $1,100.00 clutch disc & pressure plates start talking ? Some times ya need to let the sleeping dog :015:

Jake, I read you last post again.

Production main hoop diagonal, read the March Fastrack.

Side protection, read the March Fastrack.

Side bars and diagonals and SBs IMHJ all have political responses that will not aggravate members.

Bob Bennett is the conspiracy theorist on the Production site.

Ifen ya don't understand this thread response, to bad I'm done with these subjects. Said with a :D
 
To Chris & all the other Folks who IMHU of the rule previous to the March Fastrack had been using illegal Spherical bearings within some locations of their IT race cars I had allready :birra: to you all upon the decision rendered. Again like I posted that when I can consistently turn laps within .5 second then I'll get concerned about more Spherical bearings in my car.

***I was concerned enough about this to secure an E Production number in Mid Div for 2006 in case the SB issue went the other way.***

Scott, it's easy to communicate with folks who thought Spherical bearings WERE LEGAL yet they were still on the fence. Hey, it's Saturday :birra: a few. <_<

Jake, I'll make my 3 item list of rules that have been responded to in the Fastrack & my belief of how they were answered by the party.

A. The Production main hoop diagonal Fastrack response is political so that the party don't aggravate members.
(& I will not get into a safety strength discussion about this issue with you or anyone. Ask the "X" leader of the party.)

B. The Fastrack response that the IT side protection tubes (IIRC) are compliant to the Production rule is not a fact. Therefore IMHJ, that is a political response. (The party should understand the written rule before responding.)

C. The Spherical bearing Fastrack response is political so that the party don't aggravate the members.
(The party can use all the not available parts, cost & what ever filler they can think up but I ain't buying what the party is selling. Hey, a decision has been made we all NOW understand the NEW defination of the words BUSHING MATERIAL IS UNRESTRICTED. The party is being consistant & soon we'll fit right in with Production. No class line to cross.)

Jake, how about when people from IT who are or start using $1,100.00 clutch disc & pressure plates start talking ? Some times ya need to let the sleeping dog :015:

Jake, I read you last post again.

Production main hoop diagonal, read the March Fastrack.

Side protection, read the March Fastrack.

Side bars and diagonals and SBs IMHJ all have political responses that will not aggravate members.

Bob Bennett is the conspiracy theorist on the Production site.

Ifen ya don't understand this thread response, to bad I'm done with these subjects. Said with a :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

David, first of all, who is the "party"??? Use commonly understood names or titles, please so I can understand your points. The CRB? Us guys on the ITAC? The BoD??

Item C- OK, you got me, I was lying to ya to toe the "party" line.
Happy?
not! Well, don't get excited. I'm not telling you anything but what I heard. As I said before, call it what you will, but I think you are getting a bit carried away ....again, my opinion after the con call with the guys who understand the original intent, is that it isn't about kissing asses of rich people, but you are entitled to your opinion. But don't tell me I'm "selling" or "filling" or whatever. The SB rule doesn't have a "new" meaning, but it has been clarified. See earlier posts for my "filling" and supporting info on that point.


Remember when you were a kid? And you yelled at your Mother from some part of the house because you wanted her to come and answer some question? And she would say, "It's your question, you come to me"?

Well, LOL, that's what seems to be going on here...you keep saying that the side bar inter class compatibility is "not a fact", and that the answer is wrong, and for political reasons.

Sorry but you will have to tell us WHY. What is the incompatibility issue? I can't agree with your conclusions if you can't provide cold hard reasons. If you want to make a point, you need to provide compelling and logical reasons.
 
***Remember when you were a kid? And you yelled at your Mother from some part of the house because you wanted her to come and answer some question? And she would say, "It's your question, you come to me"?****

Jake, number one I NEVER yelled at my mother from any room....................... Are we clear on that subject subject, do you understand what I just typed ? :)

***Well, LOL, that's what seems to be going on here...you keep saying that the side bar inter class compatibility is "not a fact", and that the answer is wrong, and for political reasons.

Sorry but you will have to tell us WHY. What is the incompatibility issue? I can't agree with your conclusions if you can't provide cold hard reasons. If you want to make a point, you need to provide compelling and logical reasons.***

Jake, I provided COLD HARD CONCLUSIVE LOGIC in another thread. I'll repeat the COOLD HARD LOGIC here for you. Please read very careful & ask any question about anything with this specific subject you don't understand or of anything I may not have presented completly.

March Fastrack response:

***2. IT - Questioning why the side protection rules are different in GT and Production (Dewhurst). The IT roll cages are based on the rules of Showroom Stock and, to some extent, Touring. The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT.***

"The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT." This statement my friends is a bunch of crap.

The SS/IT & Touring roll cage side protection rule is:

Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. An example for SS/IT & Touring side protection could be that the mandatory upper tube is at a diagonal & the lower mandatory tube is horizontal.

The Production & GT side protection rule is:

The minimum side protection shall consist of a HORIZONTAL side tube connecting the front and rear hoops across both the door openings. Additionally there shall also be either a diagonal tube from the front hoop to the rear hoop bisecting the door opening BELOW the HORIZONTAL side tube, or not less than two (2) horizontal side tubes.

The bunch of crap forwarded in the Fastrack is that per the rules the side protection which is legal for SS/IT & Touring as I described is COMPLIANT for Production & or GT race cars is NOT A FACT. THE TWO RULES ARE ABSOLUTLY DIFFERENT AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

Additional comment for an aide in understanding why I call the Fastrack respons a bunch of CRAP. If I build an IT car with the lower side protection tube being horizontal & the upper side protection tube at a diagonal the IT car with side protection described would not have legal/compliant Production/GT car side protection.

Any ITAC folks care to set me straight with the above rules IF I am not correct ?

I would write a letter but what's the value when the rule making people can't read their own rules.

Jake, please ask any question during your analysis of this post for driver side protection. At this time I presume the ITAC/CRB do not understand the written rules for side protection therefore the response is something other than true to the written rule. Call the Fastrack respons what you like but please prove to me that the response is FACT.
 
As someone from the outside, out of curiousity what was the inquiry and what was its point?

Absent NASCAR bars a SS/IT car retains the entire door structure and panel (except trim to fit). So any difference can be justified in the differing door prep levels. With close to full doors, a minor degree of flexibility in the two bars in SS/IT is not unreasonable.

Almost any side bar configuration other than the one you mentioned would be compliant across IT and Production - is there a pressing concern regarding the flexibility of the single variation that could occur in an IT/SS cage?

Other than your example of an SS/IT straight diagonal upper bar and straight horizontal lower bar - what concern were you attempting to address in your inquiry that the "false" statement so dramatically disregarded or discarded?

Is the "inaccuracy" of their statement to one particular configuration material to the concern you had?

As someone who can become impassioned over an issue myself - help me understand the Passion of the David.
 
Ed, the point of the whol deal is it is so simple to have identical side protection rules so that the transission from IT to Production is a no brainer as far as side protection is concerned. My question to the CRB was why not have the exact same word written rule for side protection in IT as Production has. The CRB response: "The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT." As my described previous post the rules do not support the CRB response.

This should be a simple rule change, but no the CRB would rather play games.

Jake, ya taken a flyer on this rule response bitch I have that you asked for clarification on ? :)
 
Ah, well it would only be inaccurate for the one situation you described. Other than that situation is there anything in the rules that would require side protection rework to go from IT to Production?

I agree that consistency would be nice, but has already been shown for a long period for whatever reason not to be as simple as that.

However - if your request was to change the IT rules to make them work for Production - I can also see their point as to "why change SS rules?", even if the reason was "inaccurately" stated in FasTrack. I have noticed that the summary notice in FasTrack is usually boiler plate - the description of the letter is not always wholly accurate in their 15 words or less description and likewise I am sure the response in FasTrack doesn't always necessarily reflect the full dicussion in their canned responses.

If you build side protection to the Production rules,it would be allowed in IT, even if there is an instance where building side protection to the IT rules wouldn't be permitted in Production.

The CRB also said only H&N "certified by SFI Foundation" are permitted to be used, and there are no H&N products certified by SFI Foundation as SFI does not certify anything, the manufacturers are the ones that certify compliance with a spec... Clearly not thier intent but it is the result.
 
***Anything you want discussed?? ;)

Jake, please address my post dated Feb 27, 2006 @ 8:50 p.m. :D :D :D

Thank you


***Ah, well it would only be inaccurate for the one situation you described. Other than that situation is there anything in the rules that would require side protection rework to go from IT to Production?***

Ed, thank you. I had that figured out. :D

***I agree that consistency would be nice, but has already been shown for a long period for whatever reason not to be as simple as that.***

Ed, after reading this post please tell me whay a sentence can not be added to the ITAC ROLL CAGE rule that would make ALL IT side protection legal in Production ? :D

***However - if your request was to change the IT rules to make them work for Production - I can also see their point as to "why change SS rules?", even if the reason was "inaccurately" stated in FasTrack. I have noticed that the summary notice in FasTrack is usually boiler plate - the description of the letter is not always wholly accurate in their 15 words or less description and likewise I am sure the response in FasTrack doesn't always necessarily reflect the full dicussion in their canned responses.***

Ed, ya add a sentence within the ITCA roll cage ruel. no change to the SS rules. :D
 
Ed, ya add a sentence within the ITCA roll cage ruel. no change to the SS rules. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

david, are you suggesting we should outlaw door bars in IT that are built to the one configuration that is not legal in prod. if I understand you that would make cerrwently legal IT car ilegal so that they could move to prod and still be legal, What am I missing?
 
David, I was posing possibilities - I certainly don't know the answer.

Yes, what you asked for could be done, but I don't think it should be. If someone wants to build side protection in their IT car that would also be permitted in Production, they can with the existing rule. Your proposal only limits what can be designed in IT for side protection, potentially excluding an SS car from entering IT without reworking their side protection.

Whether the reason given was an accurate statement or not, I do agree with their conclusion.

I don't see any benefit to safety or the IT ruleset to reduce the flexibility in side protection design as it currently exists based on SS rules.

If they build your one non-prod example, unlike in prod in IT they will not be able to gut the door.

I am trying to appreciate in any small manner the reason for the request, I guess I am just not getting it.
 
Guys, this whole deal is real simple. Make the friken rule from this date forward so that even the most simple minded rules idiot could understand the IT side protection rule & in the future could without tearing out the their IT side protection could convert the car to & have legal Production side protection.

Now, ya all have a nice :015:
 
But it isn't so simple. What about the poor SS cars that want to come to IT, now you want them to tear them out to have legal IT side protection?

Production is expected to be expensive so a change to side protection is less an impact on the expected budget, but what you are proposing is making it more expensive for an SS car to come to IT where it matters more relative to the IT budget to change the side protection.

You want to take away side protection design flexibility in IT and make IT more expensive. Ask Production to be more flexible instead that is a simpler deal and solves your issue.
 
Ed, as bright as you seem to think you are I'll bet if ya quit typing & do a little reading & thinking you also could figure a rule that would work for everyone going backwards from Production to IT to SS. All three class rules would be accecptable now between the three classes if the CRB would make each existing rule spec that the top tube SHALL be a horizontal tube.

The good thing about staying on the middle of the road is you'll never be wrong. :D
 
I've given this a little thought, and it's not black and white, that's for sure.

I keep falling back on the definition of "Horizontal" and it's real worl application.

In other words, what is, and what is NOT horizontal? The definition isn't in the good book, and absolute horizontal, as a standard dictionary definition gets thorny as how do you determine how much leeway is OK? .1 degree? 1 degree? 10 degrees? less than the diagonal the would be described by the rectangle, if there was one? less than 45 degrees?

Reasonable people may differ, to say the least.
 
Well since some parties believe that it advances a position to personalize a discussion while at the same time not being capable of taking their own advice, I will leave it at this:

Unless there is some compelling safety reason not to allow so, flexibility in permitted designs is preferable to inflexibility. Thus the SS/IT door bar rules are preferable, anyone that desires consistency would be better off seeking Production to permit the SS/IT design flexibility. Or anyone that intends to bring a car through classes would be well served to have read the rules of the classes they intend to go through in advance of building.

Be well.
 
***Reasonable people may differ, to say the least.***

Jake, thanks for the response. ;) When WE read the rule for main hoop diagonal & the recomended main hoop horizontal WE all understand what diagonal & horizontal means. :023:

Tolerance to diagonal & or horizontal, pick a number, +/_ 5* from dead nuts works for me. It ain't real difficult to measure from the lower door opening.
 
OK, so "horizontal " , to you, is with in 5 degrees of the lower door opening.

And in cars like a third gen RX-7 with a sloped lower opening...........?

if it were supposed to be measued against the lower door opening, maybe the rule would have read "Parallel to the lower door opening plus of minus X degrees"?

OK, maybe I'm just being a jerk here, LOL, but you see the point that the rule is rather loose.

It's just that I can see a guy walking up to tech, getting into it over the bar not matching the rule, the tech inspector having issues, and the guy saying, "Show me where 'horizontal' is defined, and there is a range of acceptability." Tough call.

Is there a common industry spec for us to fall back on when it comes to horizontal door bar tubing? Or just common sense. I'd like to think common sense will win, but everytime I do, somebody rightfully points out that there need to be guidelines for that to be determined.

In this case, Ed has made good points, and while I see the issue, I see the lose lose nature of the solutions.

Look, the cage rules are a known issue, and the word is that they are being looked at globally. Lets wait and see.
 
don't forget that I need to get in/out of the car quickly. I'm a parapalegic. If I wanted to run production I'd add bars. And if I needed to, I'd remove any that weren't appropriate-or is some bozzo prepared to argue that doing that would compromise the mettalurgy?!! So what's the problem. Please guys, get off it.
 
***When WE read the rule for main hoop diagonal & the recomended main hoop horizontal WE all understand what diagonal & horizontal means.***

Jake, how come ya skipped this ^ with zero comment. When WE build an IT car WE ALL understand what the main hoop diagonal & the recomended main hoop horizontal is. When you fab your next IT car with a horizontal top side protection tube let your understanding of the recomended main hoop horizontal tube guide you.

Ya didn't challenge my words "dead nuts".......... Hmmm, we must agree on what dead nuts means. :happy204: :birra:

***So what's the problem. Please guys, get off it.***

Phil, no problem. Have a :birra:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top