Updated Radius Rod Bushings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom Blaney
  • Start date Start date
This is why I have stopped commenting on this site, it becomes nothing more than a pissing contest.

As far as the geometry goes, the stock rubber donuts are capable of flexing far beyond the range of the center line of the radius bushing.

As I stated before NOBODY here is the final word on this item, not me, and not Darian, so unless there is an official statement from SCCA stating that these are illegal, nobody here can make the statement that they are. And should such a statement be made, I will alter the design to accomidate the existing hole for a substantially higher cost, and everybody loses.

The club loses because now backyard innovation becomes frowned upon, and ITA becomes SPEC HONDA with all parts purchased from Enterprises. The drivers lose because they have to pay more for the same item, and you lose because the part will still exits and the individual who owns (or builds his own) will have an advantage over you.
 
Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
As I stated before NOBODY here is the final word on this item, not me, and not Darian, so unless there is an official statement from SCCA stating that these are illegal, nobody here can make the statement that they are.
Click to expand...

Tom,

This isn't a pissing contest... I've simply asked you to back your product's legality with the ITCS, and you haven't to this point... All it would take is for you to quote the pertinent rules from the ITCS...

And I don't think it's such a great way of going about things to assume that something is legal, just because the SCCA hasn't SPECIFIALLY addressed that ONE item directly...

The rules are pretty clear, and the ITCS is the final authority... All I've done is quote you the lines... You do the same to back up your case and I'll whole-heartedly appologize...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 02, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Tom Blaney:
...Your comments are appreciated.
Click to expand...

I think Darin's making a comment. I think Tom's put in the position of having to defend a commercial venture. I think the whole issue is exactly that - the difference between two opinions - until such time that a protest gets made, appealed, and decided.

I also think that it's significant that the ITCS, where it talks about adding ARBs, Panhard rods, and the like, explicitly states that mounts can be welded or bolted to the body...

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I also think that it's significant that the ITCS, where it talks about adding ARBs, Panhard rods, and the like, explicitly states that mounts can be welded or bolted to the body...

K
Click to expand...

Kirk,

If you are suggesting that a T/C rod is "any anti-roll bar(s), tracktion bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage", then frankly I'm suprised...

If THAT is what the supporting rule is that people believe supports the use of suspension components such as this, then I'm sure no one would have a problem with me replacing the T/C rods on my 240SX completely with a set of aluminium ones equiped with Heims?? After all, that rule does say "may be added or substituted..."

Based on the GCR glossery, a T/C rod is NOT a "roll-bar", "traction bar", "panhard rod", "watts linkage"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Why would you think that, D.? It doesn't say that at all. My point is that, where the book thinks it needs to make allowances to mount things to the tub, it seems to say so.

K
 
Kirk, I had to read your response several times to get your meaning. I agree if bolting the carrier to the chassis was allowed the book would say so. I made these kind of carriers years ago for the 240z's but we quit using them because the rule really does not support them. I would suggest a request with photos and data. I like this kida of unit and it is very cost effective over the long run. At this time I am sure they don't meet the spec.
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Why would you think that, D.? It doesn't say that at all. My point is that, where the book thinks it needs to make allowances to mount things to the tub, it seems to say so.

K
Click to expand...

Kirk,

If you read my response, you'll see that I really didn't think that was what you are saying... That's why I said I'd be suprised...

The rest of it was for the benefit of others, to see how twisting that rule would effect the class...

I agree completely with your take... And Joe's...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Tom,

The pics are one shot shy of answering my questions. I'm assuming the long "hexed" sleeve is threaded internally to move for/aft on the radius rod? If so have you figured the amount of castor change possible? Unfortunatly I already have a similar take-apart-to-adjust set (legal or not) but might upgrade later if I see the need.

------------------
Ian
http://www.geocities.com/stscxr
 
Yes that is correct; the internal thread is used to readjust the caster angle to within factory specifications.



[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited March 07, 2005).]
 
than the plates that the Nissan's use better find a way to create a new attachment method.
Tom I think you better go read the ITCS again before you make a silly claim like this. The factory shock mount bolted into the top tof the strut tower to start with. Second it is allowed to remove or add material for a camber plate per the ITCS.
No where in the strut rod bushing rule is it allowed to change the method of attachment. It is allowed to change material and that's it. I would love to have you bushing kit approved and I will go back to selling them for Nissans also but at this point they aren't legal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
As mentioned in a prior post, if push comes to shove, and in the drive for peace and harmony amoung the discenting camps, I have developed an alternate mounting method for my radius rod bushing assembly.

The new new assembly will use the majority of the old new assembly but will not make any modifications to the chassis. The original suspension geometry and functionaity has not changed.

The new new updated radius rod bushing and the new updated radius rod bushing will be available via my website. SBMS_Racing

[This message has been edited by Tom Blaney (edited March 10, 2005).]
 
The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free
As to the drilling the holes,
1. Fasteners are free. Including thoses that are need to mount any legal part.
Tom: How does the the alternate attachment work.
 
Originally posted by USGUYS:
The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free
Click to expand...
Yes bushing material is free

1. Fasteners are free. Including thoses that are need to mount any legal part.
Click to expand...

Hardware items (nuts,bolts,ect.)may be replaced by similar items performing the same fastening fuctions(s).

Exact words from the ITCS. Please explain how you get to the same mounting function by drilling 4 new holes?
 
Originally posted by USGUYS:
The part is legal.
1. Bushings are free
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the ITCS says "MATERIAL" is free, not bushings themselves... You have to stretch things awefully far to make the case that those bushings in the picture represent simply an alternate material...

As for the fastener comment... see Joe's post above...

Is it REALLY that hard for you guys to just follow the rules like everyone else has to???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 12, 2005).]
 
Has everyone forgot the easiest way to get clairification, call a tech guy and ask!
it's not that hard, unless you all are board and need something to debate.
TOM,
they might be illeagal or maybe not, i just want to know where to get them and how much for my non-scca car.
thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top