there is currently a small debate going on on the IT forums. When Tom Blaney announced his re-designed radius rod bushings, someone started wondering if using such bushings was legal or not in IT.

I know that A LOT of honda IT guys use them, and they are sold by both OPM and SBMS. I would bet money that ARRC-winning cars were using them, FWIW.

The point of contention is that the rules say that bushing material is free, but it doesn't say anything about method of attachement, or dimiensions.
Since the spherical radius rob bushing is of a totally different design, and requires drilling holes in the car to attach it (hence making illegal modification to the chassis), there maybe a point to be made here.

Does anybody (Rules Nerds?) have an opinion?

 

I've just always gone by the idea that if the rules don't specifically allow it, then it's illegal.

Now, I personally don't know anything about these radius rod bushings - but if chassis modification isn't allowed, and is required to install these pieces, then they're illegal. JMO.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SJR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">there is currently a small debate going on on the IT forums. When Tom Blaney announced his re-designed radius rod bushings, someone started wondering if using such bushings was legal or not in IT.

I know that A LOT of honda IT guys use them, and they are sold by both OPM and SBMS. I would bet money that ARRC-winning cars were using them, FWIW.

The point of contention is that the rules say that bushing material is free, but it doesn't say anything about method of attachement, or dimiensions.
Since the spherical radius rob bushing is of a totally different design, and requires drilling holes in the car to attach it (hence making illegal modification to the chassis), there maybe a point to be made here.

Does anybody (Rules Nerds?) have an opinion?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of an "illegal modification to the chassis." Oil catch cans, for example, are allowed in IT and there is no mention of the fact that you're allowed to drill holes in the chassis or body in order to mount it. I'm all for the concept of "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" but when taken too literally it can get absurd. Oil coolers are allowed to be added or substituted, and the ITCS tells you where you can mount them, but it doesn't say you can run plumbing to and from your oil cooler from the motor.

 

That debate looks more like rival makes just trying to start a stink. Racing Poker.

For once IMHO I think the rule is a little "grey". Like Travis said, you can legally add things to the car, but the rules don't clearly state how to attach them.

One section of the rules under "Suspension Control" states that any anti-roll bars, traction bars, panhard bars, or watts linkage may be added or substituted, provided that it serves no other purpose. Mounts for said devices may be welded or bolted to the structure of the vehicle. Traction bars used to control axle rotation, shall be one piece solid bar or tube.

One could argue that the radius rod serves as a traction bar for the front drive car. Look at all the pimpy tubular crossmembers with "traction bars" that are availible for our cars. If that is the case then Tom's (both of them...) product is legal cut and dry.

I can see where this could turn into a giant debate...but when you get down to it somebody will have to get protested (I have not heard of any top ARRC finishers that have been), and it will have to go before the powers that be to determine if it is legal or not.

JMH $.02

 

Thanks guys for the info. I am under the same oponion that if the rules allow you to use alternate parts, than the idea that drilling a hole constiutes a chassis modification is a bit absurd. Yes I have enhanced the design that was available before, and the method of mounting the parts existed before and has not changed. As Travis mentioned, I am following the same idea regarding mounting of other alternate devices such as coolers, accusumps, swaybars etc.

Unfortunatly I get sucked into ego battles with some of the rule nerds.

 

Every frontrunning ITA CRX and 2G Integra has them. So does my car in ITC.

Apparently a whole bunch of people read it as free under bushing material. If its not legal, and a protest gets upheld, a bunch of people will have to remove them.
That would suck.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tom Blaney &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am under the same oponion that if the rules allow you to use alternate parts, than the idea that drilling a hole constiutes a chassis modification is a bit absurd.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If simply drilling a hole is all that has to be done to install these bushings, then I agree with you - I don't really see it as "chassis modification," so much as just installing an alternate part.

 

I would read ITCS section 17.1.4.b. The last couple of lines read:
"Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, NO component or part normally found on a STOCK example of a given vehicle may be disabled,ALTERED, or removed for the purpose of obtaining ANY competitive advantage"

Thoughts?

 

Wouldn't that be superceded by allowing any bushings, and also allowing welding/bolting to the vehicle structure for traction bar mounts?

 

here's where I have to wonder:
- people in CRX have won the ARRC before.
- they were running radius rob bushings such as the ones SBMS and OPM sell
- they went to the shed afterwards and the car was looked over by techs.
- they were open to protests
- it's no seceret that every front running crx has them on

why have they never been protested? It's not like they're anything new...


just wonderin'.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SJR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">- it's no seceret that every front running crx has them on

why have they never been protested? It's not like they're anything new...
</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is where I'm at.
Its not that this means that they are definately legal, but it certainly does mean that most people feel that they are.
Its not like there are a few outlaw guys out of one shop using this part. Pretty much EVERYBODY is using it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Every frontrunning ITA CRX and 2G Integra has them.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I dont Have them But will soon. Expecting good improvement.

 

Can I drill holes in my subframe to bolt on brackets for lower A-arm bushings? Can those bushings move the pivot points upward to put the roll centers back in favorable alignment with the body lower between the struts? Can the holes be located in such a way to make this happen if bushings or brackets can't? Do we REALLY want to open up the Pandora's box of modifying suspension point pick-ups? If I can drill holes, can I cut with other tools? If I can remove material, can I weld on what is there? Can I add material?

Scott made what I thought was an EXCELLENT case about the "Big 5" attributes give IT its IT-ness - stock bodywork, DOT tires, limited engine modifications, stock gearbox internals, and stock suspension geometry.

This seems like a VERY slippery slope to me, allowing modifications of the chassis - or the moving suspension part - to allow the otherwise legal replacement of bushing materials.

Is it possible that since many - most? - of the frontrunning ITA cars are using them, there is a certain disincentive to filing paper on them? Remember that, until someone does - AND the protest is upheld, appealed, and acted on by the COA - there is no real ruling on legality. Even at that, it doesn't actually set a legal precedent...

K

 

Come on guys, there is more mental anguish going on over the potential legalities of this part that there was in the physical design of the part.

First off there is no geometry change or relocation of the suspension with this part period. The stock suspension relies on rubber bushings that will flex well past the centerline of the pivot point of the bearing making the stock part more capable of modifying the geometry. Secondly the rules already state that the bushing is allowed to change. The only contest here is the idea that holes have to be drilled (just as the ones in the past have been, and have passed scrutany of tech at numerous ARRC championships, where it is the requirement of the tech officials to deem the car is legal or not on all counts not based on a protested item)

It has been already hashed over that the rules do allow for bolting of parts or welding of parts for mounting purposes. As I also stated on the other site, the idea of contesting the fact of using nuts and bolts to mount a previously accepted component will simply force a redesign of the item to resolve a pissing contest, the bearing will cost more and still function the same. What has this done to improve the class or the club in general absolutely nothing. Look at the larger picture, do you want to encourage innovation within realistic rules, or do you want to make this SPEC HONDA and SPEC BMW and SPEC VW. Drilling holes to accomidate a legal part is no different that making mounting bracket for an oil cooler, an accusump or a larger sway bar.

Try and keep focused on the bigger picture, be more open to options and spend less time nit picking rules interpretations and more time on practical driver skills, improved safe design of parts and automotive development for the improvement of the racing experience.

 

Because of the biased opinions regarding the mounting method for the assembly, I have come up with a new alternate design of the mounting for the bushing assembly.

This alternate method does not require any modification to the chassis assembly or any drilling of holes, bending, welding, grinding, scraping, prying, heating, cooling, or any other stated variation on the theme of any part of the stock suspension assembly, or any said modification to the radius rod itself, it's components and or so defined sub-assemblies. It also does not change the heretofor defined basic suspension geometry concept or said functionality, and if desired the item can be painted "rubber color" to prevent the possible concern that the item doesn't match the color of the original bushings (aka Monty Python "Thank You Very Much").

This will be a new new part, and will not replace the existing new part. Since there is only one definitive way to displace all of the "opinions" regarding the legality of the mounting of the prior new released design, and this has not been done, the originial new part will still be considered a legal part, and will be available for purchase with good old American money.

Finally to reduce the about of un-necessary written communication and potential for never ending dribble about the potential possibility of concern for legality of the part, new photos of the part will only be sent upon the receipt of a check for an order or should anyone have contact with "Jack Bauer of 24" and he personally appears at my door will new photographs be released to a non-paying individual.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tom Blaney &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Because of the biased opinions regarding the mounting method for the assembly... </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll grant you this, Tom - you've got a great grasp on the politician's skill of staying on message, and defining the opposition into a defensive position.

K

 

Why thank you, and not only that, but I can drive a Honda pretty fast and build killer motors as well...