183 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Can we get a little clarity on this...

Rules, P/N's etc.

J~
 

The part number for the bushings is not part of the final rule. That rule says:

MOTION: [/size]Approve add to #15634 – 9.1.7.C.3.p: [/size]Inner bushing(s) on the front upper control arms may be replaced with offset bushings. [/size]Hanushek/Butler. PASSED 11-2 Against Langlotz, Lindstrand. [/size]

The rule will read that ANY offset upper bushing is allowed.

We ordered 4 sets Monday - will be installing soon for Homestead.

[Diller]

 

MazdaSpeed Part Number:  0000-04-5409   

Member price is $66.66 for the set

 

 

My guess/hope is SMAC just over looked it in error.   Nevertheless, this will be the spec part number in the 2015 NASA SM Rules.

 

 

 

This is what I went off of from another thread and placed my order.

[Brian129]

There are two suppliers currently

Isc racing out of Florida has Delrin material with a metal sleeve.
White line suspension 61-1322 is a metal sleeve with a filled core center, and a metal tube for the bolt

The whiteline part is out of stock, there was a rumor there was to be no more, but that was before the class became their biggest customer.

In talking to someone at Mazdaspeed they have a part number as called out above.
They do not have a supplier as of now, which will likely be one of the currently available options.

Or make your own.

[Johnny D]

Yes, Wheel's comment was "just make your own" which I guess needs to be confirmed as well, but if it's acceptable...

 

Got some Dimensions/drawings for the DIY'er ??

 

J~

[Johnny D]

Lower left on the page. Just posting not confirmed legal, IMO.

http://www.iscracing...suspension.html

J~

[Diller]

By the looks of things, NASA will have a spec part that will have to come from Mazdaspeed (going off of what John posted). It would seem very very strange if the SCCA did not do the same. I think they kind of dropped the ball on this by not specifying a part number/supplier in the original release.

[davew]

Advanced Autosports has been in contact with Whiteline. They have re-designed their bushing and will be producing them in the next few weeks.

 

I have the first 100 sets on order from them. I expect deliver mid to late January. They are being made in Australia, holiday delivery may vary.

 

Let me say that the rule as stated in various posts and emails, then clarified by Jim Wheeler is very poorly written. I believe this shows a lack of complete thought on this issue by the people involved. The rule needs to be rewitten with the same carefullness to exact wording as is now in the plunge cut wording. 

 

MY OPINION is that this is a bad idea. But the masses and rules makers have spoken and I will follow their lead.

 

As Wheel stated, the intent is for rubber/delrin/ plastic material to be used. Not heim joints or spherical balls. Yet, here is the definition of "bushing" as taken from the SCCA rulebook

Bushing/Bush – A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing.

 

Adjusting the width of the bushing on the front versus rear bushing along with positioning of the hole (the 12 oclock position may give enough camber and also allow adjustment of roll center) will cause changes to suspension geometry. A whole new adjustment has been opened up. Who is now the best chassis engineer?????

 

Wheel, since you are the senior rules maker who pays attention to this forum, I ask you to very quickly reword this rule so its intent is very clear. Material, dimensions, installation procedures etc all need to be addressed. Along with allowed vendors, is it solely Mazda or is it open source. Current SMAC members, learn from this. You need to know exactly what the consequences are to the words you write.

 

Many years ago when I was on the SMAC, competitors where removing the oem side mirrors for aerodynamic reasons. We wrote a rule requiring the oem exterior mirrors be used. Then we included within 6 inches of oem position. After even more thought we added the line "to the outside of the door". To keep people from putting the mirror on the inside of the door, thus defeating the rules purpose. It is important for rules makers to be smarter than the rules breakers.  As someone mentioned in a previous post "be carefull what you wish for".

 

Dave

[Mark]

LOL, why? 

 

If you think the bushing spec is strange what about the plunge cut?  The 2014 NASA CCR specs a 9 mm max plunge cut for the 1.8 vs a 12 mm plunge max depth for the SCCA in the latest GCR.  Maybe a typo in one of these docs but still rules is rules

 

In general I think specing a single source for a part is a bad move. I think the SCCA got this one right if Jim W's post holds water. Either prices go way up (AWR spring perches, FC bumpstops) or there are supply issues (ACT clutches, Eibach swaybars). This creates a situation where we are potentially price gouged by a single source or a situation where a few lucky ones get the part and everyone else loses out until supply catches up with demand. 

 

Spec the part and not the vendor. Allow multiple suppliers to meet the spec. If it is necessary to provide a part number to make life easier for the rule writers then provide acceptable part numbers from multiple suppliers. 

 

Mark

[Johnny D]

We should think about this... And they are too, of course.

Spec a vendor, only one, not so good.

Spec the part, better, but then this needs to be teched, dim, material, ?

Open, Wild Wild West, Can of worms, not sure what the caveats.

I wouldn't mind making it.

J~

[wheel]

We could, certainly, add "spherical bearings are not allowed".  

[john mueller]

 

Advanced Autosports has been in contact with Whiteline. They have re-designed their bushing and will be producing them in the next few weeks.

 

I have the first 100 sets on order from them. I expect deliver mid to late January. They are being made in Australia, holiday delivery may vary.

 

Let me say that the rule as stated in various posts and emails, then clarified by Jim Wheeler is very poorly written. I believe this shows a lack of complete thought on this issue by the people involved. The rule needs to be rewitten with the same carefullness to exact wording as is now in the plunge cut wording. 

 

MY OPINION is that this is a bad idea. But the masses and rules makers have spoken and I will follow their lead.

 

As Wheel stated, the intent is for rubber/delrin/ plastic material to be used. Not heim joints or spherical balls. Yet, here is the definition of "bushing" as taken from the SCCA rulebook

Bushing/Bush – A sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing.

 

Adjusting the width of the bushing on the front versus rear bushing along with positioning of the hole (the 12 oclock position may give enough camber and also allow adjustment of roll center) will cause changes to suspension geometry. A whole new adjustment has been opened up. Who is now the best chassis engineer?????

 

Wheel, since you are the senior rules maker who pays attention to this forum, I ask you to very quickly reword this rule so its intent is very clear. Material, dimensions, installation procedures etc all need to be addressed. Along with allowed vendors, is it solely Mazda or is it open source. Current SMAC members, learn from this. You need to know exactly what the consequences are to the words you write.

 

Many years ago when I was on the SMAC, competitors where removing the oem side mirrors for aerodynamic reasons. We wrote a rule requiring the oem exterior mirrors be used. Then we included within 6 inches of oem position. After even more thought we added the line "to the outside of the door". To keep people from putting the mirror on the inside of the door, thus defeating the rules purpose. It is important for rules makers to be smarter than the rules breakers.  As someone mentioned in a previous post "be carefull what you wish for".

 

Dave

 

 

From the man who's been there & done that.... Thanks Dave.

[john mueller]

We could, certainly, add "spherical bearings are not allowed".  

 

If it's allowed within the SCCA procedural rules to add that ^ phrase then add the MazdaSpeed part number and be done with it.  Spec parts for a Spec car.

[davew]

If it's allowed within the SCCA procedural rules to add that ^ phrase then add the MazdaSpeed part number and be done with it.  Spec parts for a Spec car.

 

Unfortunately, Mazda does not have a part to spec. They do not have a supplier sourced. If Mazda where to source Whiteline as a vendor, why can't I sell Whiteline? Just as I sell Bilstein and Eibach.

 

Another history lesson; When the 99 cars where first allowed, and then the 99 shock hats where allowed for all cars, we found a problem with the shock pushing through the rubber bushings. We eventually made a spacer legal that kept the problem from occuring. My drawing is still shown in the GCR. This is another example of why testing any new part is so important.

 

I can think of several other instances where rules changes where verified/proven by members of the SMAC prior to approval. My hope is that the current SMAC will have the for-thought to test each and every rule change before implimentation. And to think about the consequences of knee jerk reactions. I would also place responsibility on the CRB and BoD for allowing such a vague rule to pass through. At a minimum dimensions and material need to be speced. As well as installation perameters.

 

Just my opinions

Dave

[Bench Racer]

Dave, it's great you have returned.      

 

Or one could use this SCCA GCR Technical Glossary definition.

 

Suspension Bushing – A hollow cylindrical mounting component which

acts as a bearing, allowing constrained motion, between a suspension

component and attachment point.

[FTodaro]

LOL, why? 

 

If you think the bushing spec is strange what about the plunge cut?  The 2014 NASA CCR specs a 9 mm max plunge cut for the 1.8 vs a 12 mm plunge max depth for the SCCA in the latest GCR.  Maybe a typo in one of these docs but still rules is rules

 

In general I think specing a single source for a part is a bad move. I think the SCCA got this one right if Jim W's post holds water. Either prices go way up (AWR spring perches, FC bumpstops) or there are supply issues (ACT clutches, Eibach swaybars). This creates a situation where we are potentially price gouged by a single source or a situation where a few lucky ones get the part and everyone else loses out until supply catches up with demand. 

 

Spec the part and not the vendor. Allow multiple suppliers to meet the spec. If it is necessary to provide a part number to make life easier for the rule writers then provide acceptable part numbers from multiple suppliers. 

 

Mark

Mark I like the idea of a spec part but open suppliers, but i will just point out that Mazda is still the a major sponsor of the class and there are other Political issues in play. We are supposed to use all Mazda OEM parts except for a rather short list of open items. I am just pointing out that the Mazda part requirement is consistent with the classes past.

[pitbull113]

I have the ISC bushings in my uppers and like them a lot.

[Mark]

Agree for the most part but having been one of the 'have nots'  due to a  couple of different parts shortages I am not so quick to jump on the 'single source' bandwagon these days.

 

Mark 

 

 

Mark I like the idea of a spec part but open suppliers, but i will just point out that Mazda is still the a major sponsor of the class and there are other Political issues in play. We are supposed to use all Mazda OEM parts except for a rather short list of open items. I am just pointing out that the Mazda part requirement is consistent with the classes past.

[Johnny D]

Should we have a Mazda Representative in on the meetings or at least send John Doonan/Mazdaspeed a copy of the minute/email as a heads up?

This is what we're suggesting...

Assuming he/Mazdaspeed didn't know this was coming ??

 

I know we talked about this, but just a fly on the wall, kind of deal ??

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Dave, your point about bump steer is valid and I mentioned it previously, especially when combined with existing tweaks. If I were a cheater, I would set the bushing to minimize pump steer (especially on a 1.6) then continue getting camber the old-fashioned tech shed legal way. So I hope this new rule doesn't totally end concerns about bent or re-drilled parts. But it doesn't take a chassis engineer to figure out that with these cars setting the bushings for less bump steer but "enough" camber will be the basic goal. And for those of us in desperate need of a camber equalizer, I'm a lot less worried about someone figuring out the perfect balance between the two.

[Ron Alan]

Did some get out just in time?