183 replies to this topic

[davew]

I just got a call from Whiteline. They are looking at 3 months before we will anything in our hands. They currently have no inventory in their U.S. warehouse nor in Australia.

 

Keep an eye on our website and facebook page for further developments.

 

below is my opinion of how the rule should be worded. SMAC-NASA, feel free to copy and/or adjust.

 

Spec Miata offset bushing rule as I feel it should be written:

 

Only the front upper control arm bushings may be replaced with offset bushings. All other bushings must be oem Mazda bushings. Use of the Mazda performance bushings is not allowed.

Front upper control arm bushings may be purchased through any supplier or made by the competitor. The following brands and part numbers have found to be legal:

Mazdaspeed part #

Whiteline motor sports part #

Joe Blows bushing company, part #

The bushings must be the identical at all 4 pivot points. No mixing of material or design is permitted.

The bushing shall consist of an inner metal sleeve, with dimensions as shown in drawing A

Inside diameter xx.xxx inches +/- 0.005"

Outside diameter yy.yy inches +/- 0.100"

length zz.zz inches +/- 0.100"

The bushing material must be a form of plastic/polyurethane/delrin/etc. No metal may be used. No heim joint or spherical ball may be used. Dimensions shown in drawing B

The offset bushing may only be used to create more negative camber (i.e. top of tire farther inboard) by changing the location of the inner pivot point in a horizontal axis only. The offset may not be used to change the location of the pivot point on the verticle axis. Nor may it change the angle of the pivot points when viewed from the top or side.

A pin or screw must be installed through the outer bushing shell (which is part of the control arm) in such a manner as to make it impossible for the bushing to rotate within the outer shell.

 

Let me reiterate my opinion. This rule is wrong. If everybody has the same issues, we have fair competition. This was brought about because a few people decided that they needed an illegal advantage. And they do not want to give up their gains. Then the SCCA rulesmakers made a hasty decision without completely thinking the issue  through.

 

Also, how many more wheel bearings will we be going through with more camber? How about more forces going to the front subframe, causing more tearing of the suspension pickups? Will the additional camber be putting too much stress on the ball joints?

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

 

Just my opinion

Dave

[Johnny D]

Are these molded instead of machined ??

 

You could have 100's in a week machined, probably takes long to get the material than to make.

 

That's why I wanted the dimensions.

J~

[davew]

I beleave the Whitelines are molded, but I am not sure.

 

Dave

[john mueller]

 

Let me reiterate my opinion. This rule is wrong. If everybody has the same issues, we have fair competition. This was brought about because a few people decided that they needed an illegal advantage. And they do not want to give up their gains. Then the SCCA rulesmakers made a hasty decision without completely thinking the issue  through.

 

Also, how many more wheel bearings will we be going through with more camber? How about more forces going to the front subframe, causing more tearing of the suspension pickups? Will the additional camber be putting too much stress on the ball joints?

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

 

Just my opinion

Dave

 

Mine thought exactly too.  I was pushing for a camber range/limit that everyone needed to stay within but offset bushings gained steam and was not stoppable.  So, yet another example of a cheat (bent spindles and the like) causing (or forcing or caving) class leadership to find a way to make it legal.  I'm getting tired of it.

 

NASA will be hijacking much of this.  Thank you Dave.

[Johnny D]

Dave, John love you guys.

 

More camber then possible...we discussed...

Yes there we're bent parts, yes we should correct it, how do we tech because it going to happen, fixtures, alignment equipment in tech ??

Easier (if the bushing were in stock) to just go to the bushings, then try to tech it.

 

If you got the answer, I'm listening...

I have no problem with going with repealing the bushing rule if you have the answer.

 

And I think the hubs are going bad from the big ass Hoosiers that aren't 205.

J~

[Tom Sager]

 

 

Let me reiterate my opinion. This rule is wrong. If everybody has the same issues, we have fair competition. This was brought about because a few people decided that they needed an illegal advantage. And they do not want to give up their gains. Then the SCCA rulesmakers made a hasty decision without completely thinking the issue  through.

 

Also, how many more wheel bearings will we be going through with more camber? How about more forces going to the front subframe, causing more tearing of the suspension pickups? Will the additional camber be putting too much stress on the ball joints?

 

Be carefull what you wish for.

 

Just my opinion

Dave

Dave, I think allowing bushings for more camber will make us more "spec".  Otherwise it'll likely result in a few still having as much camber as they want.  Some will find the best combination of stock parts or will massage the parts in such a way which won't be found in tech.  Camber will become one more thing we have to mess with.  Finding knuckles, control arms, subframes, ball joints and bushings that give that little extra that makes a difference.  I for one don't want to mess with all that and spend on that.   There will be the camber haves and have-nots.  

 

I do agree that the wheel bearing wear may be a greater issue, but if I had to pick my poison, I'll take the wheel bearing challenge as I think we'll have that issue to some extent either way with these giant sticky tires we now run.  We really should go to a smaller and/or less sticky tire but getting through SCCA and NASA houses of congress would be excruciating.  

[Steve Scheifler]

Dave, nearly everyone even close to the front already has the camber through one means or another and have had for many years. In the past five years many not near the front have bought the parts to get it. So there is plenty of data out there already, and the world didn't end. And whatever I wear out as a result will damn sure be cheaper than tires.

Tom, you are describing exactly how it HAS been for a long time, though the "optimized" parts have become more common and sold openly. But yea, crack down on the easy/common cheat and people will just spend more to go back in the shadows so the gap widens again.

I hate giving in to these things but I try to be logical and pragmatic because I hate even more to lose because I'm unwilling to join the herd.

[FTodaro]

I hate giving in to these things but I try to be logical and pragmatic because I hate even more to lose because I'm unwilling to join the herd.

 

We can only blame ourselves not the club for trying to keep it equal.

[Steve Scheifler]

Not sure what blame you mean? My run-on sentence was probably unclear. On the one hand I understand the reluctance to accommodate the cheats, but I'm tired of being at a disadvantage and don't see any practical way to stop them. So I prefer this over the alternatives.

[TJKearney]

So, yet another example of a cheat (bent spindles and the like) causing (or forcing or caving) class leadership to find a way to make it legal.  I'm getting tired of it.

 

 

 

THIS. Exactly.  It's downright embarrasing.   What's worse is I've lost bearing on if it's a Club Leadership issue, or a Class Leadership issue...and that's the most depressing part.

[FTodaro]

Not sure what blame you mean? My run-on sentence was probably unclear. On the one hand I understand the reluctance to accommodate the cheats, but I'm tired of being at a disadvantage and don't see any practical way to stop them. So I prefer this over the alternatives.

Steve my point is, that over the last few months with all that has gone on with the rules some people seem to say that it is wrong to as you say "accommodate the cheats". but like everything, it depends on your point of view and what you choose to focus on.  Another perspective is to keep the rules current with the racing environment. As you say, would rather the rules work to keep the competition fair and equal and as low cost as possible, rather that stick your head in the sand and stick to the way it was just to say that you did so.

 

What class be it club racing or professional that has had the same rule set for 10 years with no changes?

 

I am trying to agree with you, but also saying this is not a bad thing. Its going to happen as a natural progression, with the environment we are in. The environment being competition and people always pushing the limit.

[Steve Scheifler]

OK, got it. Agreed.

And to TJK, I get it, but EXACTLY what would you do instead? Real question, not rhetorical.

If I were writing rules for the "next big thing" entry level class, a decent LOW COST bushing set and "enough" camber would on my short list of must-haves. Regardless of anything else, they are almost all good and little bad because they save huge money long-term and improve the car as a learning platform for both setup and driving. Since I believe that, I would be in favor of this rule even if nobody ever cheated on camber, so how can I be against it now?

[Bench Racer]

Perspective:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=y0z5ZSRA3i8

[38bfast]

Cheater parts were not made legal. By allowing bushings that will pay for them selves in one set of tires, how can this be viewed as anything but a positive. It also eliminates the need to parts bin match a lot of very expensive front end parts to get good camber numbers. And then go through that process again every time there is metal to metal. This change will save a racer thousands of dollars and even up the have from the have nots. IMHO this is probably one of the best changes the class has seen. Saves lots of money, levels the playing field, better handling, easy tech solution. Win win for everyone. This rule should have been in the books right from the start of the class. Amazing it took this long to make it happen.

The only way I could see this be taken as a negative from a racer is if he was cheating to get camber that now his advantage has been lost because everyone now can get camber with ease. Or if your are in the SM support business and you will lose a lot of revenue because you won't be swapping out lots of suspension parts. 

[Steve Scheifler]

I have three sets of the ISC bushings on the way but meanwhile also ordered one set of the Super Pro version for comparison, even though they are twice the price. That showed up first.  As you can see in the picture below they are the reverse approach of the ISC and (I think) Whiteline in that the center metal bushing serves as the eccentric rather than the main Delrin (or whatever) outer bushing.  I would think there are pros & cons to each.  This approach gives you a uniform thickness/compliance of the outer bushing all the way around whereas with the other approach the bushing is very thin on one side and thick on the other.  But with the ISC you can pin the outer bushing in place to lock in your setting and not worry about it rotating, while the Super Pros rely on friction between the ends of the center bushing and the mounting tabs (and provided washer on the inner tabs).

 

If I wanted to use these as a point of frequent adjustment I might give the SuperPros a try, but if I want to set them to minimum bump-steer with “enough” camber and then do all routine tuning from the original adjusters, then I’d pick the ISCs.  I’m not fond of the stock adjusters but at least they move in a horizontal plain without messing with other geometry.  I’m expecting the ISCs to be firm enough that the asymmetric compliance is not an issue, at least compared to running stock rubber, but we’ll see.

 

[wheel]

Here is a possible clarification of the rule

For camber adjustment only, inner suspension bushing(s) on the front upper control arms may be replaced with non-metalic offset bushings. Spherical bearings are not allowed.

[38bfast]

Jim the busshing sleeve is metallic.

[ChrisA]

I have three sets of the ISC bushings on the way but meanwhile also ordered one set of the Super Pro version for comparison, even though they are twice the price. That showed up first.  As you can see in the picture below they are the reverse approach of the ISC and (I think) Whiteline in that the center metal bushing serves as the eccentric rather than the main Delrin (or whatever) outer bushing.  I would think there are pros & cons to each.  This approach gives you a uniform thickness/compliance of the outer bushing all the way around whereas with the other approach the bushing is very thin on one side and thick on the other.  But with the ISC you can pin the outer bushing in place to lock in your setting and not worry about it rotating, while the Super Pros rely on friction between the ends of the center bushing and the mounting tabs (and provided washer on the inner tabs).

 

If I wanted to use these as a point of frequent adjustment I might give the SuperPros a try, but if I want to set them to minimum bump-steer with “enough” camber and then do all routine tuning from the original adjusters, then I’d pick the ISCs.  I’m not fond of the stock adjusters but at least they move in a horizontal plain without messing with other geometry.  I’m expecting the ISCs to be firm enough that the asymmetric compliance is not an issue, at least compared to running stock rubber, but we’ll see.

 

 I had the SuperPros all around when the car was just a trackday car. In the upper control arm position you won't really have to worry about the eccentric rotating once you have it torqued down. You will need to make sure the arm is at ride height before you tighten it though. Poly does not make a good bearing, so you will probably need to remove the inner sleeve once a year (might make it 2) to lubricate bushing to prevent stiction/bind.

[Rob Burgoon]

Mine thought exactly too.  I was pushing for a camber range/limit that everyone needed to stay within but offset bushings gained steam and was not stoppable.  So, yet another example of a cheat (bent spindles and the like) causing (or forcing or caving) class leadership to find a way to make it legal.  I'm getting tired of it.

 

NASA will be hijacking much of this.  Thank you Dave.

 

It makes us more spec and kills a cheat for an optional small cost.  A good tradeoff.  Also makes the cars cheaper to repair since you don't need perfect parts.

[TJKearney]

 fergetit....