25 replies to this topic

[ChrisA]

So, what's the deal going on with this? 

http://forum.miata.n...ad.php?t=596016

 

[FTodaro]

If true, its only a NASA thing. Not SCCA

[Caveman-kwebb99]

For these the be legal it would seem other rules would need to be changed as well... Track width of the car is being altered here.

Why reinvent the wheel??? The uper bushings give far more then the 3degrees of camber advertised by this product.

I believe nasa okd the upper bushings when the scca did it, now you add this some people will have both but for what reason????

Kind of silly

[Jim Drago]

Not needed and all have changed already to bushings. I don't think it was a good move for NASA to allow and I doubt seriously SCCA will adopt. We have seen several aftermarket ball joint failures and it can mean writing off a car. Flyin miata stuff is usually good quality, but only use OEM ball joints and would not use aftermarket here for any reason.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Only nice thing about this product is its easier to deal out then the bushings, but I personally would still choose bushings over this.

I hope scca does not allow these, yet another difference between clubs soon there will be no crossover business at all. If that is what the clubs want it will become reality with a few other little rule changes

[Keith Andrews]

i don't think you have to have the extended ball joints to race with NASA.  A SCCA spec car should still be legal to run with NASA.

[davew]

I talked with Keith from Flyin' Miata a while back on these. After all we both have written Miata performance books.

 

FM does not plan on having them available for another month +/-. They are manufactured by a tier 1 oem manufacturer although Keith did not mention the name. I am sure their quality will be fine.

 

The fat tired street guys don't like the offset bushings because their tires rub the springs, So FM developed the ball joints.

 

I have never used the cheap generic suspension parts. But I have used most of the top quality aftermarket pieces from Moog, Raybestos, etc. with no problems. One thing I have made policy is that any time a control arm is bent, it gets a new ball joint as a safety margin. I have had them break after contact.

 

I was totally against SCCA and NASA approving the offset bushings. They where untested, unavailable and unneeded IMHO. Now NASA has done the same thing again. All that being said, I have 2 sets on order and will try them when they become available. Then we can see what the true outcome is.

 

Truth and transparency; I sell a lot of the Whiteline brand offset upper bushings.

 

Dave

[FTodaro]

We just keep inventing ways for the racer to feel like they have to spend more money. when there are several options, teams will test to see what if any advantage there is. Not knowing anything about this product and its quality. Clearly it is easier to install or change out after a wreck.

 

Now there are 3 ways to get camber, bent spindles, offset bushings and now a ball joint. 

 

I pose the question, as i did when the bushing rule came out, why do we care how you get your camber?

[davew]

We just keep inventing ways for the racer to feel like they have to spend more money. when there are several options, teams will test to see what if any advantage there is. Not knowing anything about this product and its quality. Clearly it is easier to install or change out after a wreck.

 

Now there are 3 ways to get camber, bent spindles, offset bushings and now a ball joint. 

 

I pose the question, as i did when the bushing rule came out, why do we care how you get your camber?

 

Agreed on all 3 statements. Although #1 is in my best interest!!!!!

 

Although there is only one LEGAL method in SCCA; offset bushings

 

Dave

[Caveman-kwebb99]

i don't think you have to have the extended ball joints to race with NASA.  A SCCA spec car should still be legal to run with NASA.

Never said it was mandated. But makes car instantly illegal for scca. Idk as I don't race both but on a very rare occasion. If NASA likes that product they should let their people use them.

Personally I am all for scca and NASA going their sperate ways on sm. But is that the best thing for the class??? It could be the best thing for one or both orgs

[Johnny D]

Paging Mr. Xavier Calderon (NASA SM DIR)

J~

[speedengineer]

Honestly, the extended ball joints are a better solution than the offset bushings assuming they are high quality and don't fail. 

Offset bushings have several negatives, including:

-being more work to install

-having to grease them regularily (and grease squeezing out over time and traps dirt and is a mess)

-being a wear item that needs replacing more frequently than a ball joint

-limiting bump travel as tire his the unibody earlier, thus you can't run the car as low

 

That said, I'm not interested if they aren't legal for both organization.

 

Side note regarding the track width rule - don't understand why there is a track width measurement requirement.  It's a pain to measure and it never happens in tech, plus is subject to variation based on your alignment and setup settings.  Would be much easier and just as effective to simply specify a minimum wheel offset.  That's easy to measure or read off the back of a wheel.

[davew]

You are uninformed.

 

Track width is checked regularly in tech. The SMAC set the track width rule for a maximum with 25mm offset wheels plus a very slight fudge factor. I know, cuz I was one of the guys measuring. Yet it allows less offset wheels with spacers to be used if you have them laying around. Properly measured track width is done at the center line of the wheel. And averaged between the front and rear of the wheel. Thus allignment settings have a very minimal effect on track width readings. Well within out designed in fudge factor.

 

The offset bushings do NOT effect tire clearance to the unibody. If the tire height does not change, and the unibody location does not change, the amount of camber does not effect clearance.

 

I go through a lot more ball joints than bushings.

 

So far, I have had no complaints with bushing noise.

 

Yes, ball joints are easier to install than bushings.

 

Please do not take a sample size of one (yourself) and add your opinion to make facts. Leave that to the 1.6ers     

[Jeff Wasilko]

I've run delrin offset bushings in my ITA car for years and they're no real hassle.

 

My first ITA car was all delrin. Eventually I switched to spherical for everything except the offset bushings.

[speedengineer]

You are uninformed.

 

Track width is checked regularly in tech. The SMAC set the track width rule for a maximum with 25mm offset wheels plus a very slight fudge factor. I know, cuz I was one of the guys measuring. Yet it allows less offset wheels with spacers to be used if you have them laying around. Properly measured track width is done at the center line of the wheel. And averaged between the front and rear of the wheel. Thus allignment settings have a very minimal effect on track width readings. Well within out designed in fudge factor.

 

The offset bushings do NOT effect tire clearance to the unibody. If the tire height does not change, and the unibody location does not change, the amount of camber does not effect clearance.

 

I go through a lot more ball joints than bushings.

 

So far, I have had no complaints with bushing noise.

 

Yes, ball joints are easier to install than bushings.

 

Please do not take a sample size of one (yourself) and add your opinion to make facts. Leave that to the 1.6ers     

 

 

The people I've talked to that run scca said they had never seen track with checked.  I've never seen NASA check track width.  Maybe I'm wrong and they do it all the time.  Regardless, if the track width rule was set so that you can run 25mm offset wheels, why not just make the rules "can't run more than 25mm offset wheels"?  Seems way simpler to me.

 

Dave, you are wrong about tire clearance.  Pushing the tire out at the lower control arm ball joint versus pulling the top of the tire in via the upper control arm bushing results in distinctly different tire clearance.  The difference is equal to about the amount of the offset.  It's not huge, but it does matter.

 

I've been using the ISC delrin bushings on my miata since 2013.  To be fair, they haven't worn out yet.  But they do make a mess with the grease squeezing out and attracting dirt and grime, and have been a pain to regrease.  Zerk fittings kept popping out.  A ball joint would be maintenance free, you can't argue against that!

 

Please do not assume that since you're considered an expert in the miata business and that I am new around here to indicate that I am uninformed.  Thanks! 

[Johnny D]

Please do not assume that since you're considered an expert in the miata business and that I am new around here to indicate that I am uninformed.  Thanks! 

Can I assume ??
J~

[Jim Drago]

The people I've talked to that run scca said they had never seen track with checked.  I've never seen NASA check track width.  Maybe I'm wrong and they do it all the time.  Regardless, if the track width rule was set so that you can run 25mm offset wheels, why not just make the rules "can't run more than 25mm offset wheels"?  Seems way simpler to me.

The simple answer? That is not the SCCA way. All other SCCA classes and spec a track and why SM is in track. Not too mention you could run max offset wheels and pass that rule and manipulate lots of other things to exceed track. All of which are illegal and not needed.. but...
 

A ball joint would be maintenance free, you can't argue against that!

I can half ass argue against that.. If I kept the same car I would change the ball joint at the end of the season. I would change it with contact to that wheel? It is likely I could change that ball joint 2-5 times during the life of the bushing? Which would make the bushing seem less expensive and less labor hours?

[speedengineer]

The simple answer? That is not the SCCA way. All other SCCA classes and spec a track and why SM is in track. Not too mention you could run max offset wheels and pass that rule and manipulate lots of other things to exceed track. All of which are illegal and not needed.. but...
 

I can half ass argue against that.. If I kept the same car I would change the ball joint at the end of the season. I would change it with contact to that wheel? It is likely I could change that ball joint 2-5 times during the life of the bushing? Which would make the bushing seem less expensive and less labor hours?

 

That makes sense regarding track width, thank you for the explanation.  Especially for other classes with multiple types of cars racing and each requires a different offset wheel.  Wouldn't be practical to spec wheel geometry. 

 

Re ball joints:  Spec Miata's never make wheel contact with each other!     Thing is, you'd also be replacing the stock ball joint in those same scenarios.  Now if the offset ball joint costs significantly more than oem I can then see your point. 

[FTodaro]

Two OEM ball joints 47.50 each

 

Set of offset bushings 68.00 Pair

 

Set of bent spindles Priceless.

[Danny Steyn]

The people I've talked to that run scca said they had never seen track with checked.  I've never seen NASA check track width.  

 

 

I have personally had track width measured in tech on my cars at least 15+ times in the 8 years I have been racing, sometimes in regionals as well. I race mainly in the SE but also have had it checked at Road America several times, never at Watkins Glenn. Most often with SCCA but also with NASA