422 replies to this topic

[Michael Novak]

 

If you/anyone can produce it, you'll get whomever off the hook.

"I got this from X, brand new/reman,  Stock miata part, I didn't modify it, here it is. Call them and you'll see"

 

I won't hold my breath though.

 

J~

 

never mind that is not what I was saying -- read what I wrote and what I quoted 

 

I don't understand this----so unless it says Pep Boys, AutoZone or the like it is not considered REMANED? I would argue if I work on it in my garage to make it better than it is than I have officially REMANED it..  

[38bfast]

It all boils down to are remaned parts legal in SM.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

It all boils down to are remaned parts legal in SM.

 

I think this is essentially it in a Nutt Shell!

[Brian Tone]

It all boils down to are remaned parts legal in SM.

I'd love to see some sort of bench test measuring break away force needed on these optimized vs the break away force needed on a new typical reman unit (like a cardone or Autozone etc)  It would be a pretty simple test

[Bench Racer]

Question referencing the NASA findings picture showing example number 4, ball with large gap in axle cage. Why would any manufacture change the shape of the upper two corners as shown? Lower two corners are radius and upper two corners are diagonal with a small radius at each end of the diagonal. Other legal example pictures show radius at all corners. 

[Michael Novak]

It all boils down to are remaned parts legal in SM.

I thought we were..  maybe the rules could be tightened down further---OR NOT.  I think it is great that the class is to the point of deciding if a REMANED part is legal or not. 4 cars went through the longest tech ever(I think it was over the top) and the best thing they could find was some CV joints that were touched or REMANED? 

 

Class is in great shape....

[Steve Scheifler]

This absolutely is not about the broad question on remans. That’s a convenient dodge that will blow up in our face. The people calling the shots aren’t a gullible jury of “peers”, they are the stern but clear headed and informed judges and they know what was done and why. That isn’t really in question if you are honest and unbiased.

That’s not to say that the realities of reman parts is irrelevant. As stated multiple times if similar examples are easily obtained then this is over. But that’s this one case, settled through the process, and has nothing to do with other remans. By any account so far no such examples exist, so by all rights and by the rules the DQ can be justified. I’ve stated my position on that, it’s too severe, but I’d issue a public reprimand for causing this shit storm and remind drivers that it’s their responsibility to make very clear to their prep shops and suppliers what level of risk they are willing to take.

[Michael Novak]

This absolutely is not about the broad question on remans. That’s a convenient dodge that will blow up in our face. The people calling the shots aren’t a gullible jury of “peers”, they are the stern but clear headed and informed judges and they know what was done and why. That isn’t really in question if you are honest and unbiased.

That’s not to say that the realities of reman parts is irrelevant. As stated multiple times if similar examples are easily obtained then this is over. But that’s this one case, settled through the process, and has nothing to do with other remans. By any account so far no such examples exist, so by all rights and by the rules the DQ can be justified. I’ve stated my position on that, it’s too severe, but I’d issue a public reprimand for causing this shit storm and remind drivers that it’s their responsibility to make very clear to their prep shops and suppliers what level of risk they are willing to take.

I work for Roush and we are in NASCAR-----I might see the world in a different light! 

[Steve Scheifler]

Because it IS a different world! It could scarcely be more different and still be racing even if they are semi-spec.

[Johnny D]

I don't understand this----so unless it says Pep Boys, AutoZone or the like it is not considered REMANED? I would argue if I work on it in my garage to make it better than it is than I have officially REMANED it..  

 

I would concider (but I'm not NASA) you would have more credibility if if you got it from AutoZone, etc.

I think you have a better chance now saying it was from Reilly's.

But you still got "were out of tolerance compared to OEM or remanufactured spec." and that goes for your garage mod too.

And I agree with Ralph too

 

J~

[zoomzoom22]

I would concider (but I'm not NASA) you would have more credibility if if you got it from AutoZone, etc.

I think you have a better chance now saying it was from Reilly's.

But you still got "were out of tolerance compared to OEM or remanufactured spec." and that goes for your garage mod too.

And I agree with Ralph too

 

J~

 

The remanufactured spec - unobtanium isn't it?  I do think NASA's rule about what to do in the absence of a spec is pretty clear cut in my mind and has the best merit.  Whether we agree on that or not they have a provision in their rules on the what and how if the spec doesn't exist and that is hard to oppose IMO.

[Johnny D]

The remanufactured spec - unobtanium isn't it?  I do think NASA's rule about what to do in the absence of a spec is pretty clear cut in my mind and has the best merit.  Whether we agree on that or not they have a provision in their rules on the what and how if the spec doesn't exist and that is hard to oppose IMO.

 

The reman co may or may not have a spec/guideline and could or isn't equal to OEM so this is were Bench jumps in....."exact equivalent."

 

But it's more of what you can get away with ??  If tech doesn't catch/check it,it okay ??  It's okay to modify cages in my garage because i'm as good as a reman co even with IIDSYCDIYC ??

 

Not really the spirit, but reality and then your putting your tub in the hauler with a fork lift ?

 

J~

[Bench Racer]

For grins and giggles: 

 

4. Format
4.1. Modifications, addition or removal of parts are not allowed, unless specified or approved in these rules.
Additional modifications are not permitted. These rules are not intended as guidelines; rather they shall
serve as the national set of rules, and must be strictly followed. Each NASA Region is responsible for
ensuring that all competitors running in the corresponding regional championship conform to these rules.
Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent.

 

The difference between "OE", "OEM", "OES", and "Aftermarket" parts.
Quora User
Terminology:
OE: Original Equipment
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
OES: Original Equipment Supplier
Aftermarket: Not made by the car manufacturer

Car Manufacturers (Ford, Audi, Volvo, etc) do not manufacture all of the parts that go into an automobile. Generally, their factories make body parts, frame, and major engine components, but for the rest of the car they out source to OEM/OES manufacturers after providing the specifications for the parts they need.  Once the outsourced manufacturers produce the parts, they usually add a Car Manufacturer logo to the part and ship it to them to be installed in the new automobile, considered an "OE" part.

These outsourced manufacturers, such as Bosch, Bilstien, Mann, Beru, or etc are all OEM or OES suppliers.  The primary difference between "OE" and "OEM/OES" is largely the lack of the car manufacturer logo on the part, but they are the same exact part.

Aftermarket parts are simply parts that are made by 3rd party companies.  Sometimes they are considered performance parts, and sometimes they are considered the "cheap chinese parts."  Your Mileage-May-Vary but often times these aftermarket parts are considerably cheaper than the OE parts you would order through your dealership.

 

The terminology is interesting and aftermarket operation Cardone mentioned earlier within this thread is interesting. Cardone has four different brands of parts they sell. When reading info on Cardone one of their claims to fame is re engineered parts. Redesigned and manufactured differently from the original part for improved results by using said part. Cardone claims their axle housings, race and cages are original design. If as was suggested earlier in this thread balls fell through the Cardone cages and as was suggested by NASA balls do not fall through original design cages, it would seem the Cardone cages do not meet OEM (did the Cardone axles have the Mazda logo/name identified on them) or the exact equivalent 

[Tom Hampton]

bench-

 

You left off remanufactured, rebuilt, and refurbished from your terminology list.  Everything you listed above is "new".  The situation with the axles is that they have been remanufactured or rebuilt.  By definition these remanufactured parts are NOT to OEM specification in one or more ways.  And it is likely that no two are identical. 

 

Mostly I've gleened from what Ralph has said that old axles are taken apart cleaned up, imperfections are machined out by hand, new (larger) balls are fitted and the cages are clearanced by hand and reassembled.  As such, this is a human process performed by individuals with various levels of care and or skill leading to varying levels of quality and tolerance---which is NOT GUIDED BY ANY KNOWN SPECIFICATION.  Do the reman shops have a maximum amount of material they are willing to remove, when grinding away pitting, etc?  I don't know, Ralph didn't seem to indicate based on his research. 

 

The last claim I heard was that new axles haven't been made for 10 years.  So, it really isn't realistic to think that you can disallow remanufactured parts. 

 

So, we have a situation where:

 

1.  Mazda didn't publish a spec.

2.  Reman companies modify the original part as they see fit...including replacing the balls with larger ones, and grinding away metal as necessary.

3.  Reman units don't have a published spec...and no two units are likely to be the same.  It is even possible that no two bearings will be the same inside a single joint. 

 

Which means that I:

 

1.  Don't know what I'm supposed to have.

2.  Don't know what I'm going to get...except that it won't be the same as stock.

3.  Don't know how much different (worst case) it can be from stock. 

4.  Don't have a definition of legal / illegal by which to verify that my car is compliant or not. 

 

So, fundamentally there is no definition of illegal.  IIDSYCYC can't apply, because who is "you"? Today any axle I buy is modified by someone. Even if I have every intent to remain legal....It doesn't matter if I do the work myself or buy one modified in the same way...because I have NO WAY to determine what is legal dimensionally. 

 

NASA has this rule to sample the field and take an average.  Do we think that the NASA rule really adequately addresses the situation of the remanufactured market described above?  That means that I CANNOT POSSIBLY know what the DQ standard is until AFTER the race. 

 

How about everyone gets the following homework assignment?  Go home pull out your have shafts, disassemble them, and report back tomorrow on your legal/illegal status.  You owe me $1000 for each axle you are wrong on.  You get nothing for being correct. I'll tell you the criteria after I get your results.  Who wants to play?

[Steve Scheifler]

Well stated Tom! In the end though, there isn’t really any question of these being brand X remans, so the intent and responsibility is absolutely clear. I’m not saying there isn’t an argument to be made, you just laid one out nicely, I’m just saying that we all know how this works and when in doubt don’t f’ing touch it, or get permission. Your points are still valid for what comes nect for the rules. But if NASA chooses to lower the boom they can justify it per the rules, I just wish they would stop short of DQ or even positions.

[Andy Mitchell]

Gee, some tough questions to be answered here.

 

All assuming that the axles in question actually were a commercial re-man part, of course - in my opinion, if it was an intentional modification to improve performance, it should be a DQ regardless of whether it 'worked' or not. There's a principle to be defended, lol.

 

And (just to play devil's advocate) if re-manufactured  parts with significant machine work/oversize components are now going to be legal, shouldn't everyone immediately order a 0.40 over rebuilt engine? Same deal, just someone making a worn-out part useable again. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Andy, nobody at NASA has a problem with remans or even remachining for oversize balls. That is all truly SOP and needs to be permitted. One even uses new cages of different dimensions. The “test” in this case boils down to whether the cage openings are large enough for the balls to pass through cleanly. It isn’t an industry spec as such but by all reliable accounts it is the identifiable difference between all known new, aftermarket and reman parts off the shelf and these challenged examples.

[Tom Hampton]

Steve- 

 

I'm less inclined to jump to the guilty until proven innocent line of thinking.  Further, I don't like rules that attempt to legislate INTENT.   And I REALLY don't like rules that don't define the game until after you are already engaged. 

 

If I wanted to get married...oh wait, probably not a good example.

 

Andy-

 

The overbore situation is completely different.  The bore has a spec with a very tight tolerance.  The overbore has a spec, with a very tight tolerance.  Its known, its measureable.  I can take my head off and I can measure it.  I KNOW if my car is legal, illegal, or on the hairy edge depending on the measurement skill of the operator.  I can choose to play roulette (or not). 

[Steve Scheifler]

Tom, I’m not jumping to conclusions.

[FTodaro]

I agree with Novak, if this is all that they could find after stripping these cars to the bone, then as a spec class, i would say that we are in pretty good shape. As for the DQ on these half shaft cages, I an not in the loop, but if these DQ's are going to stand then my already suspect opinion, of NASA has not improved. That is a Weenie DQ in light of all that we have discussed in this thread about lack of standards and no objective proof of a rule violation. 

 

The right thing to do IMO is to issue a warning to all, and to legislate a rule if you think that there is a problem with this part. Rules need to be address in the rule book not the tech shed.

 

As someone said above, the rules need to be addressed. If these parts have not been made in 10 years, then the OEM spec is worthless, you can only enforce that spec if you can provide the part.

 

So we should be talking about a rule clarification allowing remans Period.