Pineapples And Subframe Bushes

[hrd-hr30]

You are reading it too literally, reread 9.14 in conjunction with 9.10 and look up the definition of "pivot points". Also keep in mind that Rule 9.3 includes the words "not otherwise specified". Plus you need to be aware of the use of the singular and the plural eg, it does NOT say ONE bush must be replaced by ONE bush.

Not one techinical officer, three technical officers. With two technical officers agreeing on the HICAS ruling where they supported the view that 9.13 "All other components of the power steering system are free" includes a rear steering system where fitted.

Probably too techinical a subject for this forum.

cheers

I knew you wouldn't like it! yes OTHER componets of the power steering system are free. they already covered what is permissable to do to power steering racks - ie replace interals to alter steering ratio, or swap with another rack from an eligible vehicle. you cannot remove them or render them inoperable.

fact is, the technical officers are wrong on both of these rulings. they have been wrong before too! I'm sure it would go the same way as the "optional" LM regs if CAMS found out about these things!

edit:

oh, and a pivot point is a fulcrum, an attachment point for moving suspension arms. just because a bush on a fixed mounting point for a subframe allows some movement, does not make it a pivot point!

Edited August 9, 2006 by hrd-hr30

[r33_racer]

It would seem these days in motorsport if you can exploit something to your advantage, and it helps well good on you. Its the only way to go to be competitive, especially in heavily controlled classes. Nobody follows the rules so literally, i think you find all the people who do are the ones running down the back of the field!

[Sydneykid]

I knew you wouldn't like it! yes OTHER componets of the power steering system are free. they already covered what is permissable to do to power steering racks - ie replace interals to alter steering ratio, or swap with another rack from an eligible vehicle. you cannot remove them or render them inoperable.

fact is, the technical officers are wrong on both of these rulings. they have been wrong before too! I'm sure it would go the same way as the "optional" LM regs if CAMS found out about these things!

edit:

oh, and a pivot point is a fulcrum, an attachment point for moving suspension arms. just because a bush on a fixed mounting point for a subframe allows some movement, does not make it a pivot point!

I understand and agree (partially), but that's not how it works.

The regs say "steering RACK", note the singular. Hence if there are two racks, only one need comply with the regs, the other rack is free. So in the Skylines' case, the front rack complies and the rear rack is free.

The subframe moves in 3 dimensions around each of the 4 cassis mounted studs. The subframe can (and does) rotate, albeit a small number of degrees, around each of the studs. Hence it "pivots". That's it, don't add any more to it than that bare minimum of definition.

When reading regs, don't fall for the common usage meaning, more importantly don't apply the "racing" industry meaning. Lastly, don't add words that aren't there. Think like a CAMS Steward, not a mechanic.

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

I understand and agree (partially), but that's not how it works.

The regs say "steering RACK", note the singular. Hence if there are two racks, only one need comply with the regs, the other rack is free. So in the Skylines' case, the front rack complies and the rear rack is free.

The subframe moves in 3 dimensions around each of the 4 cassis mounted studs. The subframe can (and does) rotate, albeit a small number of degrees, around each of the studs. Hence it "pivots". That's it, don't add any more to it than that bare minimum of definition.

When reading regs, don't fall for the common usage meaning, more importantly don't apply the "racing" industry meaning. Lastly, don't add words that aren't there. Think like a CAMS Steward, not a mechanic.

cheers

only a component deemed to be free under the regs can be replaced. power steering racks are not deemed to be free. rule 9.13 tells you exactly what you may do with "a power steering rack". The 2nd power steering rack in the rear is still "a power steering rack" irrespective of wether thare are other power steering racks in the car, and is still covered by those rules. it is still "a power steering rack" not an "other component of the power steering system" and is not free to be removed or rendered inoperable.

But let's say for argument's sake that you do successfully argue your 'singular' steering rack point. 2.6 states that the entire vehicle must remain unmodified except for the freedoms provided in the regs. 9.13 only grants freedom to "other components of the power steering system". A HICAS lock bar is not part of the power steering system and is not therefore permitted under the freedom granted in 9.13. So you have to find another rule that allows you to fit it. There isn't one. the only way to disable hicas, IF your argument prevails, is to retain it as part of the power steering system. so you could pack it with washers, but then you'd have to bypass the power steering hoses from it. At which point it is no longer part of the power steering system, so that's not legal either. So you still can't do it even if your argument is accepted that 9.13 only applies to one of your power steering racks!

RE: wether the 4 fixed mounting points for a suspension subframe are pivot points, I see what you are angling (IRS pivot points may be relocated up to 20mm within the existing brackets), but I cannot see your argument that because the bushes at a fixed mounting point allow some movement it is a pivot point, standing up to a protest. In the absence of "pivot point" being properly defined by CAMS, its a good rule to stretch. But I can't see how you can at the same time say alloy blocks are illegal. they relocate the "pivot point" as you call it too! there is no restriction on what method, or type of material you can use to move the pivot point up to 20mm. And I'm sure they would still allow a fraction of a degree of movement in all 3 axis, so its still a pivot point according to your definition.

Edited August 10, 2006 by hrd-hr30

[Sydneykid]

only a component deemed to be free under the regs can be replaced. power steering racks are not deemed to be free. rule 9.13 tells you exactly what you may do with "a power steering rack". The 2nd power steering rack in the rear is still "a power steering rack" irrespective of wether thare are other power steering racks in the car, and is still covered by those rules. it is still "a power steering rack" not an "other component of the power steering system" and is not free to be removed or rendered inoperable.

But let's say for argument's sake that you do successfully argue your 'singular' steering rack point. 2.6 states that the entire vehicle must remain unmodified except for the freedoms provided in the regs. 9.13 only grants freedom to "other components of the power steering system". A HICAS lock bar is not part of the power steering system and is not therefore permitted under the freedom granted in 9.13. So you have to find another rule that allows you to fit it. There isn't one. the only way to disable hicas, IF your argument prevails, is to retain it as part of the power steering system. so you could pack it with washers, but then you'd have to bypass the power steering hoses from it. At which point it is no longer part of the power steering system, so that's not legal either. So you still can't do it even if your argument is accepted that 9.13 only applies to one of your power steering racks!

RE: wether the 4 fixed mounting points for a suspension subframe are pivot points, I see what you are angling (IRS pivot points may be relocated up to 20mm within the existing brackets), but I cannot see your argument that because the bushes at a fixed mounting point allow some movement it is a pivot point, standing up to a protest. In the absence of "pivot point" being properly defined by CAMS, its a good rule to stretch. But I can't see how you can at the same time say alloy blocks are illegal. they relocate the "pivot point" as you call it too! there is no restriction on what method, or type of material you can use to move the pivot point up to 20mm. And I'm sure they would still allow a fraction of a degree of movement in all 3 axis, so its still a pivot point according to your definition.

This could go on forever, as would a Stewards hearing. Hence even if you lost you wouldn't be charged because it's an arguable point of interpretation. Most certainly not a deliberate breach of the regulations. So all that would happen is you would be asked to remove/return whatever for the next meeting.

At least we have agreed they are pivot points, I think? The subframe pivots around the 4 mounting studs and it’s a suspension component.

If the alloy donuts were simply a spacer then you MIGHT be able to get away with using them. But they obviously aren’t, they make the bush (standard or otherwise) redundant. Plus they arguable stop the “pivot” ie; it’s no longer a “pivot point”. Whereas the polyurethane pineapples still allow some “pivot” no matter how much you tighten down on them, unlike the aluminium donuts which would lock if sufficiently tightened.

Keep in mind that the regs allow me to replace a “bush” with “bushings”, that means I can use 2 (or more) bushes to replace 1 bush. Otherwise it would simply say replace “a bush” with “a bush”. Due to fitment difficulties it is often necessary to use multiple piece bushes, and the regs were written to identify that.

I would also argue that the intent of the IRS rule is to allow you to adjust the squat (among several other things). Which is exactly what spacing the rear subframe achieves. Hence I would argue that polyurethane pineapples achieve that intent.

Then I would point out that wheel alignment settings are free and that squat (and dive) adjustments are in fact changes in alignment.

I don’t know what else to say about the rear steering, it seems quite simple to me (and the technical officers) the regs say “rack” not “racks”. Hence “the steering rack (or box)” means “one steering rack” not “every steering rack” or “both steering racks” or “all of the steering racks”.

Early last year I asked for rule 9.13 to be clarified such that any rear steering was free, and hence could be removed. I was told that it wasn’t necessary for the reasons I have given. I have a copy of that response with my log book (amongst several others), so if any one protests I will simply produce that response.

As I said this is a bit too technical for this forum and probably rather boring to readers not into IP racing. So I will stop now. All I can do is suggest you contact the IPRA Qld technical officer and ask his opinion.

cheers

Edited August 10, 2006 by Sydneykid

[hrd-hr30]

we'll have to agree to disagree, but I won't take it to the tech officer - it might stuff things up for people currently running with these mods. and I don't want to do anything to make it harder for a LM turbo car than it already is!

cheers,

Harry

[r33_racer]

Dont stop....im learning heaps here about improved production rule manipulation....im not bored I dont learn anything about it when racing in sports sedans and cars....its virtually all free.

[hrd-hr30]

r33_racer, you might enjoy this link - The Art of Cheating hehe

OK then. I'll make one more point. Trying to justify the use of pineapples under 9.14 Wheel Alignment settings are free, is a huge stretch too! for 2 reasons:

1) Wheel alignment settings are camber, castor, toe - things which align the wheel. squat geometry is not a wheel alignment setting. it is a geometry change similar to altering roll centre or bump steer geometry, which have no impact on the alignment of the wheel, they alter the suspension geometry.

2) 9.14 applies to wheel alignment facilities. ie the facilities provided on the car to make changes to wheel alignment are free to be set any way you see fit. there is no facility provided to set squat geometry on the Skyline. You are not using any wheel alignment facility to make this change, so it is not legal under this rule.

Edited August 10, 2006 by hrd-hr30

[Sydneykid]

By mentioning 9.14 I was merely indicating that changing squat was not “illegal”. I wasn't saying was that using bushes to change the squat was legal BECAUSE of 9.14. That is quite adequately covered in the bushes and IRS regs.

When reading the regs I always keep in mind (and refer back to) the definitions. This is particularly important when the word “free” is used. Very powerful word.

For the other readers……………………..

There are two ways to read regs;

1. When you have a problem, look for something in the regs that ALLOW you to fix it.

Compared to;

2. When you have a problem, come up with a solution/solutions and then look for something in the regs that STOP you from doing it.

Many people only use one of the 2 methods, when the truth is you have to use both. This is where the experienced guys have an advantage.

With the IP regs you have to always keep in mind that they were written in the 70’s for 70’s vehicle technology (with a few minor updates along the way). There are literally thousands of models of cars eligible for IP racing (basically any Touring Car of any age). Obviously the regs can’t specifically cover all of the nuances of that sort of variety of vehicles.

These two discussion points are examples of that problem. The words “rear steering” aren’t even mentioned anywhere in the regs, because it wasn’t really thought to be applicable when they were written. Similarly IRS with double wishbones and a dedicated (floating) subframe was not exactly mainstream in the 70’s for a Touring Car.

So if you go looking for freedoms in those areas (and many others) you simply won’t find it. Hence the #1 approach above won’t help you. For example “it doesn’t say I can remove the rear steering, so it has to be standard”. Approach #2 says, “it doesn’t say I have to leave the rear steering standard”. Then you simply progress from there.

If the regs specifically say you can’t do something, then don’t do it, you will get busted, suspended and maybe even fined. However if the regs are open to interpretation then do it, the worst that will happen is you will be told to fix it for the next meeting. If you truly believe what you have is totally legal and can back that opinion up then you have no problems.

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

So if you go looking for freedoms in those areas (and many others) you simply won’t find it. Hence the #1 approach above won’t help you. For example “it doesn’t say I can remove the rear steering, so it has to be standard”. Approach #2 says, “it doesn’t say I have to leave the rear steering standard”. Then you simply progress from there.

ah-ha! see that's the fundamental problem!

2.6 The entire vehicle must remain unmodified except for specific freedoms allowed in these regulations and modifications necessary to comply with the General Requirements of Section 6 of the CAMS Manual.

so if the rules don't specifically say you can do it, you can't. You simply can't take approach #2 where if the rules don't mention it you can do whatever you want! it doesn't work that way.

[R33S2]

so if the rules don't specifically say you can do it, you can't. You simply can't take approach #2 where if the rules don't mention it you can do whatever you want! it doesn't work that way.

From what I understand SK is saying that it is up to interpretation and as such not a banning offence, if you dont push the limits you will never know what they are, and niether will the officials.

[Sydneykid]

ah-ha! see that's the fundamental problem!

2.6 The entire vehicle must remain unmodified except for specific freedoms allowed in these regulations and modifications necessary to comply with the General Requirements of Section 6 of the CAMS Manual.

so if the rules don't specifically say you can do it, you can't. You simply can't take approach #2 where if the rules don't mention it you can do whatever you want! it doesn't work that way.

Aaaah, that's not what I said, this is what I said

Approach #2 says, “it doesn’t say I have to leave the rear steering standard”. Then you simply progress from there.

"Progress from there" means search for regs preventing you from doing what you want. Approach it from the positive not the negative. It doesn't mean go ahead and physically do it.

But I am sure you knew that.

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

Aaaah, that's not what I said, this is what I said

"Progress from there" means search for regs preventing you from doing what you want. Approach it from the positive not the negative. It doesn't mean go ahead and physically do it.

But I am sure you knew that.

cheers

so you check the regs for steering (9.13), and find that the only things you are allowed to do with a power steering rack are change the ratio, swap it with a manual steering rack, or swap it with another rack from another eligible vehicle. It does not say you can remove or delete it, so you can't (2.6). only the other components of the power steering system (ie other than steering rack/box) are free. There is no grey area in this rule for rear steering

Just because you feel that the rules were not designed for cars with 4WS, does not mean they don't apply to cars with 4WS. Nor does the fact that one of your steering racks complies, allow you to ignore the rules for the other steering rack. EG, all 4 wheels have to meet the restrictions for width, not just one! and yes they use the singular 'rim' in that rule too.

[Sydneykid]

so you check the regs for steering (9.13), and find that the only things you are allowed to do with a power steering rack are change the ratio, swap it with a manual steering rack, or swap it with another rack from another eligible vehicle. It does not say you can remove or delete it, so you can't (2.6). only the other components of the power steering system (ie other than steering rack/box) are free. There is no grey area in this rule for rear steering

Just because you feel that the rules were not designed for cars with 4WS, does not mean they don't apply to cars with 4WS. Nor does the fact that one of your steering racks complies, allow you to ignore the rules for the other steering rack. EG, all 4 wheels have to meet the restrictions for width, not just one! and yes they use the singular 'rim' in that rule too.

11.1 Wheels: Wheels are free. The maximum rim

width on cars with engines with a cubic capacity

up to 3000cc is 7"; on cars with engine cubic

capacity in excess of 3000cc the maximum

rim width is 8". The spare wheel, jack and any

associated brackets may be removed.

Sorry I don’t see the comparison, it specifically mentions WHEELS (plural). In the steering rack rule it only EVER mentions RACK (singular) never RACKS (plural).

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

11.1 Wheels: Wheels are free. The maximum rim

width on cars with engines with a cubic capacity

up to 3000cc is 7"; on cars with engine cubic

capacity in excess of 3000cc the maximum

rim width is 8". The spare wheel, jack and any

associated brackets may be removed.

Sorry I don’t see the comparison, it specifically mentions WHEELS (plural). In the steering rack rule it only EVER mentions RACK (singular) never RACKS (plural).

cheers

it says WHEELS are free (plural). maximum RIM width (singular)

the only restriction mentioned is for a singular rim, so so by your logic the others are free to do with as you please.

the only difference is you know you'll never be able to sneak that one past the scrutineers, tech officers, and other competitors.

hell, you could even argue that the wheel is part of the power steering system and therefore free!

Edited August 14, 2006 by hrd-hr30

[Sydneykid]

it says WHEELS are free (plural). maximum RIM width (singular)

the only restriction mentioned is for a singular rim, so so by your logic the others are free to do with as you please.

the only difference is you know you'll never be able to sneak that one past the scrutineers, tech officers, and other competitors.

hell, you could even argue that the wheel is part of the power steering system and therefore free!

Let's get it straight, this is not MY logic. I asked for a rule clarification regarding rear steering and was told that one wasn't required.

If you are confused by the Wheels and Rim rule then please ask for a clarification.

You probably could argue that wheels are part of the power steering system, EXCEPT they have their own section. Unlike rear steering, which doesn't have its own section.

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

rear steering does have its own section - Steering and Suspension. but we're going around in circles. you want to interpret the rules as they suit you, and you're getting away with it - great. enjoy it while it lasts.

[Sydneykid]

rear steering does have its own section - Steering and Suspension. but we're going around in circles. you want to interpret the rules as they suit you, and you're getting away with it - great. enjoy it while it lasts.

Regs are ALWAYS open to interpretation, nothing new or startling there. That’s why there are technical officers, scrutineers and stewards. To sort out whose interpretation is correct.

So, I am not interpreting the rules to suite me. I asked for clarification and got it, state technical officers and chief scrutineer. I asked for a rule change and was told it wasn't necessary. I have done everything that I believe is necessary to ensure what I have done is OK. Rear steering is only one of those, remember I have been at this Improved Production thing since 1987.

cheers

[hrd-hr30]

like I said, I've shown those people to be wrong before WRT the application of the LM rule. These examples are more straighforward than that issue.

[MerlinTheHapyPig]

I asked for a rule clarification regarding rear steering and was told that one wasn't required.

sounds like case closed to me.......