Rebuildable 4th gen front hubs are here!! Options

[00 SS]

MJM Racing is proud to present the first rebuildable, adjustable and regreasable front hub for 4th gen F-bodies. As most of you know already, these have been a long time coming and have gone though several interations and lots of testing over the last two years. If you've ever autocrossed with 315 Hoosier's or Kumho's, you know why these were developed.

Pictures can be seen here:
http://www.mjmracing.shutterfly.com/

Highlights:

1. New forged and hardened 4340 steel spindle made by Mark Williams Enterprises to MJM Racing, LLC specifications
2. Timken tapered roller bearings
3. Factory ABS retained
4. Original exterior dimensions retained for a "bolt on" application with no other modifications required.
5. Adjustable for bearing play, regreasable and rebuildable.
6. Comes with new ARP studs

We will begin to take orders on 1-1-09.

We need to get at least 20 pairs in the initial order to get the best pricing on machine work and parts. Please post any questions as well as stating your interest so a list can be compiled.

The initial price will be $650 each plus a core. That price will apply to this first initial offering only and these are only offered to the people of this site at this time. The core charge will be $100 per hub if you do not have any old ones you can send. Frankly, cores are necessary and if that ends up being too low of a core charge to get people to send cores, it will go up. Please be considerate and at least knock the big chunks of rust, dirt and grease off before you send them. If you have already sent cores to help with development your names are recorded and you need not send any additional cores (unless you want to).

Our lawyer has prepared a document that must be signed by each interested party prior to any transaction. A copy will be emailed to all who state they are interested in purchase.

Please post all questions here or call me, my PM folder is already a bit full.

Mike Minear
Managing Member
MJM Racing, LLC
303-710-9297

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Dec 16 2008, 04:46 PM

[Major_Lee_Slow]

That is a really nice product you have there, and I am very interested and I do plan on buying a set as soon as I sell a few more sets of Tire blankets.

[sgarnett]

Wow, great stuff is coming out of the woodwork just as the finances have "augered in". (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)

[00 SS]

Launching a new product in this economy, particularly a moderately expensive one, is not ideal by any means. But, I can't control the economy and the product is ready, so I launched it. I couldn't see any benefit to anyone in waiting to launch for the economy to start looking up.

Besides, this is a product that will save you time and money in the long run.

Major Lee Slow, I'd like to get a set of tire blankets as well, but I'm in the same boat. Need to get some hubs sold first.

[BigEnos]

I don't think these are ESP legal so I'm out. Sounds like a cool product though. Maybe someday when I'm not autocrossing this car... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[00 SS]

I sent the following email to Doug Gill. We'll soon know if they are deemed legal or not. Although a protest over these would be extremely weenie as I think we can all agree that there is no performance advantage over new OE parts. Regardless of the response to my email, I will be running them on my car. I will be at the tour in Vail and possibly the one in New Mexico. Nationals is still a bit doubtful at this time for me. If Doug says illegal, you can protest if you wish.

Edit Copy of old letter removed.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Dec 24 2008, 03:37 AM

[Major_Lee_Slow]

Mike that is a great letter, and it's a good idea to get the clarification. I was under the impression that the rule you quoted covered the replacement of the stock style hubs with your much improved hub. Hopefully Mr Gill sees it the same way.

[marka]

Howdy,

I don't think these are ESP legal so I'm out. Sounds like a cool product though. Maybe someday when I'm not autocrossing this car... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

I disagree. They're a bolt in replacement wheel bearing that exactly match the stock dimensions/functions/etc. I think they're legal per stock class rules, which makes them legal in SP as well.

See page 61 / the start of section 13. Wheel bearings are explicitly called out as legal to change. I suppose you could debate "performance improvement", but I have a hard time seeing how you could argue that this wheel bearing adds performance to the car.

If these aren't legal, I don't think NAPA or whatever replacments are legal either. Its the exact same situation.

Mark

[BigEnos]

Howdy,

I don't think these are ESP legal so I'm out. Sounds like a cool product though. Maybe someday when I'm not autocrossing this car... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

I disagree. They're a bolt in replacement wheel bearing that exactly match the stock dimensions/functions/etc. I think they're legal per stock class rules, which makes them legal in SP as well.

See page 61 / the start of section 13. Wheel bearings are explicitly called out as legal to change. I suppose you could debate "performance improvement", but I have a hard time seeing how you could argue that this wheel bearing adds performance to the car.

If these aren't legal, I don't think NAPA or whatever replacments are legal either. Its the exact same situation.

Mark

Obviously a bad assumption on my part. I didn't look. After reading a few of these I must agree that they should be legal.

[Crazy Canuck]

I want a set... but because I'm in the middle of plenty of boxes (just moved and 100% travelling for work)... let me find some hubs in the boxes, so I can ship them to you... (since I changed my hubs not long ago) and let me know of your address so I can send you a check in US funds (I guess once you have the 20 ppl) and then go from there...
I don't think I'll be able to send you all the stuff before January for sure... and since my car is stored, if you don't mind waiting till end of Jan, I'll be the first one on the list.

[00 SS]

Ok, we have a winner! Thank You Eugenio. For being first you will recieve free shipping (inside the continental US). I will select one other from 2-20 for free shipping by drawing a number out of a hat after all 20 slots are filled. But we will make more than 20 pair in the first order if the demand is there.

1. Eugenio SS
2. Mark T
3. Jeff Spector
4. J. Villarreal
5. Koserv
6. Chevy053
7. Jon A
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Feb 19 2009, 07:27 PM

[00 SS]

I heard back from Brian Harmer at the SCCA. To make a long story short, he agrees this is a bit of a grey are and he can not give official interpretions, only the SEB can. We have a local he was recently appointed to the SEB, Ian Mannix. He is a very good guy and I believe he was on the SPAC prior to this. I will talk to him and show him what I've done prior to sending any letters to the SEB. I want to make sure they have no false impressions of what this is when they decide.

My opinion is the same as Mark A's, there is no reason these should not be deemed legal. They are no different in dimension or function than any other aftermarket hub available. Additionally, the current hubs you get at the dealer (AC Delco) are not exactly the same as OE hubs, they are the same as the Timken aftermarket hubs. So if mine are illegal, pretty much every hub in use today by F-body guys at SCCA events are also illegal, even if you got them from the dealer.

Therefore, I will continue to use my hubs in the ESP. I will NOT say they are 100% legal....yet. I will say that they have not been deemed illegal. Obviously, it's my opinion that they would withstand any protest, however weenie that protest would be. I will get an official ruling one way or another. I will write the SEB, but if they fail to define this for us, it may have to come via a protest.

EDIT: I spoke to Ian and will be sending him a draft of the letter tomorrow. After I spoke with him, he agrees they should be legal. Obviously, this is his personal opinion, he is only one member of the SEB, and does not make it official, yet. I'll post more when I hear more.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Dec 21 2008, 05:42 AM

[00 SS]

A new letter to the SEB was sent today. Hopefully, we will have an answer in a few weeks.

[Casey_SS]

As a product manager by trade, I applaud your efforts at filling a true gap in the marketplace and working directly with your customer base to make this happen. My stock hubs are still hanging on as I'm only running 275 Nittos but as soon as that changes, I'll be placing an order. Really glad to see these hit the market....thanks for all of your hard work!

[00 SS]

Thanks Casey. I look forward to doing business with you. In my experience, stockers last about 1 season on the little 265 V710's, I bet 275 Nittos will be similar.

[00 SS]

I understand a few of you guys may be waiting to see what the SEB decides about the legality of the hubs in Solo II competition in FS and ESP. But if you doing HPDE's, road racing or Solo II in SM or CP, what are you waiting for?

[01badz28]

I understand a few of you guys may be waiting to see what the SEB decides about the legality of the hubs in Solo II competition in FS and ESP. But if you doing HPDE's, road racing or Solo II in SM or CP, what are you waiting for?

I'd love a set, but I've got all my money tied up getting the 6.2L motor in my car first. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

I understand a few of you guys may be waiting to see what the SEB decides about the legality of the hubs in Solo II competition in FS and ESP. But if you doing HPDE's, road racing or Solo II in SM or CP, what are you waiting for?

I dunno why I didn't think of it sooner, but I just posted a link to this page to the CP list. Most of those guys don't hang out here.

Mark

[00 SS]

Thanks Mark!

If your reading this and want to get on the pre order list, but don't want to join the forum to do so, please call me. 303-710-9297.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Jan 8 2009, 05:17 PM

[Mojave]

I understand a few of you guys may be waiting to see what the SEB decides about the legality of the hubs in Solo II competition in FS and ESP. But if you doing HPDE's, road racing or Solo II in SM or CP, what are you waiting for?

I applaud your efforts and would love a set for my C4, but funds are tight.

[marka]

Howdy,

Thanks Mark!

If your reading this and want to get on the pre order list, but don't want to join the forum to do so, please call me. 303-710-9297.

Turns out they aren't seeing this.... I already sent along your phone # to them, but this forum is private for members only.

Not sure why that would be especially...

Mark

[kookamunga]

dude you rock! that's some incredible workmanship

wish I had not just changed hubs (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) but I'll pass the word along to everyone here in Hawaii

[00 SS]

Thanks again Mark. I did get a call from one of them already.

Kookamunga, if you're running the big tires, you'll need them soon anyway. I appreciate you passing the word along.

[Cr0usEEE]

mark me down as "waiting for SEB confirmation"

[marka]

Howdy,

mark me down as "waiting for SEB confirmation"

Mark me down as "you can protest my ass if you want to, I think they're legal".

:-)

Mark

[Cr0usEEE]

Howdy,

mark me down as "waiting for SEB confirmation"

Mark me down as "you can protest my ass if you want to, I think they're legal".

:-)

Mark

Remember what you think and what the powers that be think are two different things...just like any form of regulation. (Officer...I thought the speed limit was 55...well son it is 55 when its not night during deer season. Conditions of the road BS...grrrr)

Well that protest could be worth...oh 600-1200 hoosier bucks to someone. I would rather know something that costs 1300 bucks is legal before dropping coin on it. Not saying the ESP crowd would protest it but if I happen to win a national event I would hate someone holding it over my head for the rest of my solo career as a cheater of some sort.

Now I would be all over this if I was running a track rat.

[marka]

Howdy,

Remember what you think and what the powers that be think are two different things...just like any form of regulation. (Officer...I thought the speed limit was 55...well son it is 55 when its not night during deer season. Conditions of the road BS...grrrr)

Well that protest could be worth...oh 600-1200 hoosier bucks to someone. I would rather know something that costs 1300 bucks is legal before dropping coin on it. Not saying the ESP crowd would protest it but if I happen to win a national event I would hate someone holding it over my head for the rest of my solo career as a cheater of some sort.

Now I would be all over this if I was running a track rat.

Oh, I'm aware of all that, no worries.

I still think they're legal.

And if I get protested and lose, then you can bet that everyone else at the next event better have OEM original hubs and not ones from Autozone. :-)

And guys with the Fay's Watt's link had better not have removed the factory chassis brace (some call it a panhard brace... :-).

And probably ton's of other little nitpicky shit that's technically illegal, and moreso (IMHO, obviously) than a replacement hub that exactly matches factory dimensions & functionality.

Oh! And your sfcs better not "attach previously unconnected frame rails" or whatever the hell stupid phrasing they used... Since by definition the front/rear subframes are connected since the car doesn't split in half when you drive away.

Mark

(actually, if I get protested and lose I'll appeal, etc. and live with it. But I don't think I'll lose.)

This post has been edited by marka: Jan 9 2009, 07:18 PM

[Sam Strano]

And guys with the Fay's Watt's link had better not have removed the factory chassis brace (some call it a panhard brace... :-).

Why? The Watts link replaces that part as well as the PHB itself, and lateral locating devices are free. The Watts link is a legal part, and it replaces both the PHB and the brace both. 100% legal.

[Cr0usEEE]

And guys with the Fay's Watt's link had better not have removed the factory chassis brace (some call it a panhard brace... :-).

Why? The Watts link replaces that part as well as the PHB itself, and lateral locating devices are free. The Watts link is a legal part, and it replaces both the PHB and the brace both. 100% legal.

And that legality question I have already asked. That whole suspension points are free for solid axle cars are kinda nice.

How else do the mustangs had a panhard bar?

[marka]

Howdy,

And guys with the Fay's Watt's link had better not have removed the factory chassis brace (some call it a panhard brace... :-).

Why? The Watts link replaces that part as well as the PHB itself, and lateral locating devices are free. The Watts link is a legal part, and it replaces both the PHB and the brace both. 100% legal.

Maybe. Depends what you call the piece that bolts in between the left chassis rail and the phb mount. If you call it part of the chassis, I'm not convinced the rules allow you to remove it.

Similarly, I'm not convinced the rules allow you to cut off the factory PHB chassis mount and replace it with something else. Either both should be legal or neither should.

I sent email to the SEB about it a while back, but haven't heard anything.

Either way, that's a hell of a lot more grey to me than a stock replacement hub, which was the point of my tirade. :-)

Mark

[marka]

How else do the mustangs had a panhard bar?

The mustangs have a panhard bar because they can add one without removing existing parts of the chassis.

Mark

(fwiw, I want the Fays watts link to be legal. I just don't think its as cut and dried as some do. Similarly I think as written its impossible to have a legal SFC.)

[marka]

Howdy,

Anyway.. Sorry for sh*tting up the advertiser thread. Kevin, feel free to remove all this crap.

Short version is that I think the hubs are legal in FS and don't have a problem installing them. Protest me if you disagree.

Mark

[GlennCMC70]

let get this right? $1300 for a pair plus core, right?

[00 SS]

let get this right? $1300 for a pair plus core, right?

Thats correct except you will need to add shipping as well. Shipping is to the lower 48 will typically be about $50 with insurance.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Jan 11 2009, 05:34 PM

[00 SS]

Howdy,

Anyway.. Sorry for sh*tting up the advertiser thread. Kevin, feel free to remove all this crap.

Short version is that I think the hubs are legal in FS and don't have a problem installing them. Protest me if you disagree.

Mark

I don't mind you adding to the thread Mark. The fact is, legality in certain classes is important to some and as soon as we have an official answer I'll post it up.

I know the SEB/SAC/SPAC are considering this now. So, if you want these to be legal, it might be helpful to send a letter in support of them. If you do so, please be brief and polite. You might even want to send a letter similar to mine restating the question rather than simply supporting my request. I wrote my letter from the perspective of a competitor, not as the owner of the product.

This is what I sent:

Dear members of the SEB,

I am writing you to make sure a certain part I would like use is legal, I believe it is, but would like confirmation. The part is a front wheel hub for my 2000 Camaro SS that I drive in E Street Prepared. On this model, and all 1993 through 2002 Camaros and Firebirds, the entire hub assembly must be replaced in order to replace the wheel bearings as the hub is a sealed unit.

I use 315/35/17 Hoosier tires on the car for competition and the added grip causes the hubs to wear out very quickly. I have been averaging 10 runs on new hubs before they are worn enough to need replacement. I have tried AC Delco from the dealer and Timken hubs from Autozone with similar results for each brand. When they wear, the bearings get play and the wheel moves in ways it’s not supposed to. This movement is transferred into the rotor, which in turn knocks the brake pads back away from the rotor. As a result, the brake pedal travel becomes very long and occasionally goes to the floor on the first application after a few offsets or slalom cones. When the hubs wear to this point they must be replaced.

I have found a hub by an alternate manufacturer that seems to last much longer. I used it all summer season in 2008 without the bearings wearing out. In fact, they are still in good condition. It is a direct replacement that is dimensionally, visually and functionally essentially identical to original or auto part store replacements. Visually, it is nearly impossible to tell one from the other. I have attached a photo of an AC Delco Hub from the dealer and the hub I would like to use.

Obviously, there is another difference other than simple longevity, or I wouldn’t need any confirmation of the legality in ESP. Unlike other replacement hubs, this one is rebuildable. It uses typical tapered roller style wheel bearings and races. So, not only does it last longer than any other replacement hub I’ve used, it can be rebuilt for a fraction of the cost of other replacement hubs. I believe the rebuildable version meets the requirements of the rule below because it is essentially identical to standard hubs in every respect except that after the initial purchase, it can be rebuilt for far less cost. Otherwise, it replaces the original hubs exactly as any other replacement part would. The only drawback to the rebuildable version is that it is slightly heavier, approximately a half pound, than the original hubs. But, for me, not having to replace them every other event far out weighs the weight disadvantage.

From the 2008 Solo 2 rule book:

"Alternate components which are normally expendable and
considered replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings,
seals, gaskets, filters, belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors,
clutch discs, pressure plates, suspension bushings, drivetrain
mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are essentially identical to
the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size, hardness, weight,
material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide no
performance benefit. The allowance for use of such replacements
does not include camshafts, differential covers, or ring-and-pinion
sets, nor does it authorize the use of piston rings having different
configurations (e.g. “Total Seal”) from those of the original."

Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to help you make you decision.

Thank you for your time in considering this matter.

So, if you have any other angle you think might help convince them or you just want to let them know how you feel, it can't hurt.

[sgarnett]

Fwiw, I've verified with a dial indicator that I can take a brand new hub past the gm maximum wear spec in one day of autocross. That's with both Delco and Timken branded hubs. So, it isn't just a subjective or braking performance issue.

I also get much better life from original hubs as long as they are reinstalled on the same side of the car they came from (it matters). However, the supply of low mileage oe hubs is drying up.

Long story short, all known stock replacements are a safety hazard.

[00 SS]

That would be useful info for the SEB to consider. Please send them a quick letter either as a supplement to mine or as a stand alone request to clarify that a rebuildable version is in fact legal.

[marka]

Howdy,

Mine:

Howdy,

I understand the SEB / SPAC is probably considering the legality of some
new-to-the-market replacement wheel bearings / hubs for a 4th gen ('93-'02)
f-body.

My question boils down to if a replacement hub assembly may be used that is
exactly identical in dimension, weight, and intended function to the
original hub assembly, although the internals are slightly different. In
this case, the replacement hub uses tapered roller bearings that are user
serviceable while the OE hub is not user serviceable (I don't know what kind
of bearings are in it).

I believe this is legal in FS (and thus ESP) via Stock's rule:

""Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered
replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters,
belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates,
suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are
essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size,
hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide
no performance benefit."

Since the OE hub is a non-serviceable part and this new hub replaces it
exactly in every dimensional and weight way, I believe it would be legal to
run. Conversely, if its _not_ legal to run I believe that many "parts
store" hub assemblies that aren't exactly identical (down to the particular
type of steel used for the bearing race, etc.) would also be illegal and I
can't imagine that's the point of this rule.

Thanks for your attention to this!

Mark Andy
#266492

I suppose its fine to point out the safety issues, but you might want to be a little careful about how you do that. You could also fix those issues by removing the 4th gen fbody from ESP. :-) Historically, exceptions to address a particular car model's weaknesses get no weight.

In this particular case, I believe the rule just allows them as its written, no justification (or even clarification) necessary.

Mark

[Chevy053]

Mike

You can put me down for a set on the list. I am hoping that even if you don't get 20 sets the machine work costs wolnt send the price up too high. These are getting close to the limit of what I think I am willing to spend.

Any idea on how long you may wait to try to fill up at least 20 spots?

Thanks

This post has been edited by Chevy053: Jan 16 2009, 08:50 PM

[00 SS]

Thank you. You're on the list.

Additionally, if any other autocrossers want to send a letter it might reinforce to the SEB that the wear problems are not isolated. It may also show that more than just a couple people would like to see them be declared legal.

[00 SS]

It appears the SEB and the advisory committes are struggling with this a bit and are still trying to reach a decision. I received a question yesterday. So, if you are inclined to give them your opinion, it might help them make up their minds. It might even be a good idea to sugest a change in the wording of the following from the rule book:

""Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered
replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters,
belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates,
suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are
essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size,
hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide
no performance benefit."

It could be changed to:

Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered
replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters,
belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates,
suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are
essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size,
hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide
no performance benefit. Sealed hub assemblies may be replaced with rebuildable
hubs provided the wheel offset and alignment settings are not altered and the original
attachment methods are used. No other modifications are allowed to accomodate the
alternate hub. The bearings in the alternate hub may be tapered roller bearings
regardless of the bearing type used in the sealed assemblies.

I've already sent in my letter, so it might be best if someone else sent in this suggestion.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Jan 28 2009, 04:13 PM

[Jon A]

Put me on the list, Mike.

[00 SS]

You got it, and Thanks.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Feb 19 2009, 07:28 PM

[00 SS]

Still no official response to my letter to the SEB. I am very suprised that they seem to find this question so vexing. I thought this would have just been a formality, but apparently they are still debating it.

In any case, their decision will only effect some of us here. I'm interested in starting production as soon as possible. We have 7 on the list now, if we get to 8, I'll make a run of 10 pair. Therefore, we need one more person to step up to make this a go.

Is anyone here also on the corvette forum? If so, maybe you could post a link as these will work for later C4's as well.

[Mojave]

Still no official response to my letter to the SEB. I am very suprised that they seem to find this question so vexing. I thought this would have just been a formality, but apparently they are still debating it.

In any case, their decision will only effect some of us here. I'm interested in starting production as soon as possible. We have 7 on the list now, if we get to 8, I'll make a run of 10 pair. Therefore, we need one more person to step up to make this a go.

Is anyone here also on the corvette forum? If so, maybe you could post a link as these will work for later C4's as well.

I'll post it up on CorvetteForum tonight.

[Mojave]

This section (advertisers) is not viewable unless you have an account, so I copy-pasted your information into two new threads on Corvette Forum (one links to the other):

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/autocrossi...l-bearings.html

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-tech-pe...l-bearings.html

[00 SS]

Thanks Chad! No orders from the corvette guys yet, but it looks like at least a few are interested.

[00 SS]

I finally got some sort of response on my letter to the SEB. Basically they have declined to answer my question. The explination I got goes something like this.

They won't say they are 100% legal since some of the members believe they don't meet the letter of the rule for "essentially identical". However they also don't want to declare them illegal either because they think it's a good idea that fits in a gray area of the rules. The verbal suggetion I got was to run them an don't worry about it. Most members agree they "SHOULD" be legal, but could not get over the fact that the stockers have ball bearings and the rebuildable version has tapered roller bearings.

With the general mentality of FS and ESP toward weenie protests, I highly doubt I would be protested and even if I was I would probably win.

Therefore, I will run them in ESP and would not hesitate to recommend them anyone in ESP or FS.

I know this is not the definitive response some (including me) were hoping for, but it looks like all we will get.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Mar 15 2009, 01:03 AM

[Major_Lee_Slow]

So what would happen if one were protested for running these hubs? I'm guessing that an on site decision would have to be made by the officials. If they ruled that the hubs are legal, does that then set precedence?

[00 SS]

I don't think so unless the protest happened at nationals, although a national protest committee may use a decision by a "lower court" to help them decide. But what do I know, I'm not on a protest committee or part of the SCCA management.

Again, the concensus was that they meet the "intent" of the rule if not the "letter" of the rule. They declined to rule on my request because they did NOT want them declared illegal. If I were to be protested, I would hand the protest committee a stock hub and one of mine and ask them to tell me the difference. Since they will not be able to take a stocker apart, how could they point out any internal differences? The stockers are sealed, the internals of it are irrelavent.

Again, 99% externally identical, no performance advantage, direct bolt on etc. I fear no protest committee, nor do I feel like a cheater for using them.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Mar 17 2009, 09:02 PM

[marka]

Howdy,

So what would happen if one were protested for running these hubs? I'm guessing that an on site decision would have to be made by the officials. If they ruled that the hubs are legal, does that then set precedence?

There's no concept of an official "precedence" system with regard to rule interpretations. Unofficially, yes you'd think that would weigh in favor, but there's no limitation on a PC to rule or penalize one way or the other on a future protest.

I'm pretty amazed that they'd take three months or whatever its been on this and then issue a "no ruling" ruling. I can see asking for more information, but saying "we're not going to decide if they're legal or not" is pretty damned lame, if you ask me. I've never heard of another "request for clarification" that was blown off like this. Do they think a protest committee is going to suddenly be imbued with magic powers at an event?

The damn SEB is supposed to be where the buck stops and the request for clarification process is supposed to be used so that there's no angst over crap like this at an event. This is lame as hell.

Oh, and don't get me wrong... I think they're legal under the rules as written, would survive a protest, and that asking the question was just asking for trouble (and something I'd not have done), but still. Lame.

(and I take that all back if Mike wasn't willing to ship them a stock hub and one of his hubs or otherwise provide whatever information they'd want).

Color me unamused.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Mar 18 2009, 03:47 PM

[00 SS]

That's one way to look at it. I prefer a non-ruling to ruling against it.

Here's how I look at after having a few days to think about it.

1. They DON'T want to call it illegal.
2. Most of the SEB felt it meets the INTENT of the rule.
3. Most of the SEB think it SHOULD be legal.

It sounds like they may be inviting a letter requesting a rule tweak, rather than a clarification. Does any one else agree with this assessment?

[Chevy053]

I agree that a non-ruling is better than declaring them illegal.

The "essentially identical" in the rule is what I think is helping from them being declared illegal, there is plenty of room for interpretation with the word "essentially". I am not sure how easy it would be to convince them to change the rule to allow for different types of bearings.

It doesn’t sound like the SEB wants to make a decision and sounds to me like the only way they could be declared illegal is through a protest when/if that ever happens.

[Major_Lee_Slow]

In April's Fast Track it says under "Not Recommended" "SP Hub Replacement (ref 08-754). Is this related to these Hubs?

[00 SS]

That is the reference number given to my letter. "Not Recommended" is not any more clear than the verbal response I got. The letter requested a legality clarification. This does not specifically say yes or no. In light of the verbal response, this is probably their way of saying "something official" in response.

[00 SS]

I agree that a non-ruling is better than declaring them illegal.

The "essentially identical" in the rule is what I think is helping from them being declared illegal, there is plenty of room for interpretation with the word "essentially". I am not sure how easy it would be to convince them to change the rule to allow for different types of bearings.

It doesn’t sound like the SEB wants to make a decision and sounds to me like the only way they could be declared illegal is through a protest when/if that ever happens.

Agreed. And in ESP I highly doubt this would ever happen. Some of the classes seem very petty, luckily ESP is not one of them. If it was, I doubt I would enjoy ot as much, this issue notwithstanding.

[Chevy053]

In April's Fast Track it says under "Not Recommended" "SP Hub Replacement (ref 08-754). Is this related to these Hubs?

Just jump on the list and order a set. You know you want to (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/1poke.gif)

[Major_Lee_Slow]

In April's Fast Track it says under "Not Recommended" "SP Hub Replacement (ref 08-754). Is this related to these Hubs?

Just jump on the list and order a set. You know you want to (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/1poke.gif)

Trust me I so want to order a set of these, but I've got more pressing issues to take care of first. i.e. a messed up Throttle Body. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)

[00 SS]

It's become more than obvious that there is no way that we will reach 20 orders. I have sent messages to everyone already on the list and we are working with them to make some one-off units for those still interested.

If you are intersested but were not on the list, we will work with you as well. I wish there was a way to make these less expensive, but I have yet to find one. Hopefully, getting a few sets in service will help establish a track record for the parts and generate more interest.

I'm not giving up, but I'm not going to hold this initial offer open any longer. Hubs will still be available to anyone on a one off basis. Contact MJM Racing LLC for pricing.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Apr 6 2009, 05:26 PM

[sgarnett]

Well, crap! I was hoping this would drag out a little longer. There's lots of ugly rumours swirling around for the end of the month. One will be true, but I don't know which one yet.

[00 SS]

Sean, If you need something, call, we'll work with you. They aren't going away, but the GP type pricing just isn't possible with so few interested.

This post has been edited by 00 SS: Apr 6 2009, 10:59 PM

[sgarnett]

So I will still be able to get one later, but it will cost more? That's fair.

Do you still need cores? I have a collection for you.

[00 SS]

Available later - Yes
Cost more - Yes
Cores - Yes, please send as many as you like.

[Doug Phillips]

Are these still available? Cost? Are they available for the C4 Corvette?

[00 SS]

Doug,

At the moment they are not available. There was a recent failure and, until I know exactly why the part failed, I'm not making any more. I have no interest in selling an inferior part, so I hope you understand. Once the cause is determined I'll post it up and either make corrections or resume selling, it depends on whether the cause was an isolated issue or common issue.

I appreciate you interest and yes the design does apply to the 91+ C4 as well as 4th gen F-bodies. I'm hoping to resolve this quickly but if you're in need of hubs ASAP, I suggest getting another set of stockers for now.

[Lawson3565]

I have a C4 Vette and I am having trouble finding quality front hubs. Apparently SKF no longer makes a part, and just about the only name brand left in the game is Timkin. Am I missing any??

The Timkin part number for 4th gen hubs is 513090, and the C4 hub part number is 513085. Other than the Camaro 4th gen bolt holes being threaded, is there any difference between the actual bearing themselves? The 4th gen hubs are nearly $100 cheaper, however if the bearing will fail faster it is of no value and I will purchase the more expensive C4 hub part #

Can anyone provide insight?

Thanks,

Chris

[00 SS]

There is no other difference in the two part numbers. In fact, if you buy the 4th gen PN, all you need to do to install them is insert your existing bolts through from the back. The threads are the same. This is only true for 91+ C4.

As for the quality of the Timkens, I can't say. I used to kill them just as fast as any other brand.

[HoosierPE]

Here is a new solution to this persistent 4th Gen front hub/bearing issues. Check out the newly designed front hub assembly that retains ABS functionality here: Hoosier Performance Engineering's billet 4th Gen hub