Rebuildable 4th gen front hubs are here!! Options

[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.