Alternate Front Spindle

[Hardingfv32]

Greg Bruns request for an alternate front spindle was rejected in the latest Fastrack.

Does anyone now the reason and/or details of this request?

Brian

[R. Pare]

Strange that it would be rejected - I made replacement front spindles for a few years ( sold through Lybarger), and they were specifically authorized in the rules. However, I now see that there is no mention of them anymore, so they could conceivably be considered illegal. Someone needs to look into this.

[R. Pare]

Just re-read the GCR concerning replacing front spindles. There is no longer a specific mention of the ICP front spindles, but they, and any other replacement spindles, should be covered by the following:

"Mass-produced, direct replacement components may be substituted for the
following as long as they are of the same material and dimensionally identical to the original VW compo-
nents they replace:
• VW transmission components
• Rear axle components
• Front suspension
• Brake components
These replacement parts must be generally available to all competitors and must offer no competitive
advantage over the original VW parts."

It may be that the spindle that was requested to be allowed did not fit the above well enough.

[Bob Posner]

Just re-read the GCR concerning replacing front spindles. There is no longer a specific mention of the ICP front spindles, but they, and any other replacement spindles, should be covered by the following:

"Mass-produced, direct replacement components may be substituted for the
following as long as they are of the same material and dimensionally identical to the original VW compo-
nents they replace:
• VW transmission components
• Rear axle components
• Front suspension
• Brake components
These replacement parts must be generally available to all competitors and must offer no competitive
advantage over the original VW parts."

It may be that the spindle that was requested to be allowed did not fit the above well enough.

I bought a pair used 12 years ago and they're still on 100 races later, after more than a few whacks still mag perfect. Would love to see a new supply from Richard.

[R. Pare]

Unfortunately the steel foundry I used ( 3 miles away near IMS) closed down 10 or so years ago. The next closest is down in Cincinatti. At the time, Lybarger bought each production run complete, which is the only way it made it worth it to me to do - the margin on them was rather tight - not worth it if I am to keep them in stock to sell directly.

[FVRacer21]

If Greg can post his letter here or if someone can show how we can view letter 24461 it would help solve the mystery. I tried and did not find a link to view the original letter.

ChrisZ

[Greg Bruns]

Greg Bruns request for an alternate front spindle was rejected in the latest Fastrack.

Does anyone now the reason and/or details of this request?

Brian

The rule cites that "11. Alternate spindle from cip1.com part number C26-412-020 and alternate spindle carrier C26-412-025 are allowed."
The trouble is that the parts are not available from the website, so I wanted the vendor removed, so ANY alternate spindle can be used, as it is not specifically allowed as the rule reads now, except for the generic rule, where dimensionally identical is iffy. If the generic rule works, why have this one. It seems as though the SCCA is promoting certain distributors and not others.

Greg Bruns

[Bruce Livermore]

Greg, et. al.,

The reason the cip1 spindles needed to be specifically authorized is that they are clearly not "dimensionally identical". And yes those are terrible words, but without them, everything would need either to be controlled by specific part numbers (like the cip1 parts) or by full dimensional requirements for every alternate part allowed in the rules.

The cip1 spindles do not use the inner bearing spacer (and seal surface placed over the spindle before the bearings) because it is an integral part of the spindle. Thus these parts are considered stronger (by some - more on that later) and they were available new at that time. The basic geometry between the king pin and the spindle is "dimensionally identical" to that of a stock spindle so there is no geometry change in the suspension itself. That is why we approved them specifically. Many of the available aftermarket spindles are "drop spindles" which significantly change the geometry. Please note that cip1 did not request their parts be approved, rather it was a Vee specific parts supplier.

As far as the integrated seal design of the cip1 part, I'd argue that while it is stiffer, it might not be more resistant to the fatigue failure we see on Vee spindles (maybe even less resistant due to the small radius at the transition to the inner bearing ID). Therefore, I would recommend using properly made and installed (torqued adjuster nuts) inner race wheel bearing spacers on these parts just as on any VW spindle.

Bruce

[R. Pare]

I am actually looking into another production run of the ICP front spindles, but that will not proceed until I get in writing that the club will still accept them.

At the time of the original manufacture runs, Lybarger bought the complete runs, and assigned his own part number to them.

I've contacted a CRB member about the wording in the GCR - it really can be interpreted in too many ways that make gearing up for new spindles rather iffy.

[Hardingfv32]

1) 'Dimensionally identical' is not an enforceable term. We do not have any 'official' VW dimensions for any of the original parts. What tolerance do you apply when making the measurements?

I doubt very much if any of the non-VW replacement parts are spot on to the original. There is no need as long it fits and functions as the original when discussing street applications.

2) Why not take the opportunity to dial in some negative camber to the spindle so as to save the cost & work of using offset bushings?

Brian

[R. Pare]

2) Why not take the opportunity to dial in some negative camber to the spindle so as to save the cost & work of using offset bushings?

Brian

Not going to happen - the fixtures are already made, and would cost too much to revamp - my margins on these are too tight.

[Hardingfv32]

Not going to happen.

Well, it was a thought.

I thought about the dimensionally identical issue and think you should request a change in wording. Explain what you are making and why you think you need the change. I would ask for the 'dimensionally identical' to be changed to 'identical fit and function' type of wording. The part substitution rule has other parts to it that cover availability and no performance gain issues.

Brian

[DaveB]

I have these spindles on my car and have a set of spares. I contacted the CRB because they were not included in the GCR any more, I inquired about there legality. It took a while but they responded they where legal. They are a great piece, I hope Richard decides to make another run as I would purchase another set for a second car.
Dave

[Greg Bruns]

The request was made because of cost! I have exhausted the junk yards around me for all kinds of parts, including spindles.

Several suppliers make the same spindle as the cip1 spindle, but with different part numbers, so they are illegal. It appears, even though hopefully unintentional, that one vendor is favored.

I have seen the most carved up, modified spindles with welded on seal races go no faster than anyone else. To avoid the drop spindle problem, just state that the spindle centerline must be equal distance between the link pins.

The point is that instead of working with us to make FV "Affordable Racing" again, the rules are making it more & more expensive.
Case in point, pistons & cylinders.

Greg, et. al.,

The reason the cip1 spindles needed to be specifically authorized is that they are clearly not "dimensionally identical". And yes those are terrible words, but without them, everything would need either to be controlled by specific part numbers (like the cip1 parts) or by full dimensional requirements for every alternate part allowed in the rules.

The cip1 spindles do not use the inner bearing spacer (and seal surface placed over the spindle before the bearings) because it is an integral part of the spindle. Thus these parts are considered stronger (by some - more on that later) and they were available new at that time. The basic geometry between the king pin and the spindle is "dimensionally identical" to that of a stock spindle so there is no geometry change in the suspension itself. That is why we approved them specifically. Many of the available aftermarket spindles are "drop spindles" which significantly change the geometry. Please note that cip1 did not request their parts be approved, rather it was a Vee specific parts supplier.

As far as the integrated seal design of the cip1 part, I'd argue that while it is stiffer, it might not be more resistant to the fatigue failure we see on Vee spindles (maybe even less resistant due to the small radius at the transition to the inner bearing ID). Therefore, I would recommend using properly made and installed (torqued adjuster nuts) inner race wheel bearing spacers on these parts just as on any VW spindle.

Bruce

[Hardingfv32]

The point is that instead of working with us to make FV "Affordable Racing" again, the rules are making it more & more expensive.
Case in point, pistons & cylinders.

1) The spindles you are talking about are all the same part, made in China and sold by different retailers. I doubt that there is any markings on the actual part that specify the actual retailer. Who is ever going to inspect/protest your front spindles and how would they ever know it did not actually come from cip1?
2) Did you present the above information to the CRB in a clear way? With the part substitution rule, vague as it is, the CRB might think this is not worth the time to clarify.

3) So in your opinion, what went/is wrong with the P&C rules? Maybe we can help you understand how they were developed?

Brian

[jpetillo]

Greg - If the aftermarket spindles are dimensionally identical where it matters, then I believe the wording in the rules supports using those - please read that rule and see if you agree. If a part is not dimensionally identical, then if the CRB wants to allow them one way they do it is with an exception and listing the part number in the rule. It's not that the vendor is favored. John

[problemchild]

Greg - If the aftermarket spindles are dimensionally identical where it matters,

"Where it matters"? That is what rules are for.

I used Richard's spindles on my cars, but clearly they were not dimensionally identical by the letter of the law. You need specifically defined aftermarket parts with part numbers, and/or specific dimensions that must be identical.

[Hardingfv32]

If the aftermarket spindles are dimensionally identical ...

Identical to the original VW part or can it be identical to the to an authorized alternative part such as the cip1 spindle?

Clearly a number of people need a better rule than 'dimensionally identical'. I would argue that we have no basis for the original dimensions being that we lack any of the original VW drawings. There is also the issue that a replica manufacture has no need to match the original part identically. They work to a more practical standard of being identical in 'form, fit and function'.

Brian