Howdy,



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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Just jump on the list and order a set. You know you want to

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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