aklucsarits

Is that part even accurate? If the problem can really be traced back to extensive heavy braking, then surely there are street-only S2000s that have this issue - with owners who would never look under there and are blissfully unaware of the damage.

It sounds like after technical review, this article went straight to legal dept review. This single line does three things for Honda: 1) Absolves them from covering this issue under warranty (competition voids warranty), 2) Allows them to acknowledge a potentially dangerous structural fatigue failure without having to issue a costly recall for all cars (failure due to "abuse", not design flaw), and also 3) Helps to insulate them from potential lawsuit due to damages from catastropic failure (again, failure due to "abuse", not design flaw).

Andrew

Ludedude

The point is not what it does or doesn't do for Honda. I don't think anyone in competitive circles is under the impression that Honda should foot the bill for these repairs. I also don't know of anyone not autocrossing or tracking the car that has reported these issues. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that I don't know about any reported non-competition cases.

The intent was to try to make the repairs legal to meet the SCCA rules or possible challenges to the legality of said repairs. That's what was asked for, and that's what was delivered...or am I missing the boat?

shaggy

Agreed, but how is this bulletin different in spirit from the following hypothetical scenario:

We have a chronic problem with a suspension bushing failing during competition. The Honda issued bulletin reads:

"Alternate part xxx-xxx is an acceptable replacement for part xxx-yyy. Part xxx-yyy should only require replacement after the car has been driven repeatedly on a racetrack or in autocross events."

In this situation, part xxx-yyy would ordinarily be the default replacement part. However, in the event that xxx-yyy is failing during spirited driving you can replace it with xxx-xxx. I would protest the use of part xxx-xxx because it is an obvious performance advantage over part xxx-yyy, which repeatedly fails.

Honda should have just said, "in the event this happens, here's the fix." As noted above, the language came from the legal department and I'm not very happy with it. Anyone paying attention knows they've already acknowledged the design flaw (detail is changed on the '04, no?) and are vulnerable for lawsuit whether or not they issue this bulletin. But, this bulletin does help strengthen their case when they get sued.

Andy H.

Jason Saini

Having this procedure is better than going to Nationals blind and empty-handed, so for that I thank all those involved in the process of making this happen. You all know who you are, and we're all very grateful.

It looks as though the potential protester isn't registered and may not be coming (or is paying a big late fee to trick us into thinking he won't be there to let our guard down,) so this might not be an issue. But in the case that my parenthesis are right, we should run this techline procedure by some protest committee members and see what they say.

I feel it adequately covers us, as it's an official procedure from Honda specific to the problem at hand. The important wording there is 'track driving' which can be a non-timed, non-competitive event. I think we're a-ok.

I look forward to seeing everyone at Topeka with this printed out and stuffed in their service manuals - just in case!

Thanks Honda, thanks Techline, Thanks Jeremy, et al.

Gregg Lee

[QUOTE=Jason Saini,Aug 23 2004, 09:56 PM] Having this procedure is better than going to Nationals blind and empty-handed, so for that I thank all those involved in the process of making this happen.