"Traction Bar" and a FWD car [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Roy Dean

12-20-2006, 12:15 PM

Ok, so so far everybody has responded with the traditional thinking, which is exactly what I thought until I examined the defination of "traction bar". Here it is again:

Traction Bar - A link to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

Lets brake it down:

"A link to an axle housing or hub carrier" - The rear toe/lateral link is a link to the rear hub carrier.

"which resists torque reaction from the wheel" - Without the later link, the wheel will flop around due to torque reaction from the brakes. There is no disputing this, as the rear hub carrier is only free to move up and down (along the axis of the strut), and rotate along the axis stretching between the upper strut mount and the lower control arm bushing. The lateral link does not (and cannot) limit the travel along the strut housing, and thus ALL it can do is limit rotation of the hub carrier. And the only thing that can cause rotation at that joint are forces (which turn into torque's) transfered from the wheel.

"by acting in compression or tension" - it's a two force member with cylindrical bushings at either end, so it can ONLY act in tension or compression.

The only things I can possibly see in the definition of traction bar that may be the killer is that the wording is supposed to mean "a link to an axle housing/hub carrier" (ie, it's an axle housing or an axle hub carrier). Another wrench in the works could be that "reaction from the wheel" is meant to mean "reaction due to power transmission from the wheel.

However, the the lateral link still meets the definition of "traction bar" on all levels. Discuss.

I'm no expert, but aren't lateral links on a rear suspension of a FWD car in-effect "control arms"? [/b]

Not on my car. My Suzuki Swift has dedicated rear control arms (just like the front suspension), and the lateral links perform the same function as the steering links in the front (although, obviously, they don't steer).

charrbq

12-20-2006, 01:09 PM

Cancel that, I was reading wrong. Must've had my eyes crossed.

Conover

12-20-2006, 01:09 PM

Your missing the torque part, rear wheels on a FWD don't produce any torque.
Not anything like what a traction bar is for, traction. usually you find you've got too much traction in the rear.
I think the torque reaction the rule is describing is the torque from being driven.

charrbq

12-20-2006, 01:15 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would want to add ( I assume you're adding) a traction bar to a front wheel drive car. If there is no torque to the rear wheels, which is what it's supposed to limit, why would you think it was needed?

Roy Dean

12-20-2006, 01:46 PM

Your missing the torque part, rear wheels on a FWD don't produce any torque.[/b]

Wrong. When I hit the brakes, they produce torque.

I think the torque reaction the rule is describing is the torque from being driven.[/b]

I think thats what was intended, too... but thats NOT what is written. ;)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would want to add ( I assume you're adding) a traction bar to a front wheel drive car. If there is no torque to the rear wheels, which is what it's supposed to limit, why would you think it was needed?
[/b]

I don't want to ADD one, I want to "substitute" one... the stock one is a piece of stamped steel with cheesy rubber bushings. Even if I could replace it with a new part (which I can't, as it's no longer produced), it's cheaper to replace it with a nice tubular or even solid link equipped with heim joints.

charrbq

12-20-2006, 02:10 PM

Z3_GoCar

12-20-2006, 02:11 PM

I think you're stretching it here...

IMO, a traction bar cannot be a lateral location device, as it would therefore fail the very definition of something that "...resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension." That's not what toe links do for a living, is it?. :blink:
[/b]

Alright so remove the toe link and what happens is the wheel moves around, same as without a traction bar, so the bar definetly resists wheel torque. Secondly, any second year engineering student will tell you a link with a rotating connection (i.e. a heim joint) can only act in tension and compression. So by all acounts I think you could replace it same as a traction bar; however, the safe way to go would be to just replace the rubber elements with heim's in the stock stamped piece.

James

lateapex911

12-20-2006, 02:46 PM

using the same logic, on a rear wheel drive car, the steering tie rod would then become free using this rules reading, ...right???

GKR_17

12-20-2006, 02:57 PM

using the same logic, on a rear wheel drive car, the steering tie rod would then become free using this rules reading, ...right???
[/b]

True. That same logic had people calling coatings lubruicants (and therefore free) by torturing the glossary a few years ago.

Roy Dean

12-20-2006, 03:14 PM

I feel like many of us running older, out of production cars, you're screwed. Unless you can find a newer, stronger part from a wreck or such, replacing a stock part with a spiffy part such as you're describing is a no-no.
[/b]

Right. Thats what I thought (and I was prepared to make bushings for the existing old links), until I read the rules to be certain that I could even do that (which, obviously, I can). However, after reading the rules, it looks very much to me that I can use the poor wording of the rule to my advantage.

Knestis

12-20-2006, 04:08 PM

Wise man once say, "If rulebook say you can, you bloody well can."

Kirk (free of the bonds of Rules NERDism) :026:

Andy Bettencourt

12-20-2006, 04:13 PM

Right. Thats what I thought (and I was prepared to make bushings for the existing old links), until I read the rules to be certain that I could even do that (which, obviously, I can). However, after reading the rules, it looks very much to me that I can use the poor wording of the rule to my advantage. [/b]

IMHO, this is a tortured interpretation. Traction bars are designed to work longitudinally, and see Jake's question on RWD cars (and tie-rods). Understand that once something like this comes up, be VERY prepared to have the rule clarified out-from-under you. Don't invest too much money in your solution because it will soon be illegal. :024:

Domino

12-20-2006, 05:52 PM

Wrong. When I hit the brakes, they produce torque.[/b]

Huh? Your interpretation conflicts with the definition of "Traction Bar" you posted. A traction bar resists the opposite reaction the wheel has when torque is APPLIED to the wheel. No torque is applied to the rear wheels in a FWD car.

gprodracer

12-20-2006, 05:55 PM

Andy, Jake, et al,

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Mark

Roy Dean

12-20-2006, 06:03 PM

IMHO, this is a tortured interpretation. Traction bars are designed to work longitudinally, and see Jake's question on RWD cars (and tie-rods). Understand that once something like this comes up, be VERY prepared to have the rule clarified out-from-under you. Don't invest too much money in your solution because it will soon be illegal. :024:
[/b]

I know exactly what traction bars are designed for, but the SCCA defines it as something much broader. As it stands, I can lose no more than $120 by putting in the aftermarket links (and thats if I buy them instead of build them)... so until it's officially illegal.... It'll be there.

Huh? Your interpretation conflicts with the definition of "Traction Bar" you posted. A traction bar resists the opposite reaction the wheel has when torque is APPLIED to the wheel. No torque is applied to the rear wheels in a FWD car.
[/b]

Every force has an equal and opposite reaction. The same is true for torques. So while you say no torque is "applied to the rear wheels in a FWD car", you are mistaken. The wheels, during braking, have TWO torques applied to them. One is the the force of the road on the tire times the outside radius of the tire, and the other is the force of the brakes times the effective radius of the [in my case] disc.

Additionally, torque is also applied to the wheel not only about the axis of the wheel rotation itself, but about the axis of the strut mount/control arm bushing... these torques being applied via normal racing accelerations (traditional acceleration, lateral, braking, etc.). Nowhere in the rules does it say that the torques in question must only be from axles.... :)

I know what you are getting at, but the wording in the rules does not specifically state it that way.

Bottom line, if the rules are changed because of me..... I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.

charrbq

12-20-2006, 06:37 PM

WOW!!! That's a lot of stretch for a bar story. I can pretty well guarantee that before you get your stuff built, it will be made a no-no in Fastrack. You may only be out $120, but that's a large portion of the price of a tire, or brake pads, or an entry fee, or gas for the tow vehicle, or motel at the track, or any number of things which you need and can benefit from way more than a bar story. Bar stories are made for bench racing, not engineering marvels that you really aren't certain of yourself.

But...if that's the sort of thing that blows wind up your skirt...knock yourself out. :blink:

Knestis

12-20-2006, 06:42 PM

Y'all wanted it this way, remember...

First, 17.1.4.D.5.c.1 doesn't say that added (or replaced) traction bars have to be on the driven end of the car.

Second, "...by acting in compression or tension" let's a traction bar resolve torque EITHER by compression or tension, giving it permission to do so under acceleration or braking. With the utmost in respect to the guy who makes sure that my ride stays in one piece, Cameron (and others) are applying the engine builders' definition of "torque," not the engineers' definition. There is NO question that braking creates a torque about the rotational axis of all of the wheels, that has to be resolved someplace. That someplace is in a traction bar. Don't for a minute let us kid ourselves that "Traction Bars" (capital T, capital B ) like my high school friends had on their 'stangs and Goats didn't get a load put on them under braking, too.

If the standard of law were defined by applying "commonly held" definitions of things, I'd still be a Rules NERD.

Chris is right that replacing a stock part is not allowed - right up to the point where a rule allows it.

Any "clarification" of the rule and definition in question is only going to layer more language onto a problem that's been created by the presence of too much language. Someone had to get all silly about writing a definition, rather than establishing case law through protest findings, and set this precedent. There's no procedure in place whereby someone can write the rule to say, "Roy can't do the thing he's proposed to do."

using the same logic, on a rear wheel drive car, the steering tie rod would then become free using this rules reading, ...right???[/b]

Because it has a ball on its outboard end, a tie rod can't control the same torque (braking or acceleration) so I don't think it meets that requirement of the definition. It gets put in tension or compression when the car is steered or torque loads are applied about the "virtual kingpin axis" of the steering.

K

PS - I really like this little guy, too! :026:

PPS to Roy - want to help me design the new Anti-Roll Bar (GCR, p. 109) to replace the one on the rear end of my Golf?

Rabbit07

12-20-2006, 08:15 PM

I think Roy is right. Makes crystal clear sense to me.

ddewhurst

12-21-2006, 09:31 AM

***I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.***

Roy, this is approx a same discussion that was held here approx 1 year ago. My 1st gen RX-7 has a OEM 4 link rear axle. The a Tri-link has been added with foam busshings in the 2 upper links rendering the upper 2 links usless. (unless the Tri-link breaks) The 2 lower links have been subistuted with purchsed threaded links with rod ends. Many of the group debating in this thread told me I am illegal. No protests to date. ;)

Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David

ps: Is that the sound of protest money I here being sent from the East coast ? :unsure:

lateapex911

12-21-2006, 10:05 AM

FYI-

The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.

***I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.***

Roy, this is approx a same discussion that was held here approx 1 year ago. My 1st gen RX-7 has a OEM 4 link rear axle. The a Tri-link has been added with foam busshings in the 2 upper links rendering the upper 2 links usless. (unless the Tri-link breaks) The 2 lower links have been subistuted with purchsed threaded links with rod ends. Many of the group debating in this thread told me I am illegal. No protests to date. ;)

Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David

ps: Is that the sound of protest money I here being sent from the East coast ? :unsure: [/b]

Huh? The lack of a protest doesn't define legality....or lack thereof.

lateapex911

12-21-2006, 10:16 AM

Because it has a ball on its outboard end, a tie rod can't control the same torque (braking or acceleration) so I don't think it meets that requirement of the definition. It gets put in tension or compression when the car is steered or torque loads are applied about the "virtual kingpin axis" of the steering.

K [/b]

I mentioned that parallel, but did so based on my concept of what he has. But he hasn't described it completely, or given illustrations, so I'm a bit in the dark.

However, it seems he has a rear hub carrier, located by a control arm at the bottom, and also located (for toe) with a toe link. He wishes to replace that toe link with a non stock part, and is using the term "torque" as his entry to do so, claiming that torque hasn't been limited to any origin, or plane. But many of us presume that the torque that the rule refers to is engine or brake derived..."presume" being the key word.

So, given that, I assume that there must be some compliance inherent in the arm, or the suspension wouldn't be able to move through it's intended arc(s).

To me, this is similar, except in the degree of movement, to what a RWD front suspension does, except that his toe link on the FWD car is fixed, but compliant in the needed modes, at it's inner pick up point, whereas it is moveable on a RWD steering toe link.(AKA tie rods).

To follow the logic, if he is correct, then ANY link resisting any force that can be considered torque, is fair game.

If not, then how and why can you draw the line limiting the application?

bldn10

12-21-2006, 10:46 AM

Knestis

12-21-2006, 11:30 AM

...But many of us presume that the torque that the rule refers to is engine or brake derived..."presume" being the key word. ... To follow the logic, if he is correct, then ANY link resisting any force that can be considered torque, is fair game.

If not, then how and why can you draw the line limiting the application?[/b]

Oh, I'm ABSOLUTELY making that same presumption (for better or for worse). This whole thing goes utterly sideways if we are willing to include ANY torque load about ANY axis. Holy yikes.

Looking just at the text of the rule (and accepting the above assumption) the line gets drawn where the link in question controls THOSE torques "in tension or compression." This raises the question of "What is torture?" in that I'm willing to go some way but not ALL the way on this one, but a lower control arm with two inboard axial pivots and a ball joint at the bottom of the upright, is not loaded purely in one of those two ways.

The part in question has to satisfy ALL of the attributes described in the definition. If it does, then it does.

Even the Rules NERD Kirk disliked "emails requesting clarification." Were we still in a place where the system could be undone, clarification would come from (1) fewer, less wordy rules, (2) elimination of any rule telling us what we CAN'T do, and (3) enforcement of the rules through a consistent, documented system of precedents. In the real world of the ITCS, "clarification" means the addition of more language that can be imprecise and manipulated just like this.

K

EDIT - to clarify (sorry, couldn't resist), I'm taking the OP's word that the link on the Suzuki DOES actually control the torque in question. If it is actually in essence a fixed steering tie rod, then the case falls apart. Jake's right that we need pics.

lateapex911

12-21-2006, 12:28 PM

First of all:

17.1.4.D.5.c.1 Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.

And:

GCR Glossary
Traction Bar - A link to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

And now the question:

Can I replace my factory rear toe links (lateral links) with an aftermarket heim joint equipped "traction bar"? By the letter of the rules, the toe link could be described as a "traction bar" according to the GCR glossary. What do you think? [/b]

Right Kirk, thats what he's saying..that the "torque in this case is actually rotating on the axis of the strut...and without the toe links, the wheel would flop about. He is saying that the toe link is operating under compression and tension....

And he goes on to highlight that here:

.......
Additionally, torque is also applied to the wheel not only about the axis of the wheel rotation itself, but about the axis of the strut mount/control arm bushing... these torques being applied via normal racing accelerations (traditional acceleration, lateral, braking, etc.). Nowhere in the rules does it say that the torques in question must only be from axles.... :)

Jakes insertion:(nor does it specify which axis..)

I know what you are getting at, but the wording in the rules does not specifically state it that way.

Bottom line, if the rules are changed because of me..... I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.
[/b]

So, yes, it DOES go all sideways, both figuratively and literally.

charrbq

12-21-2006, 12:48 PM

"rather than establishing case law through protest findings, and set this precedent. "

IMO that is the way it should be. But it is not. In SCCA there is no case law and no precedent - every protest stands on its own, and you can have conflicting results across the country. All COA opinions should be categorized, archived, searchable, and made precedential. :dead_horse:
[/b]
Man...I'll agree with that. I've seen it happen more than once. In the legal practice there is such a thing called precedence or such in decisions. A tech inspector at one race can rule an item legal, and the car can be ruled illegal at another race with another tech inspector.

ddewhurst

12-21-2006, 02:21 PM

Andy Bettencourt

12-21-2006, 02:27 PM

***The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.***

Provided the ITAC/CRB is consistant when doing clarification of the definition of existing rules it's a no brainer just like the Spherical bushing material. Ya need to :dead_horse: the same way all the time. :114:

Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David

[/b]

No way. This is different. This is a tortured interpretation reading the literal word and then taking liberties from there. While I was from the camp that sphericals were not 'alternate material', the CRB stated that they felt they should be allowed and we re-wrote the rule for them. I can almost guarantee this won't be the case here.

Knestis

12-21-2006, 02:46 PM

Nowhere in the rules does it say that the torques in question must only be from axles....[/b]

I'm guilty of reading that as "...torques must only be from the 'drive of the axles'..." It's a matter of degrees but I agree that other-axis torques change the issue substantially. Where's that picture?

This is a tortured interpretation reading the literal word and then taking liberties from there.[/b]

...and that should be addressed through the protest process - through ENFORCEMENT of the rule. If by, "clarification of the definition," we mean that the request has been made for "an opinion that doesn't carry any weight," then that's fine. A waste of time, oxygen, and bandwidth, but fine.

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K

Andy Bettencourt

12-21-2006, 02:52 PM

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K [/b]

But is reasonable people can disagree what the rule allows you to do, the rule sucks. We need to change it so that it doesn't become commonly accepted practice in certain circles. Sorry, that is definatly my take.

lateapex911

12-21-2006, 03:05 PM

I'm guilty of reading that as "...torques must only be from the 'drive of the axles'..." It's a matter of degrees but I agree that other-axis torques change the issue substantially. Where's that picture?

...and that should be addressed through the protest process - through ENFORCEMENT of the rule. If by, "clarification of the definition," we mean that the request has been made for "an opinion that doesn't carry any weight," then that's fine. A waste of time, oxygen, and bandwidth, but fine.

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K [/b]

Right....but...what if the he gets protested at Track A, and the tech thinks in, shall we say, conventional terms, and DQs him? Then he shows up at the next race (while he's started an appeal process) and gets protested again...and this time a different tech listens, reads the rule, decides the part IS acting as the definition requires, and the protest is disallowed?

.....meanwhile, in the appeals court....well, that doesn't really matter, as we'll see....

.....then, next year, it happens again, maybe to another guy who thinks this is a nifty idea? Start at square 1, and see what happes this time...

Agreed, the appeal decision carries no lasting weight, and thats something I don't get.

As such, this could become a Ground Hog Day.

IF the rule lacks clarity to it's intent, then perhaps it needs to be looked at? (And am I correct in understanding that you do NOT think it lacks clarity? That the interpretaion is clearly incorrect?)

Knestis

12-21-2006, 06:03 PM

I don't know from "intent" anymore, Jake. I've had so many 20-year-old IT intents pulled out from under me that I've given up on that, too. Don't forget that I used to be on the other side of arguments like this.

The "interpretation" is correct for the link that I fabricated in my head, for the imaginary suspension on a model that has never been built, by a non-existent manufacturer. :)

It is not correct for other suspension components that don't meet all of the diagnostic characteristics in the GCR definition.

...and therein lies the problem - not one of rules interpretation in this case, but of definition. If we write a definition for a "frammis" and some thing comes along that meets all of the criteria defined in that definition, that thing becomes de facto a frammis. Absent that definition, the simple fact that the original post called the items in question "rear toe links" would go a long way toward establishing the fact that they are in fact and function not "traction bars." They get protested, someone takes a digital pic and puts it in the online file system for members and tech mavens to see whenever they want, and a little precedent is establshed.

"These things are not traction bars."

If someone wants to appeal that finding, they do so and the CoA establishes a bigger, harder-hitting precedent.

I'm a little worried about Andy. He's beginning to sound like a surgeon, for whom every problem has a solution that includes cutting someone open. Not every issue we face can be fixed with an ITCS rule rewrite. The "rule" doesn't "suck" in this instance. The definition was written by human beings and served well up until about 36 hours ago. It's replacement might well be equally flawed.

Guys - it is not possible to enforce rules through their writing.

However, the current crop of ITAC'ers has done a better job than has ever been accomplished in the past with rules writing - except where people downstream of them in the process start playing with words. I'm just not entirely confident that the new definition won't have holes, TOO or that we'll layer on another pile of words that just add potential for spinning.

K

Andy Bettencourt

12-21-2006, 06:55 PM

I'm a little worried about Andy. He's beginning to sound like a surgeon, for whom every problem has a solution that includes cutting someone open. Not every issue we face can be fixed with an ITCS rule rewrite. The "rule" doesn't "suck" in this instance. The definition was written by human beings and served well up until about 36 hours ago. It's replacement might well be equally flawed.K [/b]

Or maybe what you ment to say was that nobody attempted to take advantage of the poor rule until now. At some point, the same thing happened with the 'alternate bushing' rule...and if we had been more proactive, it may have had a better outcome.

I liken this to guys who are competitive in underprepared cars in there Region - because ALL the cars are underprepared...just because someone hasn't brought a 10/10th car to the dance doesn't mean they couldn't have. Same with this rule...if it has read like this forever it doesn't make it a good rule.

ddewhurst

12-21-2006, 06:56 PM

***The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.***

I beleive many of us beleive that a traction bar rule was written refering to the driving mode of a car & not every other item of a car that has a torque value.

BUT, if the the people of the ITAC/CRB are changing rule 17.1.4.D.5.c. from it's current words I will need to say their heads are getting a tad bit large for the volunteer position they temporarily hold. Should any of you ITAC or CRB care in engage in some private communication about the rule or traction bar please feel free to pm yours truly David Dewhurst.

If the friken upper link of a 1st gen RX-7 rear suspension is a traction bar for Jim Susko the lower link is a traction bar for David Dewhurst. They both provide the same equal funnction. Come on ITAC or CRB explain how the upper link is a traction bar but the lower link is not a traction bar. Explain why I can not substitute the lower link with a link of the exact same length. & if you can not visualize the rear suspension of a 1st gen RX-7 please don't get involved in this communication.

Come on lets have a conversation on this site out in the open where you folks can't use the weasel process. When I use the word weasel process beleive me I know the weasel process is used when Fastrack responses do not use the written rule to answer a customer question.

The same bunch of you started the Limited Prep thread & when someone don't :OLA: to your sorry wishes you close the thread. Yep, that's what I call open minded.

Andy Bettencourt

12-21-2006, 07:35 PM

PM sent.

Andy Bettencourt

12-21-2006, 07:48 PM

How about this as a devils advocate:

The rule says " Wouldn't a 'added' traction bar that also served as a toe-link violate the last part of the rule?</span>

Conover

12-21-2006, 09:57 PM

What about that "serve another purpose" rule? does that apply, because it's clear to me that the only reason he wants this allowance is so that he can easily adjust his rear toe.
I'm with Andy, I think this is a tortured interpretation, a clear abomination actually!

:cavallo:
"No one expects the Spanish inquisition!"

dickita15

12-22-2006, 05:35 AM

I agree that calling the toe link a traction bars is tortured but the serves and other function language does not help much. Everything serves some other function, intended or not. This phrase still requires a subjective decision that might not be consistent from one court to another.

Andy Bettencourt

12-22-2006, 08:00 AM

I agree Dick. But here is how I read it:

You can add or substitute a traction bar. In any situation, you either have a TB that you can substitute or you don't have a TB so you can add one.

In either situation, the added TB or the substituted TB, if it does something very specific like adjust toe, it has clearly violated that piece of the rule, no?

If we are basing this whole thing on a toe link being free because it is a 'traction bar', would the membership be better served by a clarification of what a traction bar is (for the purposes of the GCR)?

dickita15

12-22-2006, 08:36 AM

The traction bar on my car changes the suspension geometry. I would say that is another function. Is that really what you want to change? I guess if you want the simplest way to prevent this proposed use of the rule you only need to change the definition of a traction bar by adding the word driven as in “Traction Bar- a link to an axel housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the Driven wheel by acting in compression or tension”

bldn10

12-22-2006, 10:44 AM

"it's a no brainer just like the Spherical bushing material. Ya need to the same way all the time. Happy Holidays David"

"No way. This is different. This is a tortured interpretation reading the literal word and then taking liberties from there. While I was from the camp that sphericals were not 'alternate material', the CRB stated that they felt they should be allowed and we re-wrote the rule for them."

I'm not sure what side David is on but I think both situations are similar - reasonably clear rules that are subjected to tortured interpretation. I have spoken out about the travesty of in effect changing a rule by clarification and, despite the fact that I favor precedent, I hope the SB case is never so used.

Roy Dean

12-22-2006, 12:17 PM

What about that "serve another purpose" rule? does that apply, because it's clear to me that the only reason he wants this allowance is so that he can easily adjust his rear toe.[/b]

Wrongo, amigo. The car already has an eccentric bolt on the inboard side of the toe link (from the factory) to "easily adjust rear toe". And it can adjust well beyond the range that any racer would want in a STRAIGHT car (one with a little crash damage, maybe not so much).

And I was just using the tubular/cylindrical construction rod-ends as an example. But I can understand how somebody might say "hey, you can adjust toe with that!!! It's illegal!". At that point, you know, I totally agree with the people that say it wouldn't fly. So to throw yet another monkey wrench in the works, now lets say it just a tubular fabricated arm with spherical bearings pressed into it (of which the eye-to-eye length is identical to stock). Now, the component is still non-oem, but cannot serve any other purpose than the intended job of the original stock component (and still meets all of the criteria of the GCR's definition of "traction bar").

You know, if there had been no definition in the GCR of "traction bar", the topic never would've come up - because I thought I knew what a traction bar was before I read the SCCA's definition! :D

Conover

12-22-2006, 12:38 PM

OK then why not just use alternate "bushing material" in the stock piece?

there you have it.
Unless you really want it to be heavier, which would serve an alternate purpose as well. are you going to make it the same wieght?

Knestis

12-22-2006, 02:37 PM

...You know, if there had been no definition in the GCR of "traction bar", the topic never would've come up - because I thought I knew what a traction bar was before I read the SCCA's definition! :D
[/b]

Eggs-actly.

K

lateapex911

12-22-2006, 02:48 PM

So, is it better to have NO definition, and let people do as they please, or a better worded definition?

Knestis

12-22-2006, 03:46 PM

That's a false choice, Jake - "Would you prefer war in Iraq or fighting terrorists on our own soil?"

I think it might have been Travis who explained it in a way that really made it click for me, that it's not the text of the rules that prevent cheating - it's the enforcement of rules. We're going through this exercise in an attempt to prevent replacement of a suspension component not otherwise allowed by the ITCS by putting more words into the rulebook, when Roy admits that he wouldn't ever have considered what he's put forth, had the definition (words added previous for the same reason) not been there in the first place.

Andy is right that reasonable people might differ but every bit of verbiage that doesn't exist, is one less thing for them to differ on.

Now, whether reasonable people differ on the question of whether the suspension link in question is legal or not is a different question. However, it becomes pretty immaterial the minute that the people who matter - the tech inspectors and ultimately the CoA - decide one way or the other. The PROBLEM here is that under the current system, they can change their minds next month or they all go sailboat racing instead, and there's no institutional memory of what is and isn't OK. An enforcement problem.

So we add more words.

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.

K

lateapex911

12-22-2006, 07:35 PM

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.

K [/b]

Ahhh...welcome back. ;)

tom91ita

12-22-2006, 10:33 PM

using the same logic, on a rear wheel drive car, the steering tie rod would then become free using this rules reading, ...right???
[/b]

i'm thinking that the steering tie rods would be free on the FWD and not RWD. afterall we are talking about torque suppression and it is FWD that has "torque steer" when we get on the gas, right???

finally away to minimize bump steer on my car! :023:

tom

and before anyone gets all torqued about this, YES, i am joking!

Conover

12-23-2006, 01:09 AM

CRAP. I'm starting to care again.
K
[/b]
Thanks to gods! I was really starting to get worried! Seriously, instead of internet Banter, maybe we need some real world protests. It would make things interesting. . . . :snow_cool:

erlrich

12-23-2006, 11:49 PM

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.[/b]Yeah, I didn't think you could kick the habit without professional intervention. Don't get down on yourself though, very few people can just quit cold turkey.

ncraft

12-28-2006, 09:10 AM

Happy New Year everyone. This topic's very timely for me, since I'm building a VW Corrado for ITS, it's at the fabricator's right now, and I'm intending telling them to add toe-stabilizing links to the rear beam axle, based on SCCA's definition of a traction bar making it legal -- Hey, I see no shortage of other people optimizing their IT cars based on the letter of the rules...

Anyway, my point it this: there seems to be an undercurrent in this thread that says "even if it's technically legal, it's not what the SCCA intended, and we're going to ask them to clarify - i.e. explicitly rule it out". So, to explore that a little further, if the SCCA wants the live axle RWD guys to be able to improve upon the design limitations of their suspensions with traction bars, Watts linkages or Panhard rods, why the heck shouldn't us FWD guys be allowed to do the same for the (different) design limitations of our bendy rear beam axles? I think the SCCA should either clarify in our favor by allowing us to add the links, or they should ban traction bars etc. for RWD cars.

In any case, it would be nice to get an official Fastrack clarification from the SCCA sooner rather than later, but I'm not holding my breath.

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 09:31 AM

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 09:35 AM

Sooo, 'bout those spherical "bushings"...

latebrake

12-28-2006, 09:41 AM

:014: bushing fight :bash_1_: bushing fight.

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 09:42 AM

Sooo, 'bout those spherical "bushings"... [/b]

Greg, you know what side I was on for that one...

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 10:00 AM

I do, but this is a perfect example of "you reap what you sow".

As I pointed out back then, reaping such arguments as 'spherical bearings can be interpreted as an alternate material' and 'air is an alternate material' result in our sowing such seemingly ridiculous arguments as this multi-page thread. These arguments - and the fact that we're legitimately debating the subject - are de facto proof of this.

Like Kirk, I've changed my insight and outlook of the rules. No longer do I read what the rules do say, I read what they don't say. The obvious is not, the hidden is no longer. And, as ridiculous as it may sound, the guy's got a point.

And so will the next half-dozen (or more) people that do the same exact thing...we are now officially abandoning formerly-common sense and chasing our tails.

Knestis

12-28-2006, 10:04 AM

I didn't bring the VW application of traction bars into this conversation becuase I didn't want people thinking I wanted it to "be about me" but Nick has a really fine question. However, the "ask for clarification" thing is not the way to go. We need to fish or cut bait:

** Use the current system and protest stuff, or...

** Change the system

The very second someone writes additional language prohibiting a specific design or function into the traction bar rule in the ITCS, or into the definition in the GCR, someone will find a way around it.

Now, if the ITAC thinks they can do a better job of the pertinent rules, I'm OK with them trying but I'm generally of the opinion that it is not possible to write a rulebook the lists ALL of the things we are not allowed to do. It's a path to insanity. The only good that would come out of it is that we'd all have to commit to the soft-copy PDF of the GCR, because the paper copy will weigh 100 pounds.

I personally tend to think that the links Nick describes fail the "torque" test of GCR definition - even less than the Suzuki example that started this conversation. However, I'm not in a position to rule on that nor is anyone else until someone writes the paper.

K

lateapex911

12-28-2006, 10:39 AM

I'm troubled by two aspects of the latest development:

-The links are even further away from being, as Kirk mentioned, purely torque control devices, and...

-his demand that either all the Watts, panhard and traction bar allownaces be stricken, OR all these "developments" that benefit the FWD cars be allowed.

I feel that that mindset fails to understand that cars are classed based on the rules and the allowances within.

Such a change in the rules is not going to be appropriate.

Again, I worry about the results of protests against such devices. I am not sure which way a protest commitee would go on it, and the fact that the same protest could have completely different results in another region, and yet another at the appeals level...and then yet even ANOTHER result at the same appeals level but a year or two later ......disturbs me, and is, to me, the bigger issue.

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 10:45 AM

-The links are even further away from being, as Kirk mentioned, purely torque control devices...[/b]

Oh, yeah? Where does it say that the "torque" has to be from the engine? "Torque reaction from the wheel" is a rotational force; guess what, so's the force caused by scrub radius. So's the force caused by bumps in the road. So's the force caused by dampers with any kind of motion ratio.

The list is virtually endless...

Reap --> Sow

ncraft

12-28-2006, 10:53 AM

Nick,

I agree with your core philosophy but please help me understand how your 'toe stabilization links' don't violate this part of the rule: "provided its/their installation serves no other purpose."

To me, you guys get to third base on this one. The problem is that your new traction bar can't do additional functions per the rule. How do you read it?
[/b]

I believe there is no other purpose in the case of a VW beam axle. We are using the toe stabilization links to stop the trailing arms of the beam axle from rotating outwards or inwards (due to bending) under braking or drag during acceleration. The reason they rotate is because a torque is applied to them. The source of this torque happens to be the braking/drag-from-accelerating force at the wheel acting over the length of the stub axle. Force x Distance = Torque. We are adding a link that acts purely in compression/tension to counteract this torque. Therefore we are serving the purpose of a traction bar, according to what the SCCA says a traction bar is.

Note, we are not adding an adjustable toe link to adjust toe, we are only adding a link to stop it changing by itself under acceleration & braking. Thats why I'm referring to it as a "toe stabilization link".

7.1.4.D.5.c.1 Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.

GCR Glossary
Traction Bar - A link to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

ddewhurst

12-28-2006, 11:06 AM

SURE, & we RWD car owners should ask for a rule that in the wet FWD cars need to eliminate one drive wheel.

The ITAC/CRB open the gates for MORE CREEP with their brillant bushing material decision. We the OWNERS need to put some sand on that slope.

Knestis

12-28-2006, 11:18 AM

It's one further stretch since this argument requires that we accept "torque" as including about a virtual axis someplace up where the trailing arm is welded to the transverse torsional part of the beam, but it does meet the letter of the definition, but...

...I am not sure which way a protest commitee would go on it, and the fact that the same protest could have completely different results in another region [ad nauseum] ... [/b]

Jake has got to the core issue here.

Kirk (who likes the sand analogy)

ncraft

12-28-2006, 11:45 AM

Yep, I totally agree. Since protests do not establish case law, I'm not at all happy just doing it and being legal one weekend and not legal the next depending on an individual SCCA official's viewpoint. That's why I wish they'd either update their definition of a traction bar, or (more favorably for me), say it's ok to add stabilizing members to the suspension in general, instead of having some arbitrary list of three permitted types of linkage that only apply to rear wheel drive cars.

BTW, I wasn't "demanding" anything, nor was I seriously suggesting Panhard rods etc. be banned. They'd never do it anyway. I was just trying to make a case that allowing people to add stabilizing links to their suspension is either consistent with class philosophy, or it isn't.

shwah

12-28-2006, 11:46 AM

The words say what they say, and they support the proposed design. This has actually been on my list (albeit near the bottom) since I started my build many moons ago.

Kirk, we have no need to worry about what axis the torque is acting on as that is not specified in the allowance. However there does need to be a torque present to counteract, which there very much is.

I guess I take a different view of the 'sanctity' of our beloved IT rules. Part of the fun of this sport is taking a given ruleset and getting the most possible legal benefit for your car. However, for this to be productive the rules need to be as stable as possible. Just because someone has a good idea that other people didn't see when they read/interpreted the rule is not cause to 'close the loophole', it is cause to congratulate the guy on having a novel, legal idea.

Taking instances like this and 'clarifying' or rewriting them in the rules will IMO take a lot of the engineering challenge out of the IT class. Now instead of searching for legally creative solutions, you will be forced to build the car the way some rulemaker envisions the rules to dictate (rather than based on what they actually say in writing), and if you go outside those invisible lines they will change the rule to spite your creativity.

That approach sucks.

lateapex911

12-28-2006, 03:28 PM

............. Now instead of searching for legally creative solutions, you will be forced to build the car the way some rulemaker envisions the rules to dictate (rather than based on what they actually say in writing), and if you go outside those invisible lines they will change the rule to spite your creativity.

That approach sucks. [/b]

OK, lets get real here...we all know what the rules say, and we aknowledge that they don't list the approved axis, nor the fact that the parts must be added to the driven axles. But on the other hand, lets not blow smoke and say that we don't know what the obvious intention was, and that it was written by folks who made the mistake of assuming that it needed a definition, but a loosely written one.

So, any change in the rule or definition isn't going to be at the whim of some rulemaker and his "vision" just to spite your creativity.....

Loopholes exist in rules of all types...I found a neat loophole in the radiator rule that allowed huge amounts of fresh, cold air into the engine compartment..and sure enough, live by the loophole, die by the loophole. It was closed, as it should have been. And no, I didn''t feel "spited".....

Knestis

12-28-2006, 04:18 PM

...lets not blow smoke and say that we don't know what the obvious intention was, and that it was written by folks who made the mistake of assuming that it needed a definition, but a loosely written one. ...[/b]
Which brings us full circle back to Greg's warnings (and mine, though I seem to be having commitment issues) about "reaping what <strike>you</strike> [we] sow."

I spent 20 years making my own decisions - and strenuously advocating for decisions - based on understandings of "obvious intentions" grounded in my IT experiences of the Early Years. I would never even have thought or worried about the definition of "traction bar" because I know what a Traction Bar IS, and by elimination what it is NOT.

If John Bishop were running the show, he would have laughed at this current interpretation, declared it obviously not a traction bar, docked the offender some points, and established precedent in his own fiefdom. And only an idiot would have tried that dodge a second time. Instead, we get to work within culture with built-in disincentives to actually protest legality, and some stewards and tech inspectors who will flat out SAY that they don't want to deal with questions of compliance among IT cars. All of this built around a process that's only slightly removed from the show horses and sailboats code of honor of the clubby gentlemen that founded SCCA.

...and yes - it DOES have something to do with spherical bushings, because with that "clarification," an entirely new paradigm was codified. From a CRB that was too chicken to say, "Yeah, we're going to change the rule to allow spherical bearings," and instead - to the chagrin or outright laughter of anyone who had anything to do with IT when it was new - said, "Oh, yes - it was INTENDED that spherical bearings be allowed from the outset."

And thus, did the old school of "obvious intention" close its doors, and the most recent era of paddock lawyering (aka "reaping") begin. I wish Jake, that we COULD put that one back in the barn (bottle, whatever) but this is what we collectively seem to have asked for. And the response is going to be in line with the new paradigm - a reworded definition or rule that says, "Oh, no - here's what was REALLY intended," which will work right up to the point where someone has a beer, parses the language, and does again exactly what they have been enabled by the system into doing.

K

shwah

12-28-2006, 04:27 PM

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 05:01 PM

I see your point Jake, but I guess we will agree to disagree. :birra:

I build my car to meet written rules, not imagined intentions, and I don't support making changes to rules that have served us well for decades just because someone came up with a good solution within those rules.

At this point, now that everyone is so revved up on the subject, I expect some sort of change to be made ala the great bushing debate. Just remember that these constant changes can really F things up, like the ECU rule did. Leave the rules alone, and lets go racing. :eclipsee_steering: [/b]

Sorry dude. This isn't something that has been perfect for decades. The current culture is to torture a rule with an obvious intent and resonable wording. I think the rule in the ITCS is still fine but I am going to submit a request that the definition of traction bar be tightened up. Otherwise, the front end of the RWD cars that roll out of our shop are going to get real complicated, real technilogical, real expensive - and REAL FAST. You think ITS is fast now?

It's not right for the class and, unlike the SB debate, there are not two sides of this. There may be a small ray of light as far as legality but it takes a traditional definition and tortures it.

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 05:11 PM

...there are not two sides of this...it takes a traditional definition and tortures it.[/b]

Au contraire, Andy; there's the rub: I don't think this 'interpretation' is any more tortured than that of twisting "alternate material" to mean "spherical bearings". Honestly. Said differently, I think this 'interpretation' is just as clever as the one used to justify spherical bearings.

So, therefore, whose opinion is "correct"? Why is yours or mine more correct than others? Who has the right to decide what's "right" and what's "wrong"?

When you deviate from the straight and narrow on one thing, it leads to twisties on the other. You can never stop this process from proceeding further; if you try you'll end up re-writing the whole GCR, and then it begins again with THAT verbiage.

I'm not going to say those words again, but this is the EXPECTED result. I'm just sorry to see it happen so quickly....

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 05:39 PM

Nobody is correct. I just want the CRB to understand how people are utilizing their rule - and they can decide for themselves if they want to allow this kind of thing to become the defacto standard or if they want to squash it by refining the definition of traction bar in the glossery.

I was against SB's and I was dissappointed in their decision to specifically allow it. It could happen with this. If it does, I am worried about IT. Very worried.

shwah

12-28-2006, 05:44 PM

Sorry dude. This isn't something that has been perfect for decades.[/b]

Yeah, too bad it can't be perfect like the rest of the GCR and ITCS. The rule has been there and worked fine until this point. The fact that someone just now posted what it allows you to do, does not change anything. People realized this 10 years ago as well, but it was not as easy to share the information.

I don't mean to limit this discussion only to this one issue. Changing rules every time someone has a creative solution does not suit the 'intent' of IT as I see it. It is another avenue to a more complex rulebook and unintended consequences.

When the wording gets changed (a foregone conclusion IMO) I won't loose any sleep over it, and I will obviously scratch that off my 'to do' list, but I also won't agree with making the changes.

lateapex911

12-28-2006, 05:47 PM

OK, out of school talk here..

While the SB ruling was not liked by some, this has much greater implications, because you can see how nearly any suspension member on the car will be said to be subject to torque, and therefor fall under the umbrella of total replacement.

Is that what we want?

And, yes, we would LIKE our competitors...us...to say, "No, I will not stand for that, it is clearly hugely wrong", and write the paper. Then it falls in your lap Greg, to assist with the teardowns, and the protest crew. How would you advise said protest commitee ? How would you rule?

So, here's a rule/definition that nearly everyone accepted at face value....yet has the potential to replace entire suspensions, geometry and all, and wreak havoc with the entire classing system.

And, (not aimed at anyone in particular) saying, "sorry, this is what you asked for" really isn't helping or fixing anything, is it???

Do we rely on the system of protests and appeals to control the outcome? What if it doesn't work?

Unlike the SB issue, this horse isn't quite out of the barn yet...

Or??????

gprodracer

12-28-2006, 06:41 PM

Two quick things..

Though I agree w/ David, sand can be slippery on the same slope...

And....the unexpected consequences can far outweigh the intended ones, so, as others have said, please be carefull with what you do with the written rules. You may open up another set of problems.

I don't envy any of you.

Mark

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 07:20 PM

Yeah, too bad it can't be perfect like the rest of the GCR and ITCS. The rule has been there and worked fine until this point. The fact that someone just now posted what it allows you to do, does not change anything. People realized this 10 years ago as well, but it was not as easy to share the information.

I don't mean to limit this discussion only to this one issue. Changing rules every time someone has a creative solution does not suit the 'intent' of IT as I see it. It is another avenue to a more complex rulebook and unintended consequences.

When the wording gets changed (a foregone conclusion IMO) I won't loose any sleep over it, and I will obviously scratch that off my 'to do' list, but I also won't agree with making the changes.
[/b]

The difference between where you sit and where I sit is that you think it's a creative interpretation - of which I am all for. I say it's a tortured interpretation (TI) of a rule that 'for decades' was followed through the written and the intent. The new generation of wordsmiths throw everything under a microscope (and that is the sign of a true competitior, believe-you-me) and see what comes out smelling fishy when it can benefit them. My comment to that is when the TI flies in the face of the clear intent, don't cry when it gets corrected. While I don't beleive for 1 second this has been going on for 10 years, loops and grey areas need to be closed when they could lead to umpteen unintended designs that will rewite the performance enevelope of the whole class.

THAT is bad for IT.

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 08:41 PM

...saying, "sorry, this is what you asked for" really isn't helping or fixing anything, is it???[/b]

Nope, not at all, Jake. "I told you so" does not fix anything. However, it is a cry of "hey, you laughed at me and called me loopy back then, but I was right; how about listening to me now?"

Unlike the SB issue, this horse isn't quite out of the barn yet...[/b]

That's where you're mistaken. It's not THIS issue or THAT issue, Jake, it's a loss of innocence, if you will, a loss of common sense. It's a case of where prior to the spherical bearings being officially codified as having met the original intent of the rules(!), we'd all look at this "traction bar" issue and collectively laugh, call the guy a nut job, and all threaten to protest his ass if he showed up with a blatantly - and common sensically - illegal car. However, post-SBs, we now have to address each of these creative interpretations seriously, because with the codification of SB we have codifed creative interpretation of the rules.

We have, in effect, castrated the "tortured interpretation" clause of the rules. That rule does not mean jack-shat any more, and you agree with sentiment by your very expression of your desire to get the rule clarified. If TI exists, why get the rule or definition changed? Because it's burnt toast, that's why. It's no longer what the rules say, it's what we think we can get away with, at least until Andy brings it to the CRBs attention and it gets re-worded.

What happens when Andy (or his successor) gives up?

So, fine, get the traction bar definition 'fixed'. You aren't addressing the root problem, you're simply tossing a Band-Aid on a lopped-off limb...

Andy Bettencourt

12-28-2006, 08:51 PM

So band-aids aside Greg - what is yor definition of the 'root problem' and how would you fix it?

Greg Amy

12-28-2006, 09:36 PM

Quickly - 'cause I need to get off this damned computer - is that we have to stop rewarding creative interpretations. We did that with the SBs, we did that with Motec, we did that with a few others things that slip my mind at the moment.

When someone makes a creative interpretation of the rules - something that meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit - we collectively and immediately bitch-slap it as unacceptable. Whether we choose to back that up with a protest is irrelevant; as long as we collectively make that person conscious that we consider them to be a cheater we have minimally done what we could have done, the same thing we'd do with someone we suspect is running camshafts, or pop-up pistons, or the like.

Lack of a protest does not mean we condone cheating. Recodifying the rules to work around creative interpretation does mean we condone creative interpretation. - GA

Knestis

12-28-2006, 09:36 PM

...what is yor definition of the 'root problem' and how would you fix it?[/b]

You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway, although none of these suggestions are anything that hasn't been said before...

1. Initiate a policy to stop trying to resolve enforcement issues with changes to the ITCS/GCR - rules and the enforcement of rules pose two entirely different policy problems, with different solutions.

2. Go through the book and get rid of EVERY SINGLE clause that specifically prohibits something.

3. Make IIDSYCYC and the "tortured interpretation" clause functional guidelines for enforcement.

4. Establish an online system to documemt protest and appeals findings, accessible to all members.

5. Codify standards of precedent. If a protest in NEOhio finds this airdam (picture attached) not in compliance with ITCS XX.XX.X.XX, other tech inspectors/stewards are expected to abide by that finding as long as it stands. An appeal to the CoA has the power to either reinforce or reverse that finding, thereby setting the ultimate precedent on the question - whether it finds in favor or against the original ruling. Both levels of precedent are documented and available for all to see.

Stewards' rulings on any subesquent protest, in any other region on the same substantial point are then expected to align. If it is found on CoA review that race officials' findings on the same airdam issue are NOT in alignment with precedent, they are then subject to sanction for not following the pertinent GCR guidelines.

Of course, that same CoA may find that there are differences enough in the substance of the protest and/or ruling (say, that two protests address different specific aspects of the definition of "traction bar"), and find in favor of the original protest WITHOUT sanctioning the officials - essentially determining that they acted in good faith. OR it might reverse the original ruling, negating the precedent. Regardless, whatever precedent is in place at the time of any given protest stands: This is less about being Right and more about being consistent.

* * *

I think it was Jake who asked if we wanted to trust the protest and appeals process to sort this issue out. The answer is that, at THIS point there's NO point in going through all of that hassle, since it won't make a lick of difference five minutes after the CoA issues its findings.

There should never have been a "clarification" of the SB issue - it should have been protested and appealed, and the findings should have established that this particular interpretation of the alternate busing material allowance was either acceptable or unacceptable. The issue would have lost steam and we'd have stopped talking about it. And racers and officials would be more invested in the process, knowing that their decisions are fodder for club member review, will leave a legacy, and may open them to sanctions should it be found that they are substantially outside of established standards of interpretation.

It's very possible that none of the people involved in this conversation has enough political capital to attack this issue at its root. If that's the case, then we just accept the reality and move on but diddling with the written rules is never going to make this issue go away - and will likely just create other, new problems.

K

ddewhurst

12-29-2006, 10:26 AM

The problem is:

The variable definition of a Traction Bar.

The root cause of the problem is:

The poor definition of Traction Bar in the GCR glossary.

Now lets quit the BS session & start posting the exact definition of what a Traction Bar is for the GCR glossary.

End of story ;)
David

Greg Amy

12-29-2006, 10:42 AM

Now lets quit the BS session & start posting the exact definition of what a Traction Bar is for the GCR glossary. End of story ;) [/b]

BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.

lateapex911

12-29-2006, 10:50 AM

BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.
[/b]

Thats actually a great excercise. I hope we see some attempts at writing and at bending...

Doc Bro

12-29-2006, 11:00 AM

Got it! It's easy!

Traction bar: (noun) A piece of metal on a race car, preferably associated with the suspension, that has the words "traction bar" written on it without misspellings and easy to read.

R

lateapex911

12-29-2006, 11:02 AM

You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway, although none of these suggestions are anything that hasn't been said before...

1. Initiate a policy to stop trying to resolve enforcement issues with changes to the ITCS/GCR - rules and the enforcement of rules pose two entirely different policy problems, with different solutions.

2. Go through the book and get rid of EVERY SINGLE clause that specifically prohibits something.

3. Make IIDSYCYC and the "tortured interpretation" clause functional guidelines for enforcement.

4. Establish an online system to documemt protest and appeals findings, accessible to all members.

5. Codify standards of precedent. If a protest in NEOhio finds this airdam (picture attached) not in compliance with ITCS XX.XX.X.XX, other tech inspectors/stewards are expected to abide by that finding as long as it stands. An appeal to the CoA has the power to either reinforce or reverse that finding, thereby setting the ultimate precedent on the question - whether it finds in favor or against the original ruling. Both levels of precedent are documented and available for all to see.

Stewards' rulings on any subesquent protest, in any other region on the same substantial point are then expected to align. If it is found on CoA review that race officials' findings on the same airdam issue are NOT in alignment with precedent, they are then subject to sanction for not following the pertinent GCR guidelines.

Of course, that same CoA may find that there are differences enough in the substance of the protest and/or ruling (say, that two protests address different specific aspects of the definition of "traction bar"), and find in favor of the original protest WITHOUT sanctioning the officials - essentially determining that they acted in good faith. OR it might reverse the original ruling, negating the precedent. Regardless, whatever precedent is in place at the time of any given protest stands: This is less about being Right and more about being consistent.

* * *

I think it was Jake who asked if we wanted to trust the protest and appeals process to sort this issue out. The answer is that, at THIS point there's NO point in going through all of that hassle, since it won't make a lick of difference five minutes after the CoA issues its findings.

There should never have been a "clarification" of the SB issue - it should have been protested and appealed, and the findings should have established that this particular interpretation of the alternate busing material allowance was either acceptable or unacceptable. The issue would have lost steam and we'd have stopped talking about it. And racers and officials would be more invested in the process, knowing that their decisions are fodder for club member review, will leave a legacy, and may open them to sanctions should it be found that they are substantially outside of established standards of interpretation.

It's very possible that none of the people involved in this conversation has enough political capital to attack this issue at its root. If that's the case, then we just accept the reality and move on but diddling with the written rules is never going to make this issue go away - and will likely just create other, new problems.

K [/b]

Actually, I DID ask you...and anyone who had solid ideas and solutions....but didn't word it right. I think this post has a great concentration of solutions, and I've been scratching my head for years as to why the system doesn't work as you describe.

Actually, I remember discussions here on this board when we discussed the EXACT issue, and I seem to recall I suggested that every tech head dude carry a region supplied laptop with the latest protest and appeals precedent setting data for use in protests.

The teeth in the matter I've bolded for us. Without those resolutions being in place, it's nearly impossible to elicit change, as pointed out in the "trust the protest process" comment. (And as a guy who has waded in those waters in what I knew going in to be a slam dunk protest, those waters are deeper, colder and more turbulent than you can imagine. ) Competitor confidence in the protest sytem is massively important if we expect it to be used.

The line about the need for political clout is disturbing...mostly because it might be the case. But it's a hugely important subject, and I'm baffled as to how the club and the protest system have gotten this far operating in this manner.

Roy Dean

12-29-2006, 11:03 AM

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.
[/b]

Let me give it a try:

Track - The distance between the center of rims of two wheels at one end of a car, with any angular adjustments at normal settings and steered wheels in the straight ahead position.

Trailing Arm - A wheel control linkage locating the wheel in the fore/aft direction, which is attached to the car structure at the forward end of the arm, and to the wheel carrier at the rear of the arm

;)

What do you think? If this is the definition I'd found in the glossary, I'd never have brought up the topic.

ddewhurst

12-29-2006, 03:55 PM

***Trailing Arm - (A.) A wheel control linkage locating the wheel in the fore/aft direction, which is attached to the car structure at the forward end of the arm, and to the wheel carrier at the rear of the arm.***

Roy, at first glance it's a great definition to get things rolling. As a side note to all, IMHJ it will be a bunch tougher to get a GCR glossary word definition added or changed than getting a IT rule changed. But let's continue the Traction Bar rule definition rewrite because IMHJ that is where the root cause of the problem is. :D

Point by Greg, BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Counter point by David, (B.) Traction Bar- A two pivot maximum longitudinal link from chassis to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

Come on folks let's cut the BS & swing at the rewrites.

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

ps: What I really like about Greg is that he don't lay back in the weeds. :023:

Gary L

12-29-2006, 04:24 PM

David - I think you may have missed Roy's point. He was quoting the definitions before and after, but not the one for, "Traction Bar". In other words, if the definition had not been there, he wouldn't have tortured it. :D

Anyway, here's my attempt - very similar to yours (and written before I saw it, BTW).

Traction Bar - A longitudinally mounted suspension link from the car structure to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel. The purpose of the link is to resist torque reaction from the wheel in the fore/aft plane, by acting in compression or tension during acceleration or braking.

One thing hasn't been pointed out here. We actually do have a pretty good idea of the original intent here, because unless I'm seriously mistaken, the term "traction bar" easily predates any entry for same in the GCR glossary. It was coined by drag racers in the late 40's or early 50's; the first devices to be called traction bars were installed to prevent axle windup (tramp) on leaf-sprung live axles.

One other note of interest... besides the ITCS, the term appears only in the Production and AS Category Spec's. The wording surrounding the term is exactly the same in all three categories.

Gary Learned

PSherm

12-29-2006, 04:46 PM

Traction Bar - A longitudinally mounted suspension link from the car structure to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel. The purpose of the link is to resist torque reaction from the wheel in the fore/aft plane, by acting in compression or tension during acceleration or braking.

Gary Learned
[/b]

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P

Gary L

12-29-2006, 04:58 PM

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P
[/b] In the tradition of this forum, I'll answer your question with a question... what the Hell difference does it make? :D In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar?

Andy Bettencourt

12-29-2006, 04:59 PM

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P
[/b]

And the fact they have two seperate definitions in the GCR! :P

I like Gary's definition.

PSherm

12-29-2006, 05:10 PM

... what the Hell difference does it make? :D In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar?
[/b]

That's the direction I was hoping to go with my car. The rules say you can substitute traction bars - it says nothing about trailing arms, even though by *MY* reading of the traction bar definition they are the same. I want to modify my trailing arms to gain tire clearance...

lateapex911

12-29-2006, 06:05 PM

In the tradition of this forum, I'll answer your question with a question... what the Hell difference does it make? :D In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar? [/b]

Well, that's exactly the issue here. IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven, then we will see all such components replaced with stiffer, lighter, shorter, longer, offset or who knows what versions of the stock component, all the while sliding the new bit under the claim that it fits the definition of a "traction bar"

Whats the upshot? Well, cars are classed based on their physical characteristics. The process includes adders and subtractors, to acheive competitive parity.

Changing suspension geometry wholesale could very well affect the competitive parity that the classification system seeks to obtain.

Gary L

12-29-2006, 07:35 PM

Well, that's exactly the issue here. IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven, then we will see all such components replaced with stiffer, lighter, shorter, longer, offset or who knows what versions of the stock component, all the while sliding the new bit under the claim that it fits the definition of a "traction bar"

Whats the upshot? Well, cars are classed based on their physical characteristics. The process includes adders and subtractors, to acheive competitive parity.

Changing suspension geometry wholesale could very well affect the competitive parity that the classification system seeks to obtain.
[/b] You wouldn't be able to do that, provided we add some of the proposed wording to the glossary definition, to include "longitudinal" and "driven wheel". This eliminates toe links, trailing arms on the rear suspensions of front drive cars, and most other unintended silliness. Admittedly, it does not necessarily eliminate the possible replacement of trailing arms on some rear drive cars. As it should be, since they are indistinguishable from a (properly defined) traction bar on driven axle. My old ITB Volvo is a perfect example. But replacing those arms is certainly not on the top of my wish list... I'm still stuck with a truck axle back there, no matter how pretty I try to make it. And reducing the weight of a couple of arms by a pound or two just ain't gonna make a crap. :D

Greg Amy

12-29-2006, 08:14 PM

IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven...[/b]

...then you accept that creative interpretations are to be accepted as reasonable, therefore pushing aside all common sense in order to address it. And, as we've all found out, unless we accept common sense, we accept nothing.

And we're back to my core point. If you reject common sense and accept creative interpretation, then there's absolutely no way you can win this M.A.D. arms race. No matter how hard you try to define the rules, you're fighting against the intelligence and motivation of the masses.

Even the Russions gave up when faced with the masses...

lateapex911

12-29-2006, 10:11 PM

Well, note my capitalized "IF".....

But what worries me isn't what I accept...

....and common sense is anything but common at times.

Knestis

12-29-2006, 10:23 PM

Okay - here's the acid test: Will your new definition also "clarify" into illegality the multilink "traction bar" facilitated rear suspension design used on more than a few first-generation RX7s (and Mustangs, I gather)? The ones that use the air bushings in the OE trailing arms?

If it doesn't, then you aren't done.

Or if it doesn't and you are OK with that - why should that be the case? Is that application close enough to what you think a "traction bar" actually is? Or was it the original intent that the traction bar rule should allow that application? **

K

** Yes, that is a trick question - be very, very careful.

ddewhurst

12-29-2006, 10:33 PM

Garry, you are correct I should read twice or more before jumping into ICE water. :023: Sorry.............. I must admitt I maybe read the Trailing Arm rule once & no more.

***Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.***

Counter point by David, Traction Bar- A two pivot maximum longitudinal link from chassis to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

Greg, that ^ be your challenge. <_< Have at it because I'll learn in the process. ;)

ps: As Gary stated maybe drive wheel or acelerate & brake wheel should be added to the same ^ rule. The stated rule is attempting to minimize the number of words to be changed/added/subtracted within the GCR glossary to the existing rule while defining the words Traction Bar to what many of US beleive was/is the original rule writters intent.

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

ddewhurst

12-29-2006, 10:46 PM

*** Yes, that is a trick question - be very, very careful.***

K, I sometimes try to be carful therefore I'll stand at the rear & let the faithful reiterate their stance. Someone who lurks a bunch on the IT site might well come out of the woodwork with respect to your post.

Happy Holidays :snow_cool:
David

bldn10

12-30-2006, 12:15 PM

"...and yes - it DOES have something to do with spherical bushings, because with that "clarification," an entirely new paradigm was codified. From a CRB that was too chicken to say, "Yeah, we're going to change the rule to allow spherical bearings," and instead - to the chagrin or outright laughter of anyone who had anything to do with IT when it was new - said, "Oh, yes - it was INTENDED that spherical bearings be allowed from the outset.""

:happy204:

I agree w/ you 100%, Kirk. And said as much back on 2/28 after the “clarification:”

“I think the way it was done was poor - why can't we just simply say that, whether SBs were legal before or not, we are now making them legal for sure, rather than perpetuating if not sanctioning bullshit interpretations of the rules by implying they were legal all along? [Andy] asked in another post why such interpretations exist and suggested it may be a lack of protests. It is not a lack of protests - it is the lack of balls in Topeka to reject BS interpretations. When the SCCA itself engages in them - through staff, stewards, and COAs - it is a signal to all that that is the way the rules are going to be interpreted. So, as long as you can come up w/ any argument at all, no matter how specious it may be, you have a shot and you have a defense to serious penalties.”

But you have properly identified it as codification of a new paradigm. And IMO that is indeed part of the “root” problem. The door has been opened to reinterpret in the most unintended and unforseen ways every rule in the book. And we no longer have accepted, underlying principles to put a stop to it. The other root is failure to interpret rules in the context of the class philosophy.

Several people have submitted new definitions of “Traction Bar” as they would like it. I’m no engineer but here is what I think is the original intent clarified:

“A fore or aft longitudinal link to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel which resists torque reaction from the wheel as a result of forward acceleration of the wheel.”

If we want to make it work for braking too, and on undriven wheels/axles, let's just propose a rule change and see what people think. No way no how should it be "clarified" to that effect.

lateapex911

12-30-2006, 02:14 PM

The other root is failure to interpret rules in the context of the class philosophy.

[/b]

Well, this is where rulesmakers get tripped up.

Who interprets those rules? When do they get interpreted? And how is the class philosophy arrived at, in the field for those intrepretations?

Answers:-

Who? The protest commitee.

When? When someone actually discovers a part, or a modification to a part, under someones car, and decides to write protest paper, and refuses to be turned away by the stewards.

How? By reading the GCR, and interpretting the words.

What becomes the issue, is the lack actual protests, and when they do occur, the lack of cohesive understanding of the intent, (heck many of those here have different views), and then, the final decision to judge by the written word, or the perceived intent of the written word.

So, right now, suppose a competetor decides to protest the original poster and his sideways toe link/traction bars.

You know what happens next. The protest commitee will debate, and depending on who's on it, the other events of the day, they will render a decision...which could go either way,. The only sure thing is that one side will agree with the outcome, and the other will strongly disagree. And it will go to appeal, and the same actions will result. In the end, what will be gained? Not much, as the next protest will be a repeat ground hog day performance.

The root of the problem, if you ask me, is the lack of carry forward precedence setting that gives teeth to the rules, sepecially those that some say need to be followed to the written word, and others think should be followed to their "obvious intent"....

Without that, rulesmakers and definition writers are forced into a tail chasing dance that lasts forever.

Knestis

12-30-2006, 02:29 PM

ddewhurst

12-30-2006, 03:55 PM

*** QUOTE(bldn10 @ Dec 30 2006, 11:15 AM)
... “A fore or aft longitudinal link to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel which resists torque reaction from the wheel as a result of forward acceleration of the wheel.” ...

How about it RX7 guys - does this make the multilink solid axle system illegal? Or is that "interpretation" of "traction bar" OK? ***

K, I'll say it again I sometimes try to be carful therefore I'll stand at the rear & let the faithful reiterate their stance. ;) Do ya see how many people are keeping comments to themselves. :o

***When? When someone actually discovers a part, or a modification to a part, under someones car, and decides to write protest paper, and refuses to be turned away by the stewards.***

Who wrote the protest paper on the bushing material ? Whose car was the lower control arm Spherical bearing protest on ?

***What becomes the issue, is the lack actual protests, and when they do occur, the lack of cohesive understanding of the intent, (heck many of those here have different views), and then, the final decision to judge by the written word, or the perceived intent of the written word.***

People who base decisions on a preceived INTENT of a written rule should not be in a decision making position. These people may use the word INTENT of a written rule among themselves but PLEASE don't use the word in front of me while expecting that I take you seriously.

This is ALL ^ said with a :D & a little bit of :018: .

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

ps: Using the word philosophy (subjective) , intent (subjective) & written rule within the same subject matter is a no fit in my book. :bash_1_:

lateapex911

12-30-2006, 06:03 PM

Well, you see David, thats the thing here. In simple terms, there are those who find the "traction bar" (a modified toe link in this case) to be a preposterous stretch of the rules, right?

Then, there are others who read the words, and see the allowances, and ignore the "historical context", shall we say, and feel it's a traction bar, and therefor free.

So you're saying that,
People who base decisions on a preceived INTENT of a written rule should not be in a decision making position[/b].

Well, those people are the stewards. So, if I understand you correctly, you think the traction bar/toe link is a legal mod, and any protests should be turned down by the Protest Stewards?

I'm thinking that some Stewards will go that way...others will not, and will use the "historical context" to help them decide what a traction bar is.

We have some pretty bright people here arguing that this is a rather tortured interpretation, and others that grudgingly think it meets the letter of the law.

I doubt the stewards will be any less divided, and I bet many others here agree that this will be a crapshoot in a protest. And when thats the case, it'll be a long time before anyone protests, because nobody likes bad odds and losing protests ...especially when they know that any appeals and final word won't be a final word...

ddewhurst

12-30-2006, 07:27 PM

****So, if I understand you correctly, you think the traction bar/toe link is a legal mod, and any protests should be turned down by the Protest Stewards?****

I just hate it when BRIGHT people who don't understand correctly fall off their SOAP BOX. YOU have not read ONE word within this thread to know what my belief of the in your words "traction bar/toe link" is while at the same time you say "you think the traction bar/toe link is a legal mod". If you are as BRIGHT as I presume you think you are you should be capable of reading my rewrite of the Traction Bar rule to figure out what I think.

I don't play as eloquently as some on this site therefore smoooooooothness in presentation is not part of my repertoire. In short put the BS aside & get involved in writting a Traction Bar rule that will do the job. Have you noticed as I have that the sandbaggers are not commenting? If YOU don't have the wherewithal to write a rule how about a constructive comment on the one or two rule rewrites within this thread.

***Who wrote the protest paper on the bushing material ? Whose car was the lower control arm Spherical bearing protest on ?***

Jake, ya have any answers to the ^ two questions ? If en ya want to be a bright person please answer the questions. Yer the guy that said the rule changes come through protests. :D :D ;)

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

ps: My new years resolution is treat ALL people on this site nicely after the new year begins. :happy204: I can't save year 2006 at this late point therefore why try. :cavallo: till the year end.

lateapex911

12-30-2006, 07:57 PM

Sadly, I'm running out for the night so my comments need to be greif (the audience actually breaths a sigh or relief, LOL)

1- First, I don't think I said that rule changes come from protests. Rather, I am saying that I WISH rule decisions could come from protest OUTCOMES.

Which is to say that a protest and appeal would have precedent setting capability.

Rule changes come from all directions, including member input and CRb directed actions.

2- You're right...I haven't commented on any specifics here, including the rewording of defs. I'm waiting for more, and seeing what develops.

3- Don't know about protest papers on the SB situation. Refresh my memory.

4- My comment about your stand was illustrative. I'll have to go through the 106 posts as I missed yours I guess, but it appears that it's safe to say you don't like like the idea of a toe link becoming a traction bar. At the same time, you don't like Stewards to make calls based on anything but the written word. As we stand, theres a conflict there. Some here have said that rewriting the rule or def is pointless, and not the correct solution. My point was that if that's the case, given the current system, we are in a pickle.

5- My commetns were not trying to get you all pissed off, but to discuss the quandry.

JoshS

12-30-2006, 08:26 PM

FWIW, here's my take.

I have served on many a National Championship protest committee in Solo. The Solo guys qualify as rulebook nitpickers MUCH more than road racers, in my experience. To serve on that protest committee requires lawyer-like qualities.

That said, specifically on the top of this thread: Things don't become other things. Toe links are toe links, control arms are control arms. The loophole-abusing folks spend their time trying to find a term in the rulebook that has an allowance, and then rename existing parts to that term, in order to get an allowance that isn't intended. In my opinion, this is a great example of tortured interpretation.

In order to determine whether or not this is what's happening, you just need to listen to the people asking. We have seen posts in this thread that clearly illustrate this. One poster stated explicitly that he wanted to call his control arm a traction bar, so that he could modify it. That's my definition of tortured interpretation. Don't need a new rule for that one, just rule against him in a protest. If I was hearing the protest, that's what I'd do. I'd ask him why he thinks his control arm is a traction bar. Inevitably, he'd admit that it *is* a control arm, and it is therefore NOT a traction bar. End of conversation. A part cannot be two different things.

Where a new rule might be necessary is when there's some suspension member that doesn't seem to have a primary function. I'd need to see such an example.

On the precedent-setting stuff: Jake, I almost completely agree. If a protest goes to appeal and is ultimately decided on by a national rules-making body, then the result of that appeal should be written in the book -- either in the form of a new or modified rule, or as a clarification. The Solo book has an appendix of clarifications that were really the results of these appeals or of good letters that were written throughout the year. It always bugged me that these things were in an appendix instead of in the rulebook proper in the form of better-worded rules, but at least they were written somewhere. So Jake: I actually do believe that rule changes should come from protests (or more specifically, appeals), but that is by no means the only way that rules should be changed.

Lastly, what the members (and the CRB and ITAC) need is a "mission statement" of sorts, something that attempts to set the moral compass for the IT rules. These are the guidelines that attempt to define some intent in non-specific terms (i.e., each rule doesn't have an intent, but rather, the entire ruleset should have an intent statement.) If these are thorough and clear, then the stewards (for a protest) or the appeals committee (for appeals) have something to rule on other than the specific wording of each individual rule. The first paragraphs of the ITCS attempts to be this. Some pertinent quotes:

Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.

It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.
[/b]
I think these are good statements, but I'd add some things. Because these things are not written down, I fully expect some of you to disagree with me.

"The Improved Touring ruleset is intended to allow "bolt-on" modifications to cars; it is not the intent of these rules to require one-off customizations and modifications to stock parts in order to be track-legal or competitive."

"Each class in the Improved Touring category is intended to have a "performance envelope" that includes each car classed. Each car classed is believed to be able to reach its minimum weight. Each class includes cars of different body styles and drivetrain layouts, but despite these differences, each car listed in a given class is believed to fit into the same performance envelope."

"These rules are intended to remain stable, such that the investment in a race car should last many years."

I'm sure the rest of you can add others.

Greg Amy

12-30-2006, 08:36 PM

...my comments need to be greif...[/b]

Is that a typo, or a Freudian slip...? ;)

Knestis

12-30-2006, 08:54 PM

... First, I don't think I said that rule changes come from protests. Rather, I am saying that I WISH rule decisions could come from protest OUTCOMES. [/b]

If I may take liberties: "I WISH rule [enforcement] decisions could come from protest OUTCOMES." As opposed to decisions about changes in the text of rules.

... Things don't become other things. Toe links are toe links, control arms are control arms. ...[/b]

Au contraire - While a "toe link" will always be a Toe Link, the point at which the code says, "A toe link has three defining qualities - X, Y, and Z" then ANYTHING that is X, Y, and Z is de facto a toe link. That's the trap that we set for ourselves with definitions in the GCR. They were written to DEFINE things, when in fact what we really need is for them to DISCRIMINATE among things. What "is a traction bar" is quite frankly less important to rules enforcement than "what ISN'T a traction bar" - at least where there's a tendency to interpret creatively.

I read the definition of "anti-roll bar" and - much to my amusement - discovered quite by accident that it describes PERFECTLY the rear torsion-bar-trailing-arm suspension on a gazillion VWs all over the planet. Damn - that big ol' thing IS an anti-roll bar! The GCR says so!!

K

JoshS

12-30-2006, 09:03 PM

Au contraire - While a "toe link" will always be a Toe Link, the point at which the code says, "A toe link has three defining qualities - X, Y, and Z" then ANYTHING that is X, Y, and Z is de facto a toe link. That's the trap that we set for ourselves with definitions in the GCR. They were written to DEFINE things, when in fact what we really need is for them to DISCRIMINATE among things. What "is a traction bar" is quite frankly less important to rules enforcement than "what ISN'T a traction bar" - at least where there's a tendency to interpret creatively.
[/b]

I agree completely. I didn't say that the rules currently say that a toe link is a toe link, I just said (without these words) that common sense dictates that toe links are toe links, and things that aren't toe links are not toe links. To think that this concept doesn't apply in the world of SCCA club racing is a little bit ridiculous. Therefore, stewards, appeals committees, and internet discussion boards should take this into account. I believe you agree with that.

I read the definition of "anti-roll bar" and - much to my amusement - discovered quite by accident that it describes PERFECTLY the rear torsion-bar-trailing-arm suspension on a gazillion VWs all over the planet. Damn - that big ol' thing IS an anti-roll bar! The GCR says so!!
[/b]

Lovely! So why don't the creative rule interpreters in the VW community change it out for something else? What's holding them back? Something unwritten, obviously. That's good news.

Anyway, sounds like we're on the same page.

mowog

12-31-2006, 11:56 AM

As a side note to all, IMHJ it will be a bunch tougher to get a GCR glossary word definition added or changed than getting a IT rule changed.[/b]

Now that I've stopped laughing long enough to find my keyboard, I'd like to fill you all in on the true story of how the glossary came about. I'm NOT picking on David, but this statement made me laugh even harder. The moral of this story is it's far easier than you think to get something published in the GCR -although it may take lots of work on your part before submitting something to the club office, CRB, or BOD. Unfortunately it's easier to moan and complain on a public forum than to actually sit down and try to accomplish something.

Many years ago a friend of mine (name intentionally withheld) mentioned to a CRB member that there needed to be a glossary so everyone was on the same page when discussing rules. This CRB member thought that was a great idea, and encouraged my friend to write one. After considerable thought over a boring fall and early winter recess in racing, he decided to find a definition for everything in the then current GCR and each spec book that he thought wasn't already clearly defined in a Webster's Dictionary. Some things he could only guess at because he wasn't really positive of the meaning as it applied to racing. His main thought wasn't that rules nerds would pick it all apart and bend everything they possibly could. He submitted his draft for review and discussion. To his astonishment, it was immediately printed in the GCR that came out not too long after that! As far as he could tell, no editing or correcting was done. Since that time there have been some additions and modifications, but not really all that many - in fact far fewer than he thought there would or should be. So someone would be helping all racers if they would just spend a few months going thru the glossary, the GCR, and all rule books, and update everything, only this time with the idea that people will eventually try to twist whatever you come up with.

lateapex911

12-31-2006, 12:32 PM

What's interesting to me about this thread, and I think David missed my point, is that there are so many opposite points of view, even though we mostly agree on the main point! Daivid himseld is actually conflicted. (Although he might not realize it...)

First, I think 85% or the responders here think that the proposed item isn NOT a traction bar.

But....some of the posters say, "NO, do NOT rewrite anything, let the system take care of it."

Then others point out that the glossary was really a first crack and needs to be tightened up considerably....

This is to me a most interesting thread.

(Oh, and touche' to Greg Amy..i need to spell check better..;) )

bldn10

12-31-2006, 02:28 PM

A few random responses:

I think most people here agree that the GCR contemplates a traditional traction bar along the lines of the definition I suggested. The substantive rule assumes that contemplation. So the intent of the GCR was to allow traditional traction bars to keep axles/wheels from jumping all over the place when you hit the gas -and nothing more. Right? That said, the Glossary definition does seem to encompass bars outside that contemplation in a purely technical sense. Therefore, I think someone might well get by on the first protest. But after that, hopefully, the definition would be quickly clarified to effectuate the original intent, outlawing bars of the type discussed and envisioned here. Alternatively, someone could take it up w/ Jeremy, presumably he would take it up w/ the CRB/ITAC, and a clarification would be made before anyone went out and spent a lot of money on something about to be banned. IMO that's the way it should work.

On the SBs I think it started out that way. Someone made their case to Jeremy that a completly different design was in fact simply a change in "bushing material" and [whether or not he consulted anyone I don't know] instead of rejecting it out of hand, HE ACTUALLY BOUGHT IT! :o Then the word got out and SBs started cropping up all over. Next thing you know, the genie is out of the bottle. [Do we have any genies left in the bottle?] Then people who were not even on the CRB when the original rule was drafted said that the original intent was that SBs were to be allowed. Since that intention cannot be found in the language of the rule itself [and is really quite contrary], those people must have been psychic. Anyway, I don't think that rule came about via the protest process. It was basically by administrative fiat.

If enough people agree, why don't we start a campaign to make COA opinions precedential?

Mowog, that is astounding! No wonder there are so many disconnects between the rules and the definitions.

As far as interpretation is concerned, the rule in law is this: if the language is absolutely clear, end of story; if it is ambiguous you can look to intention, history, and context of its drafting. What I meant by class philosophy was not that it can trump clear language but that if a rule can be read one way that opens a huge new loophole and all sorts of wacky consequences, and one way that restricts the amount of modification and (most of the time) expense, the latter is more in keeping w/ the class philosophy and should be the correct interpretation. It is subjective but it ain't rocket science.

Happy New Year, guys.

ddewhurst

12-31-2006, 02:38 PM

The moment I read the post I was going to suggest that you were getting greif because of time spent at the pc. :014:

But, I didn't need any further words from the soap box.

It's still 2006 :cavallo:
David

ps: *** Daivid himseld is actually conflicted.***

Ya Jake it's most definitely DAIVID HIMSELD that is conflicted. :rolleyes: Three misspelled words in two posts. The fall from the soap box is taking place.

Knestis

12-31-2006, 06:53 PM

... “A fore or aft longitudinal link to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel which resists torque reaction from the wheel as a result of forward acceleration of the wheel.” ...

How about it RX7 guys - does this make the multilink solid axle system illegal? Or is that "interpretation" of "traction bar" OK?[/b]
Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller?

<crickets chirping>

Kirk (who thinks that the longer this goes without an answer, the more it's important - at least in symbolic terms)

dickita15

12-31-2006, 07:24 PM

Kirk, I belive a rx7 tri link meets thst definition.

Knestis

12-31-2006, 08:47 PM

The current strict GCR definition of "traction bar" or the intended definition? I'm not being a smartass here, either. I think it's very important to the question.

K

dickita15

01-01-2007, 06:02 AM

“A fore or aft longitudinal link to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel which resists torque reaction from the wheel as a result of forward acceleration of the wheel.”
[/b]
Kirk, I believe that under the above quoted proposed rule the tri link and others like it would be legal. If you do not think so I must be missing something.

If I understand you right you would prefer a rule that rendered this modification illegal for live axel cars. If you achieve this it would have the effect of being a post classification rule change (a la ecus a few years ago) and I would expect the classification process would have to have a negative adder (subtractor?) for live axel cars.

By the way I have had no experience with traction bars in an IRS car. Is there a practical need?

Greg Amy

01-01-2007, 09:44 AM

...it would have the effect of being a post classification rule change[/b]

Ouch. It really hurts when my hackles raise like that...

Speaking theoretically ('cause I don't know much about this technically, plus I don't have a dog in this particular fight) it is a "post classification rule change" only if the true original intent of the rule was to allow such a thing. If it was never intended (e.g., reservoir shocks, Motec-in-a-box, spherical bearings - yes, my opinions) then changing the rule to disallow it is simply a clarification to stop the creative rules interpreters from exploiting a loophole.

That's the thing about creative interpretation: you're taking a pretty big chance. If our guy were to build this "traction bar" for his FWD car, knowing full well that in vernacular it's not a traction bar but a clever parsing of the rules, then he's got to understand that if we change the rule to close that loophole he's gonna get hurt. That's the risk you take when you try stuff out of the mainstream (see Kirk's John Bishop explanation above).

Unfortunately, we in this club feel like we have to empathize with anyone that tries stuff like this so we don't "nullify their investment". In so doing, we coddle these people, tell them that we "see their point", change rules to accept it, and encourage others to do it. We create an atmosphere that makes this mindset OK. We end up with rules that allow Motec-in-a-box, spherical bearings, and, soon to come, wacky suspension designs hiding under the "traction bar" label.

And, instead of simply changing this mindset, we spend a lot of time trying to re-write the rules to stop it. A Sysiphian task, at best.

The most impressive and courageous thing I've ever seen "us" do was tell the remote reservoir guys to go pound sand, but I think that had more to do with politics against a specific manufacturer/team rather than a strong stance on where we want the class to go. It'll NEVER happen again (the SBs issue proved that true, and attitudes in regards to this issue support it).

So, Dick, IF the original intent of that rules was to allow the wacky rear suspension changes you guys are doing (and, as I said, I don't know that one way of the other) then yes, changing it is truly a rule change. But, if this is nothing but a clever loophole that's been exploited for 15 years, you should be prepared to have it closed in your face (and the rulesmakers should put ZERO weight on its cost effects and breadth.)

But, of course, that won't happen. - GA

dickita15

01-01-2007, 11:33 AM

So, Dick, IF the original intent of that rules was to allow the wacky rear suspension changes you guys are doing (and, as I said, I don't know that one way of the other) then yes, changing it is truly a rule change. But, if this is nothing but a clever loophole that's been exploited for 15 years, you should be prepared to have it closed in your face (and the rulesmakers should put ZERO weight on its cost effects and breadth.)

[/b]

The problem with that perspective is that as you say the third link concept on solid axel cars has been prevalent for about 15 years. The ITAC takes into consideration during the classification process different suspension design and any adders for solid axel would of course be based on how they work in the current environment. That would have to be readdressed if a rule clarification was made that dramatically changed that type of designs effectiveness.

By the way sorry about your hackles. :P

Knestis

01-01-2007, 12:36 PM

Kirk, I believe that under the above quoted proposed rule the tri link and others like it would be legal. If you do not think so I must be missing something.

If I understand you right you would prefer a rule that rendered this modification illegal for live axel cars. If you achieve this it would have the effect of being a post classification rule change (a la ecus a few years ago) and I would expect the classification process would have to have a negative adder (subtractor?) for live axel cars.

By the way I have had no experience with traction bars in an IRS car. Is there a practical need?
[/b]

First, I appreciate that Dick was man enough to step into this, since it was an obvious pit full of pointy sticks. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's arguing that the "tri link" meets the tidied-up definition above - but are you making the case Dick that a "tri link" is actually a "traction bar?"

I'm afraid that to me, using a rule allowing "traction bars" to build a "tri link" is no more - or less - legal than using the same rule to build a "toe link." The question in my mind is ONLY whether we are going to adhere to the 50-year-old cultural definition of Traction Bar or allow some interpretation thereof. Writing a new definition so that it allows "tri links" but DISALLOWS all other interpretations is either simple inconsistency or a gimme to cars of a particular design.

(I keep putting that term in quotes because it's telling to me that it got used rather than "traction bar." I used to get on here and say that, if you used a different term for something, then it was a different thing but we're long past that.)

It's also completely irrelevant how long people have been doing something. VWs have been driving "toe stabilization rods" through the traction bar loophole for years. That something has never been found illegal is NOT proof prima facie that it is legal. If the tri link HAS survived protest (I don't actually know, maybe it has), then it did it on the letter of the definition and rules rather than on historical understandings of what a traction bar IS.

I don't know whether the solid-axle cars got the tri link allowance considered when they were spec'd but I'd frankly be pretty surprised to find out that they did. I'm afraid that Greg's right that taking it away from them now would not be a post-hoc rule change: It would simply be a "sucks to be you" moment. If I'd had "traction bars" on the back of the Golf since I first saw them (on a rally car) in the early '80s, would they be OK NOW for me, too?

BTW, there is no need for a Traction Bar (classic def.) on the back end of the Golf. I can imagine that there is a "need" for Traction Bars on the back end of an RX7 - in that the car's handling benefits from them - but I'll bet they benefit MORE from taking the stock trailing arms out of the equation with the tri link. Similarly, the Golf benefits from it's form of creative application of the rule.

This is all completely academic to me at this point because I've pretty much accepted the New Order of Things - I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind or steer the ITAC/CRB to any conclusion. However, at least let's try to be consistent and honest about the issues.

K