Dave,

I see your standing by the GCR definition but for one thing it is not complete. Following your logic almost any link will qualify as a "traction bar." That sends up red flags around the definition and around your logic. and would probably in itself be sufficient for the Competition Board to uphold a protest of your lower arms.

Your argument that if you disconnect something and traction goes down makes it a traction bar doesn't hold water either. It doesn't say that in the GCR. You can't argue that something is a Watts link because if you disconnect it you lose watts.

Even if the name Traction bar is taken as a literal description (which it should not be) your logic is flawed. You are arguing that the definition of water is it makes things wet then anything that wets something is water. That is not good logic. Alcohol wets things, too, but that doesn't make it water.

Semi-trailing arms can also function as lateral locating devices. A Watts link is a lateral locating device. However, following your logic you would look at a semi-trailing arm and feel free to call it a Watts link. It is not.

I hope other readers don't become lured down this flawed logical path. As a Mechanical engineer and practicing Suspension Engineer I know what a traction bar is and have provided readers with an understanding of the nuances that make for a traction bar. 'Nuff said here.

Good race prep is founded on fundamentals like attention to detail, and understanding of suspension geometry and tuning and how to make a car go fast within the rules. Too much attention to twisting definition around to extremes usually isn't productive. You won't go any faster with illegal lower trailing arms, and my stock lower arms with alternate bushing material will pass tech any day.

Jim