David Dewherst writes:

"If the OEM links are not traction bars please remove either the upper set or the lower set (without the Tri-link) & infrom me how much traction your rear axle generates. If the only purpose of the four bars is for longitudinal location of the rear axle one set of links at the horizontal center line of the rear axle would locate the rear axle very nicely. "

There is a universal language of suspension engineers from which the definitions typically come. A traction bar is different from a trailing link, even though they look the same in many ways and resist similar forces. Usually a traction bar is added after there are a sufficient number of trailing or semi-trailing arms plus lateral control arms to fully define the motion path of the suspension, which the four Mazda trailing link and one Watts link do. The purpose of that bar is to enhance the torsional stiffness of the rear end only in order to control wheel hop, so it should be located purely fore and aft to fit the definition. There are other types of traction bars which don't actually fit the limited GCR definition.

However, if as you argue a link is a traction bar just because traction gets worse when you remove it then literally every suspension link known could be defined as a traction bar. Any argument that is this inclusive is prima facia suspect and generally not accepted by rules makers.

If anyone remains unconvinced, let me know how you do in Tech if they ever check you for your "trick" parts.

Jim Susko