"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[dickita15]

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]

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

[dickita15]

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.
[/b]

Well again the reason I say this is that "state of the art" live axel cars have been using this technology for longer than any members of the ITAC have been around. Their perception of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of suspension are based on a third link being used. If all live axel cars have to built to a different standard then the adder for the type of suspension would most likely be reevaluated.

[ddewhurst]

Good day to you all. I hope your New Years eve was per your anticipation & that if recovery is required you are all well on your way to normalcy.

If & when anything is enhanced with the ITCS Traction Bar rule do the brain thrust who will be interacting with the CRB expect the Production car folks to change their Restricted Suspension rule which is written to the exact same words. As a matter of FACT to my best knowledge the Production car Restricrted Suspension rule was copied fron the ITCS ?

Have a Nice Day Everyone
David