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.
[/b]
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?