"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[bldn10]

"...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.""



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]

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]

... “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]

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

K

[ddewhurst]

*** 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.


***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 & a little bit of .


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.

[lateapex911]

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]

****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.


Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

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

[lateapex911]

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]

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]

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

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

[Knestis]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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! 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]

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

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


It's still 2006
David

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

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

[Knestis]

... “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&#39;s important - at least in symbolic terms)

[dickita15]

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

[Knestis]

The current strict GCR definition of "traction bar" or the intended definition? I&#39;m not being a smartass here, either. I think it&#39;s very important to the question.

K

[dickita15]

“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]

...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 (&#39;cause I don&#39;t know much about this technically, plus I don&#39;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&#39;s the thing about creative interpretation: you&#39;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&#39;s not a traction bar but a clever parsing of the rules, then he&#39;s got to understand that if we change the rule to close that loophole he&#39;s gonna get hurt. That&#39;s the risk you take when you try stuff out of the mainstream (see Kirk&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t happen. - GA