"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[Knestis]

...what is yor definition of the 'root problem' and how would you fix it?[/b]

You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway, although none of these suggestions are anything that hasn't been said before...

1. Initiate a policy to stop trying to resolve enforcement issues with changes to the ITCS/GCR - rules and the enforcement of rules pose two entirely different policy problems, with different solutions.

2. Go through the book and get rid of EVERY SINGLE clause that specifically prohibits something.

3. Make IIDSYCYC and the "tortured interpretation" clause functional guidelines for enforcement.

4. Establish an online system to documemt protest and appeals findings, accessible to all members.

5. Codify standards of precedent. If a protest in NEOhio finds this airdam (picture attached) not in compliance with ITCS XX.XX.X.XX, other tech inspectors/stewards are expected to abide by that finding as long as it stands. An appeal to the CoA has the power to either reinforce or reverse that finding, thereby setting the ultimate precedent on the question - whether it finds in favor or against the original ruling. Both levels of precedent are documented and available for all to see.

Stewards' rulings on any subesquent protest, in any other region on the same substantial point are then expected to align. If it is found on CoA review that race officials' findings on the same airdam issue are NOT in alignment with precedent, they are then subject to sanction for not following the pertinent GCR guidelines.

Of course, that same CoA may find that there are differences enough in the substance of the protest and/or ruling (say, that two protests address different specific aspects of the definition of "traction bar"), and find in favor of the original protest WITHOUT sanctioning the officials - essentially determining that they acted in good faith. OR it might reverse the original ruling, negating the precedent. Regardless, whatever precedent is in place at the time of any given protest stands: This is less about being Right and more about being consistent.

* * *

I think it was Jake who asked if we wanted to trust the protest and appeals process to sort this issue out. The answer is that, at THIS point there's NO point in going through all of that hassle, since it won't make a lick of difference five minutes after the CoA issues its findings.

There should never have been a "clarification" of the SB issue - it should have been protested and appealed, and the findings should have established that this particular interpretation of the alternate busing material allowance was either acceptable or unacceptable. The issue would have lost steam and we'd have stopped talking about it. And racers and officials would be more invested in the process, knowing that their decisions are fodder for club member review, will leave a legacy, and may open them to sanctions should it be found that they are substantially outside of established standards of interpretation.

It's very possible that none of the people involved in this conversation has enough political capital to attack this issue at its root. If that's the case, then we just accept the reality and move on but diddling with the written rules is never going to make this issue go away - and will likely just create other, new problems.

K

[ddewhurst]

The problem is:

The variable definition of a Traction Bar.

The root cause of the problem is:

The poor definition of Traction Bar in the GCR glossary.


Now lets quit the BS session & start posting the exact definition of what a Traction Bar is for the GCR glossary.


End of story
David

[Greg Amy]

Now lets quit the BS session & start posting the exact definition of what a Traction Bar is for the GCR glossary. End of story [/b]

BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.

[lateapex911]

BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.
[/b]

Thats actually a great excercise. I hope we see some attempts at writing and at bending...

[Doc Bro]

Got it! It's easy!

Traction bar: (noun) A piece of metal on a race car, preferably associated with the suspension, that has the words "traction bar" written on it without misspellings and easy to read.


R

[lateapex911]

You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway, although none of these suggestions are anything that hasn't been said before...

1. Initiate a policy to stop trying to resolve enforcement issues with changes to the ITCS/GCR - rules and the enforcement of rules pose two entirely different policy problems, with different solutions.

2. Go through the book and get rid of EVERY SINGLE clause that specifically prohibits something.

3. Make IIDSYCYC and the "tortured interpretation" clause functional guidelines for enforcement.

4. Establish an online system to documemt protest and appeals findings, accessible to all members.

5. Codify standards of precedent. If a protest in NEOhio finds this airdam (picture attached) not in compliance with ITCS XX.XX.X.XX, other tech inspectors/stewards are expected to abide by that finding as long as it stands. An appeal to the CoA has the power to either reinforce or reverse that finding, thereby setting the ultimate precedent on the question - whether it finds in favor or against the original ruling. Both levels of precedent are documented and available for all to see.

Stewards' rulings on any subesquent protest, in any other region on the same substantial point are then expected to align. If it is found on CoA review that race officials' findings on the same airdam issue are NOT in alignment with precedent, they are then subject to sanction for not following the pertinent GCR guidelines.

Of course, that same CoA may find that there are differences enough in the substance of the protest and/or ruling (say, that two protests address different specific aspects of the definition of "traction bar"), and find in favor of the original protest WITHOUT sanctioning the officials - essentially determining that they acted in good faith. OR it might reverse the original ruling, negating the precedent. Regardless, whatever precedent is in place at the time of any given protest stands: This is less about being Right and more about being consistent.

* * *

I think it was Jake who asked if we wanted to trust the protest and appeals process to sort this issue out. The answer is that, at THIS point there's NO point in going through all of that hassle, since it won't make a lick of difference five minutes after the CoA issues its findings.

There should never have been a "clarification" of the SB issue - it should have been protested and appealed, and the findings should have established that this particular interpretation of the alternate busing material allowance was either acceptable or unacceptable. The issue would have lost steam and we'd have stopped talking about it. And racers and officials would be more invested in the process, knowing that their decisions are fodder for club member review, will leave a legacy, and may open them to sanctions should it be found that they are substantially outside of established standards of interpretation.

It's very possible that none of the people involved in this conversation has enough political capital to attack this issue at its root. If that's the case, then we just accept the reality and move on but diddling with the written rules is never going to make this issue go away - and will likely just create other, new problems.

K [/b]

Actually, I DID ask you...and anyone who had solid ideas and solutions....but didn't word it right. I think this post has a great concentration of solutions, and I've been scratching my head for years as to why the system doesn't work as you describe.

Actually, I remember discussions here on this board when we discussed the EXACT issue, and I seem to recall I suggested that every tech head dude carry a region supplied laptop with the latest protest and appeals precedent setting data for use in protests.

The teeth in the matter I've bolded for us. Without those resolutions being in place, it's nearly impossible to elicit change, as pointed out in the "trust the protest process" comment. (And as a guy who has waded in those waters in what I knew going in to be a slam dunk protest, those waters are deeper, colder and more turbulent than you can imagine. ) Competitor confidence in the protest sytem is massively important if we expect it to be used.

The line about the need for political clout is disturbing...mostly because it might be the case. But it's a hugely important subject, and I'm baffled as to how the club and the protest system have gotten this far operating in this manner.

[Roy Dean]

Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.
[/b]

Let me give it a try:

Track - The distance between the center of rims of two wheels at one end of a car, with any angular adjustments at normal settings and steered wheels in the straight ahead position.

Trailing Arm - A wheel control linkage locating the wheel in the fore/aft direction, which is attached to the car structure at the forward end of the arm, and to the wheel carrier at the rear of the arm




What do you think? If this is the definition I'd found in the glossary, I'd never have brought up the topic.

[ddewhurst]

***Trailing Arm - (A.) A wheel control linkage locating the wheel in the fore/aft direction, which is attached to the car structure at the forward end of the arm, and to the wheel carrier at the rear of the arm.***

Roy, at first glance it's a great definition to get things rolling. 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. But let's continue the Traction Bar rule definition rewrite because IMHJ that is where the root cause of the problem is.

Point by Greg, BRAACK!!! Wrong answer, David.

Counter point by David, (B.) Traction Bar- A two pivot maximum longitudinal link from chassis to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

Come on folks let's cut the BS & swing at the rewrites.

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

ps: What I really like about Greg is that he don't lay back in the weeds.

[Gary L]

David - I think you may have missed Roy's point. He was quoting the definitions before and after, but not the one for, "Traction Bar". In other words, if the definition had not been there, he wouldn't have tortured it.

Anyway, here's my attempt - very similar to yours (and written before I saw it, BTW).

Traction Bar - A longitudinally mounted suspension link from the car structure to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel. The purpose of the link is to resist torque reaction from the wheel in the fore/aft plane, by acting in compression or tension during acceleration or braking.

One thing hasn't been pointed out here. We actually do have a pretty good idea of the original intent here, because unless I'm seriously mistaken, the term "traction bar" easily predates any entry for same in the GCR glossary. It was coined by drag racers in the late 40's or early 50's; the first devices to be called traction bars were installed to prevent axle windup (tramp) on leaf-sprung live axles.

One other note of interest... besides the ITCS, the term appears only in the Production and AS Category Spec's. The wording surrounding the term is exactly the same in all three categories.

Gary Learned

[PSherm]

Traction Bar - A longitudinally mounted suspension link from the car structure to an axle housing or hub carrier of a driven wheel. The purpose of the link is to resist torque reaction from the wheel in the fore/aft plane, by acting in compression or tension during acceleration or braking.

Gary Learned
[/b]

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P

[Gary L]

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P
[/b]

In the tradition of this forum, I'll answer your question with a question... what the Hell difference does it make? In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So if by adding the words "driven wheels" to the definition, this means I can't consider my Neon's trailing arm a traction bar??? :P
[/b]

And the fact they have two seperate definitions in the GCR! :P

I like Gary's definition.

[PSherm]

... what the Hell difference does it make? In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar?
[/b]

That's the direction I was hoping to go with my car. The rules say you can substitute traction bars - it says nothing about trailing arms, even though by *MY* reading of the traction bar definition they are the same. I want to modify my trailing arms to gain tire clearance...

[lateapex911]

In the tradition of this forum, I'll answer your question with a question... what the Hell difference does it make? In other words... what is it you need to do with a trailing arm (that you can't already) that will be solved by calling it a traction bar? [/b]

Well, that's exactly the issue here. IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven, then we will see all such components replaced with stiffer, lighter, shorter, longer, offset or who knows what versions of the stock component, all the while sliding the new bit under the claim that it fits the definition of a "traction bar"

Whats the upshot? Well, cars are classed based on their physical characteristics. The process includes adders and subtractors, to acheive competitive parity.

Changing suspension geometry wholesale could very well affect the competitive parity that the classification system seeks to obtain.

[Gary L]

Well, that's exactly the issue here. IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven, then we will see all such components replaced with stiffer, lighter, shorter, longer, offset or who knows what versions of the stock component, all the while sliding the new bit under the claim that it fits the definition of a "traction bar"

Whats the upshot? Well, cars are classed based on their physical characteristics. The process includes adders and subtractors, to acheive competitive parity.

Changing suspension geometry wholesale could very well affect the competitive parity that the classification system seeks to obtain.
[/b]

You wouldn't be able to do that, provided we add some of the proposed wording to the glossary definition, to include "longitudinal" and "driven wheel". This eliminates toe links, trailing arms on the rear suspensions of front drive cars, and most other unintended silliness. Admittedly, it does not necessarily eliminate the possible replacement of trailing arms on some rear drive cars. As it should be, since they are indistinguishable from a (properly defined) traction bar on driven axle. My old ITB Volvo is a perfect example. But replacing those arms is certainly not on the top of my wish list... I'm still stuck with a truck axle back there, no matter how pretty I try to make it. And reducing the weight of a couple of arms by a pound or two just ain't gonna make a crap.

[Greg Amy]

IF we accept that the traction bar is a huge loophole through which any link on the car that deals with "torque" can be driven...[/b]

...then you accept that creative interpretations are to be accepted as reasonable, therefore pushing aside all common sense in order to address it. And, as we've all found out, unless we accept common sense, we accept nothing.

And we're back to my core point. If you reject common sense and accept creative interpretation, then there's absolutely no way you can win this M.A.D. arms race. No matter how hard you try to define the rules, you're fighting against the intelligence and motivation of the masses.

Even the Russions gave up when faced with the masses...

[lateapex911]

Well, note my capitalized "IF".....

But what worries me isn't what I accept...

....and common sense is anything but common at times.

[Knestis]

Okay - here's the acid test: Will your new definition also "clarify" into illegality the multilink "traction bar" facilitated rear suspension design used on more than a few first-generation RX7s (and Mustangs, I gather)? The ones that use the air bushings in the OE trailing arms?

If it doesn't, then you aren't done.

Or if it doesn't and you are OK with that - why should that be the case? Is that application close enough to what you think a "traction bar" actually is? Or was it the original intent that the traction bar rule should allow that application? **

K

** Yes, that is a trick question - be very, very careful.

[ddewhurst]

Garry, you are correct I should read twice or more before jumping into ICE water. Sorry.............. I must admitt I maybe read the Trailing Arm rule once & no more.


***Ok, David, write up an "exact definition" that I cannot parse into rust oxide dust post-haste, twisting into a prtezel and my own competitive advantage.

Go ahead, challenge me.***

Counter point by David, Traction Bar- A two pivot maximum longitudinal link from chassis to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

Greg, that ^ be your challenge. <_< Have at it because I&#39;ll learn in the process.

ps: As Gary stated maybe drive wheel or acelerate & brake wheel should be added to the same ^ rule. The stated rule is attempting to minimize the number of words to be changed/added/subtracted within the GCR glossary to the existing rule while defining the words Traction Bar to what many of US beleive was/is the original rule writters intent.

Happy New Year :snow_cool:

David

[ddewhurst]

*** Yes, that is a trick question - be very, very careful.***

K, I sometimes try to be carful therefore I&#39;ll stand at the rear & let the faithful reiterate their stance. Someone who lurks a bunch on the IT site might well come out of the woodwork with respect to your post.

Happy Holidays :snow_cool:
David