"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[lateapex911]

I'm troubled by two aspects of the latest development:

-The links are even further away from being, as Kirk mentioned, purely torque control devices, and...

-his demand that either all the Watts, panhard and traction bar allownaces be stricken, OR all these "developments" that benefit the FWD cars be allowed.

I feel that that mindset fails to understand that cars are classed based on the rules and the allowances within.

Such a change in the rules is not going to be appropriate.

Again, I worry about the results of protests against such devices. I am not sure which way a protest commitee would go on it, and the fact that the same protest could have completely different results in another region, and yet another at the appeals level...and then yet even ANOTHER result at the same appeals level but a year or two later ......disturbs me, and is, to me, the bigger issue.

[Greg Amy]

-The links are even further away from being, as Kirk mentioned, purely torque control devices...[/b]

Oh, yeah? Where does it say that the "torque" has to be from the engine? "Torque reaction from the wheel" is a rotational force; guess what, so's the force caused by scrub radius. So's the force caused by bumps in the road. So's the force caused by dampers with any kind of motion ratio.

The list is virtually endless...

Reap --> Sow

[ncraft]

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?
[/b]

I believe there is no other purpose in the case of a VW beam axle. We are using the toe stabilization links to stop the trailing arms of the beam axle from rotating outwards or inwards (due to bending) under braking or drag during acceleration. The reason they rotate is because a torque is applied to them. The source of this torque happens to be the braking/drag-from-accelerating force at the wheel acting over the length of the stub axle. Force x Distance = Torque. We are adding a link that acts purely in compression/tension to counteract this torque. Therefore we are serving the purpose of a traction bar, according to what the SCCA says a traction bar is.

Note, we are not adding an adjustable toe link to adjust toe, we are only adding a link to stop it changing by itself under acceleration & braking. Thats why I'm referring to it as a "toe stabilization link".


7.1.4.D.5.c.1 Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.

GCR Glossary
Traction Bar - A link to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the wheel by acting in compression or tension.

[ddewhurst]

SURE, & we RWD car owners should ask for a rule that in the wet FWD cars need to eliminate one drive wheel.

The ITAC/CRB open the gates for MORE CREEP with their brillant bushing material decision. We the OWNERS need to put some sand on that slope.

[Knestis]

It's one further stretch since this argument requires that we accept "torque" as including about a virtual axis someplace up where the trailing arm is welded to the transverse torsional part of the beam, but it does meet the letter of the definition, but...

...I am not sure which way a protest commitee would go on it, and the fact that the same protest could have completely different results in another region [ad nauseum] ... [/b]

Jake has got to the core issue here.

Kirk (who likes the sand analogy)

[ncraft]

Yep, I totally agree. Since protests do not establish case law, I'm not at all happy just doing it and being legal one weekend and not legal the next depending on an individual SCCA official's viewpoint. That's why I wish they'd either update their definition of a traction bar, or (more favorably for me), say it's ok to add stabilizing members to the suspension in general, instead of having some arbitrary list of three permitted types of linkage that only apply to rear wheel drive cars.

BTW, I wasn't "demanding" anything, nor was I seriously suggesting Panhard rods etc. be banned. They'd never do it anyway. I was just trying to make a case that allowing people to add stabilizing links to their suspension is either consistent with class philosophy, or it isn't.

[shwah]

The words say what they say, and they support the proposed design. This has actually been on my list (albeit near the bottom) since I started my build many moons ago.

Kirk, we have no need to worry about what axis the torque is acting on as that is not specified in the allowance. However there does need to be a torque present to counteract, which there very much is.

I guess I take a different view of the 'sanctity' of our beloved IT rules. Part of the fun of this sport is taking a given ruleset and getting the most possible legal benefit for your car. However, for this to be productive the rules need to be as stable as possible. Just because someone has a good idea that other people didn't see when they read/interpreted the rule is not cause to 'close the loophole', it is cause to congratulate the guy on having a novel, legal idea.

Taking instances like this and 'clarifying' or rewriting them in the rules will IMO take a lot of the engineering challenge out of the IT class. Now instead of searching for legally creative solutions, you will be forced to build the car the way some rulemaker envisions the rules to dictate (rather than based on what they actually say in writing), and if you go outside those invisible lines they will change the rule to spite your creativity.

That approach sucks.

[lateapex911]

............. Now instead of searching for legally creative solutions, you will be forced to build the car the way some rulemaker envisions the rules to dictate (rather than based on what they actually say in writing), and if you go outside those invisible lines they will change the rule to spite your creativity.

That approach sucks. [/b]

OK, lets get real here...we all know what the rules say, and we aknowledge that they don't list the approved axis, nor the fact that the parts must be added to the driven axles. But on the other hand, lets not blow smoke and say that we don't know what the obvious intention was, and that it was written by folks who made the mistake of assuming that it needed a definition, but a loosely written one.

So, any change in the rule or definition isn't going to be at the whim of some rulemaker and his "vision" just to spite your creativity.....

Loopholes exist in rules of all types...I found a neat loophole in the radiator rule that allowed huge amounts of fresh, cold air into the engine compartment..and sure enough, live by the loophole, die by the loophole. It was closed, as it should have been. And no, I didn''t feel "spited".....

[Knestis]

...lets not blow smoke and say that we don't know what the obvious intention was, and that it was written by folks who made the mistake of assuming that it needed a definition, but a loosely written one. ...[/b]

Which brings us full circle back to Greg&#39;s warnings (and mine, though I seem to be having commitment issues) about "reaping what <strike>you</strike> [we] sow."

I spent 20 years making my own decisions - and strenuously advocating for decisions - based on understandings of "obvious intentions" grounded in my IT experiences of the Early Years. I would never even have thought or worried about the definition of "traction bar" because I know what a Traction Bar IS, and by elimination what it is NOT.

If John Bishop were running the show, he would have laughed at this current interpretation, declared it obviously not a traction bar, docked the offender some points, and established precedent in his own fiefdom. And only an idiot would have tried that dodge a second time. Instead, we get to work within culture with built-in disincentives to actually protest legality, and some stewards and tech inspectors who will flat out SAY that they don&#39;t want to deal with questions of compliance among IT cars. All of this built around a process that&#39;s only slightly removed from the show horses and sailboats code of honor of the clubby gentlemen that founded SCCA.

...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&#39;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."

And thus, did the old school of "obvious intention" close its doors, and the most recent era of paddock lawyering (aka "reaping") begin. I wish Jake, that we COULD put that one back in the barn (bottle, whatever) but this is what we collectively seem to have asked for. And the response is going to be in line with the new paradigm - a reworded definition or rule that says, "Oh, no - here&#39;s what was REALLY intended," which will work right up to the point where someone has a beer, parses the language, and does again exactly what they have been enabled by the system into doing.

K

[shwah]

I see your point Jake, but I guess we will agree to disagree.

I build my car to meet written rules, not imagined intentions, and I don&#39;t support making changes to rules that have served us well for decades just because someone came up with a good solution within those rules.

At this point, now that everyone is so revved up on the subject, I expect some sort of change to be made ala the great bushing debate. Just remember that these constant changes can really F things up, like the ECU rule did. Leave the rules alone, and lets go racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I see your point Jake, but I guess we will agree to disagree.

I build my car to meet written rules, not imagined intentions, and I don&#39;t support making changes to rules that have served us well for decades just because someone came up with a good solution within those rules.

At this point, now that everyone is so revved up on the subject, I expect some sort of change to be made ala the great bushing debate. Just remember that these constant changes can really F things up, like the ECU rule did. Leave the rules alone, and lets go racing. [/b]

Sorry dude. This isn&#39;t something that has been perfect for decades. The current culture is to torture a rule with an obvious intent and resonable wording. I think the rule in the ITCS is still fine but I am going to submit a request that the definition of traction bar be tightened up. Otherwise, the front end of the RWD cars that roll out of our shop are going to get real complicated, real technilogical, real expensive - and REAL FAST. You think ITS is fast now?

It&#39;s not right for the class and, unlike the SB debate, there are not two sides of this. There may be a small ray of light as far as legality but it takes a traditional definition and tortures it.

[Greg Amy]

...there are not two sides of this...it takes a traditional definition and tortures it.[/b]

Au contraire, Andy; there&#39;s the rub: I don&#39;t think this &#39;interpretation&#39; is any more tortured than that of twisting "alternate material" to mean "spherical bearings". Honestly. Said differently, I think this &#39;interpretation&#39; is just as clever as the one used to justify spherical bearings.

So, therefore, whose opinion is "correct"? Why is yours or mine more correct than others? Who has the right to decide what&#39;s "right" and what&#39;s "wrong"?

When you deviate from the straight and narrow on one thing, it leads to twisties on the other. You can never stop this process from proceeding further; if you try you&#39;ll end up re-writing the whole GCR, and then it begins again with THAT verbiage.

I&#39;m not going to say those words again, but this is the EXPECTED result. I&#39;m just sorry to see it happen so quickly....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nobody is correct. I just want the CRB to understand how people are utilizing their rule - and they can decide for themselves if they want to allow this kind of thing to become the defacto standard or if they want to squash it by refining the definition of traction bar in the glossery.

I was against SB&#39;s and I was dissappointed in their decision to specifically allow it. It could happen with this. If it does, I am worried about IT. Very worried.

[shwah]

Sorry dude. This isn&#39;t something that has been perfect for decades.[/b]

Yeah, too bad it can&#39;t be perfect like the rest of the GCR and ITCS. The rule has been there and worked fine until this point. The fact that someone just now posted what it allows you to do, does not change anything. People realized this 10 years ago as well, but it was not as easy to share the information.

I don&#39;t mean to limit this discussion only to this one issue. Changing rules every time someone has a creative solution does not suit the &#39;intent&#39; of IT as I see it. It is another avenue to a more complex rulebook and unintended consequences.

When the wording gets changed (a foregone conclusion IMO) I won&#39;t loose any sleep over it, and I will obviously scratch that off my &#39;to do&#39; list, but I also won&#39;t agree with making the changes.

[lateapex911]

OK, out of school talk here..

While the SB ruling was not liked by some, this has much greater implications, because you can see how nearly any suspension member on the car will be said to be subject to torque, and therefor fall under the umbrella of total replacement.

Is that what we want?

And, yes, we would LIKE our competitors...us...to say, "No, I will not stand for that, it is clearly hugely wrong", and write the paper. Then it falls in your lap Greg, to assist with the teardowns, and the protest crew. How would you advise said protest commitee ? How would you rule?

So, here&#39;s a rule/definition that nearly everyone accepted at face value....yet has the potential to replace entire suspensions, geometry and all, and wreak havoc with the entire classing system.

And, (not aimed at anyone in particular) saying, "sorry, this is what you asked for" really isn&#39;t helping or fixing anything, is it???

Do we rely on the system of protests and appeals to control the outcome? What if it doesn&#39;t work?

Unlike the SB issue, this horse isn&#39;t quite out of the barn yet...

Or??????

[gprodracer]

Two quick things..

Though I agree w/ David, sand can be slippery on the same slope...

And....the unexpected consequences can far outweigh the intended ones, so, as others have said, please be carefull with what you do with the written rules. You may open up another set of problems.

I don&#39;t envy any of you.

Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah, too bad it can&#39;t be perfect like the rest of the GCR and ITCS. The rule has been there and worked fine until this point. The fact that someone just now posted what it allows you to do, does not change anything. People realized this 10 years ago as well, but it was not as easy to share the information.

I don&#39;t mean to limit this discussion only to this one issue. Changing rules every time someone has a creative solution does not suit the &#39;intent&#39; of IT as I see it. It is another avenue to a more complex rulebook and unintended consequences.

When the wording gets changed (a foregone conclusion IMO) I won&#39;t loose any sleep over it, and I will obviously scratch that off my &#39;to do&#39; list, but I also won&#39;t agree with making the changes.
[/b]

The difference between where you sit and where I sit is that you think it&#39;s a creative interpretation - of which I am all for. I say it&#39;s a tortured interpretation (TI) of a rule that &#39;for decades&#39; was followed through the written and the intent. The new generation of wordsmiths throw everything under a microscope (and that is the sign of a true competitior, believe-you-me) and see what comes out smelling fishy when it can benefit them. My comment to that is when the TI flies in the face of the clear intent, don&#39;t cry when it gets corrected. While I don&#39;t beleive for 1 second this has been going on for 10 years, loops and grey areas need to be closed when they could lead to umpteen unintended designs that will rewite the performance enevelope of the whole class.

THAT is bad for IT.

[Greg Amy]

...saying, "sorry, this is what you asked for" really isn&#39;t helping or fixing anything, is it???[/b]

Nope, not at all, Jake. "I told you so" does not fix anything. However, it is a cry of "hey, you laughed at me and called me loopy back then, but I was right; how about listening to me now?"

Unlike the SB issue, this horse isn&#39;t quite out of the barn yet...[/b]

That&#39;s where you&#39;re mistaken. It&#39;s not THIS issue or THAT issue, Jake, it&#39;s a loss of innocence, if you will, a loss of common sense. It&#39;s a case of where prior to the spherical bearings being officially codified as having met the original intent of the rules(!), we&#39;d all look at this "traction bar" issue and collectively laugh, call the guy a nut job, and all threaten to protest his ass if he showed up with a blatantly - and common sensically - illegal car. However, post-SBs, we now have to address each of these creative interpretations seriously, because with the codification of SB we have codifed creative interpretation of the rules.

We have, in effect, castrated the "tortured interpretation" clause of the rules. That rule does not mean jack-shat any more, and you agree with sentiment by your very expression of your desire to get the rule clarified. If TI exists, why get the rule or definition changed? Because it&#39;s burnt toast, that&#39;s why. It&#39;s no longer what the rules say, it&#39;s what we think we can get away with, at least until Andy brings it to the CRBs attention and it gets re-worded.

What happens when Andy (or his successor) gives up?

So, fine, get the traction bar definition &#39;fixed&#39;. You aren&#39;t addressing the root problem, you&#39;re simply tossing a Band-Aid on a lopped-off limb...

[Andy Bettencourt]

So band-aids aside Greg - what is yor definition of the &#39;root problem&#39; and how would you fix it?

[Greg Amy]

Quickly - &#39;cause I need to get off this damned computer - is that we have to stop rewarding creative interpretations. We did that with the SBs, we did that with Motec, we did that with a few others things that slip my mind at the moment.

When someone makes a creative interpretation of the rules - something that meets the letter of the rules but not the spirit - we collectively and immediately bitch-slap it as unacceptable. Whether we choose to back that up with a protest is irrelevant; as long as we collectively make that person conscious that we consider them to be a cheater we have minimally done what we could have done, the same thing we&#39;d do with someone we suspect is running camshafts, or pop-up pistons, or the like.

Lack of a protest does not mean we condone cheating. Recodifying the rules to work around creative interpretation does mean we condone creative interpretation. - GA