"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[Knestis]

Y'all wanted it this way, remember...

First, 17.1.4.D.5.c.1 doesn't say that added (or replaced) traction bars have to be on the driven end of the car.

Second, "...by acting in compression or tension" let's a traction bar resolve torque EITHER by compression or tension, giving it permission to do so under acceleration or braking. With the utmost in respect to the guy who makes sure that my ride stays in one piece, Cameron (and others) are applying the engine builders' definition of "torque," not the engineers' definition. There is NO question that braking creates a torque about the rotational axis of all of the wheels, that has to be resolved someplace. That someplace is in a traction bar. Don't for a minute let us kid ourselves that "Traction Bars" (capital T, capital B ) like my high school friends had on their 'stangs and Goats didn't get a load put on them under braking, too.

If the standard of law were defined by applying "commonly held" definitions of things, I'd still be a Rules NERD.

Chris is right that replacing a stock part is not allowed - right up to the point where a rule allows it.

Any "clarification" of the rule and definition in question is only going to layer more language onto a problem that's been created by the presence of too much language. Someone had to get all silly about writing a definition, rather than establishing case law through protest findings, and set this precedent. There's no procedure in place whereby someone can write the rule to say, "Roy can't do the thing he's proposed to do."

using the same logic, on a rear wheel drive car, the steering tie rod would then become free using this rules reading, ...right???[/b]

Because it has a ball on its outboard end, a tie rod can't control the same torque (braking or acceleration) so I don't think it meets that requirement of the definition. It gets put in tension or compression when the car is steered or torque loads are applied about the "virtual kingpin axis" of the steering.

K

PS - I really like this little guy, too! :026:

PPS to Roy - want to help me design the new Anti-Roll Bar (GCR, p. 109) to replace the one on the rear end of my Golf?

[Rabbit07]

I think Roy is right. Makes crystal clear sense to me.

[ddewhurst]

***I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.***

Roy, this is approx a same discussion that was held here approx 1 year ago. My 1st gen RX-7 has a OEM 4 link rear axle. The a Tri-link has been added with foam busshings in the 2 upper links rendering the upper 2 links usless. (unless the Tri-link breaks) The 2 lower links have been subistuted with purchsed threaded links with rod ends. Many of the group debating in this thread told me I am illegal. No protests to date.

Happy Holidays
David

ps: Is that the sound of protest money I here being sent from the East coast ?

[lateapex911]

FYI-

The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.

***I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.***

Roy, this is approx a same discussion that was held here approx 1 year ago. My 1st gen RX-7 has a OEM 4 link rear axle. The a Tri-link has been added with foam busshings in the 2 upper links rendering the upper 2 links usless. (unless the Tri-link breaks) The 2 lower links have been subistuted with purchsed threaded links with rod ends. Many of the group debating in this thread told me I am illegal. No protests to date.

Happy Holidays
David

ps: Is that the sound of protest money I here being sent from the East coast ? [/b]

Huh? The lack of a protest doesn't define legality....or lack thereof.

[lateapex911]

Because it has a ball on its outboard end, a tie rod can't control the same torque (braking or acceleration) so I don't think it meets that requirement of the definition. It gets put in tension or compression when the car is steered or torque loads are applied about the "virtual kingpin axis" of the steering.

K [/b]

I mentioned that parallel, but did so based on my concept of what he has. But he hasn't described it completely, or given illustrations, so I'm a bit in the dark.

However, it seems he has a rear hub carrier, located by a control arm at the bottom, and also located (for toe) with a toe link. He wishes to replace that toe link with a non stock part, and is using the term "torque" as his entry to do so, claiming that torque hasn't been limited to any origin, or plane. But many of us presume that the torque that the rule refers to is engine or brake derived..."presume" being the key word.

So, given that, I assume that there must be some compliance inherent in the arm, or the suspension wouldn't be able to move through it's intended arc(s).

To me, this is similar, except in the degree of movement, to what a RWD front suspension does, except that his toe link on the FWD car is fixed, but compliant in the needed modes, at it's inner pick up point, whereas it is moveable on a RWD steering toe link.(AKA tie rods).

To follow the logic, if he is correct, then ANY link resisting any force that can be considered torque, is fair game.

If not, then how and why can you draw the line limiting the application?

[bldn10]

"rather than establishing case law through protest findings, and set this precedent. "

IMO that is the way it should be. But it is not. In SCCA there is no case law and no precedent - every protest stands on its own, and you can have conflicting results across the country. All COA opinions should be categorized, archived, searchable, and made precedential.

[Knestis]

...But many of us presume that the torque that the rule refers to is engine or brake derived..."presume" being the key word. ... To follow the logic, if he is correct, then ANY link resisting any force that can be considered torque, is fair game.

If not, then how and why can you draw the line limiting the application?[/b]

Oh, I'm ABSOLUTELY making that same presumption (for better or for worse). This whole thing goes utterly sideways if we are willing to include ANY torque load about ANY axis. Holy yikes.

Looking just at the text of the rule (and accepting the above assumption) the line gets drawn where the link in question controls THOSE torques "in tension or compression." This raises the question of "What is torture?" in that I'm willing to go some way but not ALL the way on this one, but a lower control arm with two inboard axial pivots and a ball joint at the bottom of the upright, is not loaded purely in one of those two ways.

The part in question has to satisfy ALL of the attributes described in the definition. If it does, then it does.

Even the Rules NERD Kirk disliked "emails requesting clarification." Were we still in a place where the system could be undone, clarification would come from (1) fewer, less wordy rules, (2) elimination of any rule telling us what we CAN'T do, and (3) enforcement of the rules through a consistent, documented system of precedents. In the real world of the ITCS, "clarification" means the addition of more language that can be imprecise and manipulated just like this.

K

EDIT - to clarify (sorry, couldn't resist), I'm taking the OP's word that the link on the Suzuki DOES actually control the torque in question. If it is actually in essence a fixed steering tie rod, then the case falls apart. Jake's right that we need pics.

[lateapex911]

First of all:

17.1.4.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.

And:

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.


And now the question:

Can I replace my factory rear toe links (lateral links) with an aftermarket heim joint equipped "traction bar"? By the letter of the rules, the toe link could be described as a "traction bar" according to the GCR glossary. What do you think? [/b]

Right Kirk, thats what he's saying..that the "torque in this case is actually rotating on the axis of the strut...and without the toe links, the wheel would flop about. He is saying that the toe link is operating under compression and tension....


And he goes on to highlight that here:

.......
Additionally, torque is also applied to the wheel not only about the axis of the wheel rotation itself, but about the axis of the strut mount/control arm bushing... these torques being applied via normal racing accelerations (traditional acceleration, lateral, braking, etc.). Nowhere in the rules does it say that the torques in question must only be from axles....

Jakes insertionnor does it specify which axis..)

I know what you are getting at, but the wording in the rules does not specifically state it that way.

Bottom line, if the rules are changed because of me..... I'm out $120, but I've got a neat bar story.
[/b]

So, yes, it DOES go all sideways, both figuratively and literally.

[charrbq]

"rather than establishing case law through protest findings, and set this precedent. "

IMO that is the way it should be. But it is not. In SCCA there is no case law and no precedent - every protest stands on its own, and you can have conflicting results across the country. All COA opinions should be categorized, archived, searchable, and made precedential.
[/b]

Man...I'll agree with that. I've seen it happen more than once. In the legal practice there is such a thing called precedence or such in decisions. A tech inspector at one race can rule an item legal, and the car can be ruled illegal at another race with another tech inspector.

[ddewhurst]

***The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.***

Provided the ITAC/CRB is consistant when doing clarification of the definition of existing rules it's a no brainer just like the Spherical bushing material. Ya need to the same way all the time.

Happy Holidays
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

***The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.***

Provided the ITAC/CRB is consistant when doing clarification of the definition of existing rules it's a no brainer just like the Spherical bushing material. Ya need to the same way all the time.

Happy Holidays
David


[/b]

No way. This is different. This is a tortured interpretation reading the literal word and then taking liberties from there. While I was from the camp that sphericals were not 'alternate material', the CRB stated that they felt they should be allowed and we re-wrote the rule for them. I can almost guarantee this won't be the case here.

[Knestis]

Nowhere in the rules does it say that the torques in question must only be from axles....[/b]

I'm guilty of reading that as "...torques must only be from the 'drive of the axles'..." It's a matter of degrees but I agree that other-axis torques change the issue substantially. Where's that picture?

This is a tortured interpretation reading the literal word and then taking liberties from there.[/b]

...and that should be addressed through the protest process - through ENFORCEMENT of the rule. If by, "clarification of the definition," we mean that the request has been made for "an opinion that doesn't carry any weight," then that's fine. A waste of time, oxygen, and bandwidth, but fine.

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K [/b]

But is reasonable people can disagree what the rule allows you to do, the rule sucks. We need to change it so that it doesn't become commonly accepted practice in certain circles. Sorry, that is definatly my take.

[lateapex911]

I'm guilty of reading that as "...torques must only be from the 'drive of the axles'..." It's a matter of degrees but I agree that other-axis torques change the issue substantially. Where's that picture?



...and that should be addressed through the protest process - through ENFORCEMENT of the rule. If by, "clarification of the definition," we mean that the request has been made for "an opinion that doesn't carry any weight," then that's fine. A waste of time, oxygen, and bandwidth, but fine.

If however we mean, "rewrite the definition in the GCR in an attempt to 'clarify' the definition," then arghh.

K [/b]

Right....but...what if the he gets protested at Track A, and the tech thinks in, shall we say, conventional terms, and DQs him? Then he shows up at the next race (while he's started an appeal process) and gets protested again...and this time a different tech listens, reads the rule, decides the part IS acting as the definition requires, and the protest is disallowed?

.....meanwhile, in the appeals court....well, that doesn't really matter, as we'll see....

.....then, next year, it happens again, maybe to another guy who thinks this is a nifty idea? Start at square 1, and see what happes this time...

Agreed, the appeal decision carries no lasting weight, and thats something I don't get.

As such, this could become a Ground Hog Day.

IF the rule lacks clarity to it's intent, then perhaps it needs to be looked at? (And am I correct in understanding that you do NOT think it lacks clarity? That the interpretaion is clearly incorrect?)

[Knestis]

I don't know from "intent" anymore, Jake. I've had so many 20-year-old IT intents pulled out from under me that I've given up on that, too. Don't forget that I used to be on the other side of arguments like this.

The "interpretation" is correct for the link that I fabricated in my head, for the imaginary suspension on a model that has never been built, by a non-existent manufacturer.

It is not correct for other suspension components that don't meet all of the diagnostic characteristics in the GCR definition.

...and therein lies the problem - not one of rules interpretation in this case, but of definition. If we write a definition for a "frammis" and some thing comes along that meets all of the criteria defined in that definition, that thing becomes de facto a frammis. Absent that definition, the simple fact that the original post called the items in question "rear toe links" would go a long way toward establishing the fact that they are in fact and function not "traction bars." They get protested, someone takes a digital pic and puts it in the online file system for members and tech mavens to see whenever they want, and a little precedent is establshed.

"These things are not traction bars."

If someone wants to appeal that finding, they do so and the CoA establishes a bigger, harder-hitting precedent.

I'm a little worried about Andy. He's beginning to sound like a surgeon, for whom every problem has a solution that includes cutting someone open. Not every issue we face can be fixed with an ITCS rule rewrite. The "rule" doesn't "suck" in this instance. The definition was written by human beings and served well up until about 36 hours ago. It's replacement might well be equally flawed.

Guys - it is not possible to enforce rules through their writing.

However, the current crop of ITAC'ers has done a better job than has ever been accomplished in the past with rules writing - except where people downstream of them in the process start playing with words. I'm just not entirely confident that the new definition won't have holes, TOO or that we'll layer on another pile of words that just add potential for spinning.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm a little worried about Andy. He's beginning to sound like a surgeon, for whom every problem has a solution that includes cutting someone open. Not every issue we face can be fixed with an ITCS rule rewrite. The "rule" doesn't "suck" in this instance. The definition was written by human beings and served well up until about 36 hours ago. It's replacement might well be equally flawed.K [/b]

Or maybe what you ment to say was that nobody attempted to take advantage of the poor rule until now. At some point, the same thing happened with the 'alternate bushing' rule...and if we had been more proactive, it may have had a better outcome.

I liken this to guys who are competitive in underprepared cars in there Region - because ALL the cars are underprepared...just because someone hasn't brought a 10/10th car to the dance doesn't mean they couldn't have. Same with this rule...if it has read like this forever it doesn't make it a good rule.

[ddewhurst]

***The CRB and ITAC has gotten an email requesting clarification of the definition.***

I beleive many of us beleive that a traction bar rule was written refering to the driving mode of a car & not every other item of a car that has a torque value.

BUT, if the the people of the ITAC/CRB are changing rule 17.1.4.D.5.c. from it's current words I will need to say their heads are getting a tad bit large for the volunteer position they temporarily hold. Should any of you ITAC or CRB care in engage in some private communication about the rule or traction bar please feel free to pm yours truly David Dewhurst.

If the friken upper link of a 1st gen RX-7 rear suspension is a traction bar for Jim Susko the lower link is a traction bar for David Dewhurst. They both provide the same equal funnction. Come on ITAC or CRB explain how the upper link is a traction bar but the lower link is not a traction bar. Explain why I can not substitute the lower link with a link of the exact same length. & if you can not visualize the rear suspension of a 1st gen RX-7 please don't get involved in this communication.

Come on lets have a conversation on this site out in the open where you folks can't use the weasel process. When I use the word weasel process beleive me I know the weasel process is used when Fastrack responses do not use the written rule to answer a customer question.

The same bunch of you started the Limited Prep thread & when someone don't to your sorry wishes you close the thread. Yep, that's what I call open minded.

[Andy Bettencourt]

PM sent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about this as a devils advocate:

The rule says " Wouldn&#39;t a &#39;added&#39; traction bar that also served as a toe-link violate the last part of the rule?</span>

[Conover]

What about that "serve another purpose" rule? does that apply, because it&#39;s clear to me that the only reason he wants this allowance is so that he can easily adjust his rear toe.
I&#39;m with Andy, I think this is a tortured interpretation, a clear abomination actually!



"No one expects the Spanish inquisition!"