"Traction Bar" and a FWD car

[dickita15]

I agree that calling the toe link a traction bars is tortured but the serves and other function language does not help much. Everything serves some other function, intended or not. This phrase still requires a subjective decision that might not be consistent from one court to another.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree Dick. But here is how I read it:

You can add or substitute a traction bar. In any situation, you either have a TB that you can substitute or you don't have a TB so you can add one.

In either situation, the added TB or the substituted TB, if it does something very specific like adjust toe, it has clearly violated that piece of the rule, no?

If we are basing this whole thing on a toe link being free because it is a 'traction bar', would the membership be better served by a clarification of what a traction bar is (for the purposes of the GCR)?

[dickita15]

The traction bar on my car changes the suspension geometry. I would say that is another function. Is that really what you want to change? I guess if you want the simplest way to prevent this proposed use of the rule you only need to change the definition of a traction bar by adding the word driven as in “Traction Bar- a link to an axel housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the Driven wheel by acting in compression or tension”

[bldn10]

"it's a no brainer just like the Spherical bushing material. Ya need to the same way all the time. Happy Holidays David"

"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'm not sure what side David is on but I think both situations are similar - reasonably clear rules that are subjected to tortured interpretation. I have spoken out about the travesty of in effect changing a rule by clarification and, despite the fact that I favor precedent, I hope the SB case is never so used.

[Roy Dean]

What about that "serve another purpose" rule? does that apply, because it's clear to me that the only reason he wants this allowance is so that he can easily adjust his rear toe.[/b]

Wrongo, amigo. The car already has an eccentric bolt on the inboard side of the toe link (from the factory) to "easily adjust rear toe". And it can adjust well beyond the range that any racer would want in a STRAIGHT car (one with a little crash damage, maybe not so much).

And I was just using the tubular/cylindrical construction rod-ends as an example. But I can understand how somebody might say "hey, you can adjust toe with that!!! It's illegal!". At that point, you know, I totally agree with the people that say it wouldn't fly. So to throw yet another monkey wrench in the works, now lets say it just a tubular fabricated arm with spherical bearings pressed into it (of which the eye-to-eye length is identical to stock). Now, the component is still non-oem, but cannot serve any other purpose than the intended job of the original stock component (and still meets all of the criteria of the GCR's definition of "traction bar").

You know, if there had been no definition in the GCR of "traction bar", the topic never would've come up - because I thought I knew what a traction bar was before I read the SCCA's definition!

[Conover]

OK then why not just use alternate "bushing material" in the stock piece?

there you have it.
Unless you really want it to be heavier, which would serve an alternate purpose as well. are you going to make it the same wieght?

[Knestis]

...You know, if there had been no definition in the GCR of "traction bar", the topic never would've come up - because I thought I knew what a traction bar was before I read the SCCA's definition!
[/b]

Eggs-actly.

K

[lateapex911]

So, is it better to have NO definition, and let people do as they please, or a better worded definition?

[Knestis]

That's a false choice, Jake - "Would you prefer war in Iraq or fighting terrorists on our own soil?"

I think it might have been Travis who explained it in a way that really made it click for me, that it's not the text of the rules that prevent cheating - it's the enforcement of rules. We're going through this exercise in an attempt to prevent replacement of a suspension component not otherwise allowed by the ITCS by putting more words into the rulebook, when Roy admits that he wouldn't ever have considered what he's put forth, had the definition (words added previous for the same reason) not been there in the first place.

Andy is right that reasonable people might differ but every bit of verbiage that doesn't exist, is one less thing for them to differ on.

Now, whether reasonable people differ on the question of whether the suspension link in question is legal or not is a different question. However, it becomes pretty immaterial the minute that the people who matter - the tech inspectors and ultimately the CoA - decide one way or the other. The PROBLEM here is that under the current system, they can change their minds next month or they all go sailboat racing instead, and there's no institutional memory of what is and isn't OK. An enforcement problem.

So we add more words.

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.

K

[lateapex911]

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.

K [/b]

Ahhh...welcome back.

[tom91ita]

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

i'm thinking that the steering tie rods would be free on the FWD and not RWD. afterall we are talking about torque suppression and it is FWD that has "torque steer" when we get on the gas, right???

finally away to minimize bump steer on my car!

tom

and before anyone gets all torqued about this, YES, i am joking!

[Conover]

CRAP. I'm starting to care again.
K
[/b]

Thanks to gods! I was really starting to get worried! Seriously, instead of internet Banter, maybe we need some real world protests. It would make things interesting. . . . :snow_cool:

[erlrich]

CRAP. I'm starting to care again. I need to go back to work.[/b]

Yeah, I didn't think you could kick the habit without professional intervention. Don't get down on yourself though, very few people can just quit cold turkey.

[ncraft]

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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?

[Greg Amy]

Sooo, 'bout those spherical "bushings"...

[latebrake]

bushing fight bushing fight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sooo, 'bout those spherical "bushings"... [/b]

Greg, you know what side I was on for that one...

[Greg Amy]

I do, but this is a perfect example of "you reap what you sow".

As I pointed out back then, reaping such arguments as 'spherical bearings can be interpreted as an alternate material' and 'air is an alternate material' result in our sowing such seemingly ridiculous arguments as this multi-page thread. These arguments - and the fact that we're legitimately debating the subject - are de facto proof of this.

Like Kirk, I've changed my insight and outlook of the rules. No longer do I read what the rules do say, I read what they don't say. The obvious is not, the hidden is no longer. And, as ridiculous as it may sound, the guy's got a point.

And so will the next half-dozen (or more) people that do the same exact thing...we are now officially abandoning formerly-common sense and chasing our tails.

[Knestis]

I didn't bring the VW application of traction bars into this conversation becuase I didn't want people thinking I wanted it to "be about me" but Nick has a really fine question. However, the "ask for clarification" thing is not the way to go. We need to fish or cut bait:

** Use the current system and protest stuff, or...

** Change the system

The very second someone writes additional language prohibiting a specific design or function into the traction bar rule in the ITCS, or into the definition in the GCR, someone will find a way around it.

Now, if the ITAC thinks they can do a better job of the pertinent rules, I'm OK with them trying but I'm generally of the opinion that it is not possible to write a rulebook the lists ALL of the things we are not allowed to do. It's a path to insanity. The only good that would come out of it is that we'd all have to commit to the soft-copy PDF of the GCR, because the paper copy will weigh 100 pounds.

I personally tend to think that the links Nick describes fail the "torque" test of GCR definition - even less than the Suzuki example that started this conversation. However, I'm not in a position to rule on that nor is anyone else until someone writes the paper.

K