I think we all agree that the lower links are used to limit axle rotation. The disagreement is that you can't substitute them because they also act as a control arm. A traction rod CAN be substituted, a control arm CAN'T. I think we can agreed to that also. Like they do in court, show me a precedent where something similar was argued and decided by SCCA and we'll have an answer. Everything else is just opinion.

Suggesting that this is an prohibited function is not correct. Prohibited function means making a part do something it isn't supposed to do. E.G. True story. A SM guy installed a plate in the right rear of his car to mount one of the bars of his cage to. The problem was, the "plate" was a forty pound block of steel. He was protested and SCCA ruled that the plate was performing an prohibited function; acting as ballast in an area of the car where it isn't legal to mount ballast. He had to remove it. What this driver was trying to do is what the GCR refers to as "strained or tortured interpretation." (GCR 1.2.4) "It's just a mounting plate!" A very tortured interpretation of the word "plate" to justify its use. However, no one is suggesting that the links under discussion do anything they aren't designed and meant to do by Mazda, so there is no "prohibited function" taking place.

What to do, what to do. To save the $200 difference in cost between home grown and a Mazda part I'll take my chances with a protest. Or maybe I'll just leave that part stock. Or not.

-chuck-