Results 1 to 20 of 56

Thread: 1st Gen RX7 rear lower links

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Castro Valley, CA
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Good conversation, and an example of what is wrong with the SCCA rules process. The conservative interpretation of the GCR tells us that it is legal to take a lower trailing arm/traction bar from a junk yard, remove a rubber bushing, and replace it with some precision machined sleeves and spherical bearings. But it is not legal to buy a readily available piece (circle track radius rod), that does exactly the same funtion as the heavily modified piece, costs less, and is easier to implement.
    Doesn't this sound like the ECU rule? Or the Coil over rule?
    Instead of focusing on liberal vs conservative interpretation, shouldn't we focus on updating a 30+ year old rule?

    Let's go back to the intent of the IT rules. What was the intent of the original traction bar rule? I believe it was to enable solid axle cars to be lowered safely to the limits of the rules (and by safe I mean both reliability and functionally--a car that spits out drive shaft U-joints is not safe; neither is a car that has snap oversteer because of a bind or bottoming issue). Consider the rules allowance for cars of the time with semi-trailing arms (BMW 2002 and Datsun 510)--they are allowed to slot the trailing arm mounting points to correct camber and toe when the car is lowered. This is consistent with safely lowering the car per the definition above. Similarly, most of the solid axle cars of the day had axles located by leaf springs only. A means of lateral location was necessary for functional safety (predictable handling)--hence the panhard rule.

    We would serve ourselves much better to develop basic intent of what the rules should be, rather than bickering about the rear suspension links of a now out dated and uncompetitive IT car. The ITAC took the first steps when they rewrote the overall class intent statement a few years ago. We need to help them help us by developing consensus on a reasonable list of high level intent. What is the intent of suspension modifications? What is the intent of chassis stripping? What is the intent of engine modifications? Stuff for a new thread...

    Tak
    #29 ITA (an Rx-7)
    SFR, SCCA
    And yes, my car has 5 traction bars locating the rear axle.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Wauwatosa, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    ***And yes, my car has 5 traction bars locating the rear axle.***

    Mine did also. Two traction bars with foam bushings & three traction bars with adjustable rod ends. No one wrote paper, they looked, they smiled & they walked away thinking
    Have Fun ; )
    David Dewhurst
    CenDiv Milwaukee Region
    Spec Miata #14

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Currently Tak, the rules allow you to take your stock arms and tack weld in spherical bearings, you don't have to machine cassettes or sleeves. In this circumstance, you do need some high clearance spacers, as i think you know.

    Now, it is not legal to just add rod ends to the existing links after lopping off the ends.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •