Rear Control Arms???

[Speed Raycer]

Just wanted to get IT.com's views on something that I saw on another site about rear control arms...

In a nutshell, here are the arms:

and another version:

[/b]

which another poster posted a parts list here:

Steel Swaged tube:

Swaged Steel Tubes: 5-8 SWAGE TUBE 17 IN 36187 14.95 59.80
Rod Ends: 1 2 X 5 8 MALE LH EML8-10 8.95 35.80
Rod Ends: 1 2 X 5 8 MALE RH EMR810 8.95 35.80
Lefthander Jam Nuts: 5-8 JAM NUT RH 0823105 0.85 3.40
Lefthander Jam Nuts: 5-8 JAM NUT LH 0823105L 0.85 3.40
Total 138.20 [/b]

and goes on to state:

BTW: the $138 option I posted above are installed on four SCCA ITA winning racecars. I will admit they are the lowest cost option and you should use a seals-it on the rod ends, but they work great.[/b]

Legal??!!!????! IMO (which is not really all that educated on the suspension rules) the only bar that could be done w/ rod ends would be the fore/aft bar that goes to the bottom of the hub that might be considered a traction bar.

[JeffYoung]

Argued at length in a Mazda thread I think. Ddewhurst has them (the control arms); his contention is they are traction arms and are free. Others disagree. Do a search; you should find it.

[Speed Raycer]

Hrmmmm.... hadn't thought of the old 1st Gen RX7 control arm/traction arm debate. Shame on me since I'm coming from a 1st gen rx7

[Greg Amy]

...his contention is they are traction arms and are free. Others disagree. Do a search; you should find it.[/b]

If that's the case, I've got some significant improvements in mind for the NX...

<_<

[lateapex911]

The Mazda thread discussed logitudinal devices. These are lateral locating devices. Simply put, if I saw these on a car, the owner would really need to open my eyes...or the paper would fly fast. In other words, to my eye, clearly illegal.

However, I&#39;d LOVE t hear a well founded opinion in favor.....

[mlytle]

concur..clearly illegal.

it they were legal every e36 bmw out there would have an adjustable lower rear control arm put in to replace the cheesy failure prone stock part....

darwin may come into play on the car in the last picture. love the bends around the pretty exhaust. can anyone guess how the failure wil occur in a hard right hander?

[JeffYoung]

I thought pics 3 and 4 were longitudinal? Or am I seeing it wrong?

Isn&#39;t the argument for laterals stronger though? Equivalent of a panhard rod or watts link?

Either way, I think both are illegal but let&#39;s hear the competing opinion again.

[Gary L]

I thought pics 3 and 4 were longitudinal? Or am I seeing it wrong?

Isn&#39;t the argument for laterals stronger though? Equivalent of a panhard rod or watts link?
[/b]

I think you&#39;re seeing the pics wrong... aren&#39;t the first 4 pics of the same car?

FWIW I wouldn&#39;t agree with your panhard rod or watts link equivalency:

Panhard Rod - Despite our somewhat weak definition in the GCR glossary, I&#39;ve never heard of that device as being applicable to anything but a solid axle suspension. The pics in this case seem to indicate we&#39;re working with struts (ergo independent suspension), right?

Watts link - By definition, it cannot be a watts link without a bellcrank, and there is no such animal in sight.

In any case, I&#39;m with you on the legality aspect. My opinion would be these are lower control arms (sorry... I&#39;m not buying the "lateral traction bars" argument), and there is no allowance to monkey with lower control arms.

[ddewhurst]

Per the rule are they:

Anti-roll bars, Nope.

Traction bars, Nope.

Panhard bar, Nope.

I ain&#39;t going through the 4 link 1st gen RX-7 longitutal location/traction bars again, Yup. Oh, "Yup" means IMHU of the rules they are legal.

Have Fun
David

[Ron Earp]

BTW: the $138 option I posted above are installed on four SCCA ITA winning racecars. I will admit they are the lowest cost option and you should use a seals-it on the rod ends, but they work great.[/b]

Shouldn&#39;t be too hard to find out who these people are that are running around with these parts.

The anodized blue bars look like tubular lower control arms to me. Are tubular parts stock on the car in question?

If not then those are purely illegal. And illegal as installed on "FOUR SCCA ITA winning cars". If I were in ITA I&#39;d be looking under some "SCCA ITA winning cars".

[Speed Raycer]

Thanks for the responses guys.

FYI, the arms in question are from a 1st Gen Neon. All 4 of the 1st pics are of the same car. The blue ones are just shown for a better pic of the setup and the only longitudinal arm.

I went through one of the other control arm topics here, but never saw a pic posted of the Suzuki Swift arms in question. I&#39;ll try and dig up a pic of the stock setup and see how they differ.

[lateapex911]

What forum did you find them on? does the owner know they are as illegal as counterfeit money?

[Rabbit07]

They are not Legal. However I know of a few Neons out there that have them. I am not blowing the whistle on anyone, you know who you are. The stock piece is tubular and I have looked into installing sphericals in them, but there is an issue with the size of the bushing openning verse the fastener size. Now with the RX-7 or in my case the Mustang traction bars, totally legal the way I read the rule.

[Gary L]

What forum did you find them on? does the owner know they are as illegal as counterfeit money? [/b]

Here&#39;s a link to the thread. Warning!!! This link does NOT take you to a friendly, family-oriented, forum.

http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?t=304950

The statement concerning ITA cars is about 20 posts in.

[Ron Earp]

Well, the guy that makes a post about the arms being on the SCCA cars has a link in his signature to this car:

http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?t=29...der=asc&start=0

So I suppose this is one of them huh?

[Speed Raycer]

LOL.... you guys are good!

[Ron Earp]

Says he is Mike V from Schlitterbahn, TX. Page three of the thread has pictures of him with the ITA Neon.

[mbuskuhl]

Says he is Mike V from Schlitterbahn, TX. Page three of the thread has pictures of him with the ITA Neon.
[/b]

Yep, haven&#39;t met him but did trade some posts on a NASA forum. Eyeing the new competition, I saw all those Neons at the SCCA school earlier this month but I did not personally meet Mike. They plan to run NASA PT and ITA as NASA SN was done away with. If he shows up later this month at our R/R I&#39;ll be sure to look a little closer at these cars. I do know he will be at a race in March.

Quoting Mike from his SN post... "It&#39;s all about perception, if nothing looks out of place nothing is."

Hmm, I&#39;m sure some local ITA drivers will be writing some protests.

[IPRESS]

Mark,
If you know how to contact him you should give him a heads up to this forum and that he probably should fix it BEFORE he runs ITA. (Could he run ITE with you?) I guess in PT it would just move him class wise. I don&#39;t know how picky the guys running SWDIV IT have been this past year as I only ran a couple of events, but that type stuff might draw a little bit of concern.
Mac

[lateapex911]

I read a post where "Mike V" was showing off an aluminum motor mount that he had bead blasted, then painted black...."so nobody will notice". It was pointed out that it is a legal part (update/backdate) and he responded with the above mentioned quote. Reminds me of the VW Vortex dude who bragged about his &#39;battery in a battery&#39; (sourced a "demo...[empty] case from Autozone)..lighter weight, you know, but it was pointed out to him that his DE or TT class allowed battery moves or mods....that made for some interesting internet backpedaling.

Somehow, when people start talking about "Drawing no attention", I get nervous, LOL.

But it&#39;s truly funny when people go WAY out of their way to pull off some sneaky (and often insignificant) cheat and then we find out the weren&#39;t bright enough to read the rulebook to find out it&#39;s actually legal. Accck!

He has also got system for live engine telemtry, F1 style. Interesting.