would these be legal?

[Charles Perry]

Would these be legal tension rods? Same pick up points nothing else changes?

[Knestis]

Nope.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would these be legal tension rods? Same pick up points nothing else changes?

So lets teach a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish.

Charles, what rule would you be citing that would make you think they were legal?

[Knestis]

Sorry there, Mr. Socrates.

K

[TomL]

Well, if Charles had a front wheel drive car, he might be able to sneak them in under the "traction bar" allowance. Seriously. Same way that three-link suspensions got to be "legal" on 1st gen RX-7s that were designed with 4-links.

If I recall correctly, Kirk, weren't you the one that made the case that heim-jointed rear suspension links could be links installed under that same loophole?

Not saying that I think this is the way it should be, but I think that under previous precedent, the tension rods could be deemed legal as "traction bars", at least for FWD cars. The problem is the poorly written definition of traction bars.

[CRallo]

Traction bars may be added... The rule reads something like that. It does not allow the removal of anything. On the rear drive cars, no links are removed. Some people don't even believe in air bushings so they use foam. lol

[TomL]

"...traction bar(s)... may be added, removed, or substituted". I'd say you can still drive a lot of stuff through that loophole. You're just substituting one "traction bar" (the OEM tension rod) for another (the aftermarket part).

[Knestis]

Well, if Charles had a front wheel drive car, he might be able to sneak them in under the "traction bar" allowance. Seriously. Same way that three-link suspensions got to be "legal" on 1st gen RX-7s that were designed with 4-links.

If I recall correctly, Kirk, weren't you the one that made the case that heim-jointed rear suspension links could be links installed under that same loophole?

Not saying that I think this is the way it should be, but I think that under previous precedent, the tension rods could be deemed legal as "traction bars", at least for FWD cars. The problem is the poorly written definition of traction bars.

Negative, Ghost Rider.

We can't just go making stuff up willy-nilly. It takes a helpful rules-writer to tee up the creep opportunities, and in most cases the goodies are all in the definitions. The RX7 gets its mojo from:

Traction Bar – A longitudinal link to an axle housing or hub carrier which
resists torque reaction from the driven wheel(s) by acting in compression
or tension (2011 GCR)

...helped in large measure by the gimme that suspension bushing material is free.

Does the link in the picture meet the requirements in the definition above...?

The trick I like is allowed by the same rule but again, requires a useful GCR definition of "anti-roll bar" - that and VW's use of one of those in lieu of real rear suspension.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still waiting for Charles to speak up. Don't do his homework for him, yet.

[JeffYoung]

What's a "hub carrier?"

If I recall correctly these things go from the lower a-arm that "carries" the front hub on a Z car, to the fire wall.

I don't think they are legal either but I'm trying to sort through some argument that they are.

[spawpoet]

What's a "hub carrier?"

If I recall correctly these things go from the lower a-arm that "carries" the front hub on a Z car, to the fire wall.

I don't think they are legal either but I'm trying to sort through some argument that they are.

The provision in the definition that would preclude calling this a traction bar on a Z is that a traction bar has to resist torque on a driven wheel, and the Datsun is RWD.

[Charles Perry]

did not mean to post and run but have been busy. First, no mention of tension rods in the rules, so if it's not there it probably can not be changed. Honestly I scanned the rules quickly after seeing these and posted, did not really get deep into the rules, hence my post. Thought it would be very clear either yes or no! I am out again in a second, so Andy, please set me straight!

[240zdave]

GCR 9.1.3.C says "Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer."

I don't see anything in the Chassis (9.1.3.5) section to contradict the above.

[Mike Mackaman]

If I am not mistaken, these are aluminum replacement parts for the stock steel piece. That would be problematic. I have seen people use the stock part, turn it down for a longer shank, thread it deeper and then use the spherical bearing holder. Now you are only changing the bushing material, and it is free. Minor mods to allow the use, but that allows for adjustment of the alignment, so it should be allowed as well. To me the bad part is the material substitution. And the fact that they are red, aren't illegal parts supposed to be flat black?

Mike

[240zdave]

And the fact that they are red, aren't illegal parts supposed to be flat black?

Mike

Damn it, man! Now you tell me. I'm going to have to buy some flat black paint. All of my illiegal parts are the wrong color!

[pballance]

You had better get to painting Dave. Just get the car finished and on track and then we can all sling paper on you

Mike has the right idea to do it legally. I vote that what Charles posted won't fly, period even with rules intorturation.

Just use these:


as a pattern to machine a sleeve to capture a spherical on the end of threaded rod of the OEM part. If you have to cuts some additional threads or machine a lip to allow the capture of the spherical I would think you would be fine.

Either way I don't think there is enough to gain by spending the $$$ and time (which = $$$) to go beyond the $29.00 kit in the photo. But then again I run mid pack so maybe I should start spending more $$$$

Paul

[Ron Earp]

I have a brand new set of those I might be able to sell you if you need. They work fine.

R

[JeffYoung]

Good point.

So, not a traction arm and not a direct aftermarket replacement.

Charles, sorry man, but I don't see a way to argue they are legal.

It is kinda weird how much we can do to the suspension in the rear and things like this are prohibited up front. You should see what I have under the rear of the TR8 now......

The provision in the definition that would preclude calling this a traction bar on a Z is that a traction bar has to resist torque on a driven wheel, and the Datsun is RWD.

[Charles Perry]

thanks guys, figured it was not legal but wanted to toss it out there anyway! Will do more homework next time before posting!

[JeffYoung]

No worries, don't hestitate to post. Helps us all when we work through things here on the board.