Bill Miller
New member
Not the way the rule is currently written.
Front susupension stayrod
- Thread starter keycom
- Start date
Not the way the rule is currently written.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Just to add confusion.......
GCR definition of a stayrod:
and the ITCS rule:
And from Websters:
Rod:
OK.
So, now, some questions.
GCR definition of a stayrod:
and the ITCS rule:
And from Websters:
Rod:
Bar:
OK.
So, now, some questions.
- I have a strut tower support made with two 1/8" plates welded to the strut tower and attached to each other with a 1" .125" wall tube. Legal? or not, and why or why not?
- I have the same thing, but mounted between the lower control arms. (Essentially one attachment point per side, a plate welded to the chassis) Same questions.
- Same thing, but this time, it's in the form of an X, with gussets, and mounted between the lower control arms. (4 mounting points) (The control arms have two inboard bushings each)
- Same thing, (in the form of an X, with gussets) but this time the control arms have one bushing, and there is a drag link (A suspension locating device that blots to the outer end of the lower control arm and pivots at a forward point, approx 20" forward and 10" inward of the outer ball joint)to the front.
shwah
New member
The use of singular 'stayrod', 'bar' and 'rod' in the GCR suggests a single structural member.
However, welded together into one peice, the owner of the Eurosport part will argue that it is a single member. It is one peice, but it is comprised of 4 (or 6) structural members.
If what is meant in the GCR is a stayrod with two connection points to the chassis, that is what should be written. However, this would also affect many upper suspension stayrods, as it is common to have a forked end that bolts to the top of the strut tower in front of and behind the upper strut bearing on either side.
I think this is grey enough for reasonable racers to come up with different interpretations at this point. Knowing that Raffi, the owner of Eurosport Accessories is (or was) an IT racer, reinforces that, as he clearly beleives the part complies with IT rules.
However, welded together into one peice, the owner of the Eurosport part will argue that it is a single member. It is one peice, but it is comprised of 4 (or 6) structural members.
If what is meant in the GCR is a stayrod with two connection points to the chassis, that is what should be written. However, this would also affect many upper suspension stayrods, as it is common to have a forked end that bolts to the top of the strut tower in front of and behind the upper strut bearing on either side.
I think this is grey enough for reasonable racers to come up with different interpretations at this point. Knowing that Raffi, the owner of Eurosport Accessories is (or was) an IT racer, reinforces that, as he clearly beleives the part complies with IT rules.
Bill Miller
New member
Interesting questions Jake. My initial response was "Nope, you can't weld them on." But the more I thought about it, I said "Why not?" There's nothing that specifies the method of attachment, so sure, why not weld them?
My contention is that the 'X' works, if you've got four suspension attachment points. Not quite sure what you're driving at w/ the drag link.
Also not sure why you included the definitions from other than the GCR. Those definitions to have a couple of interesting terms in them. One being 'straight', and the other being 'solid'. If you want to use those definitions, I guess you're saying that all bars need to be straight, and not have any bends in them, as well as not having something like a heim joint attached to the end to facilitate mounting.
Chris,
You hit on it w.r.t. the upper mount. Most of the bolt-on ones that I've seen have at least 2 bolts, per side, so I don't think you can restrict it to two points (although, I can see someone arguing that it doesn't matter how many bolts, it is just using multiple fasteners to attach to one point, I don't buy that, but I can see that line of thinking).
David,
Like I said, you could make that 'X' out of a single, continuous piece of tubing, with mounting points attached to it. Nowhere do it say that the mounting points have to be attached to the end of the rod. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about the mounting points, just that you can attach the piece to the car, at the specified location(s). Think about what George always says.
Just what is that comment supposed to mean David?
My contention is that the 'X' works, if you've got four suspension attachment points. Not quite sure what you're driving at w/ the drag link.
Also not sure why you included the definitions from other than the GCR. Those definitions to have a couple of interesting terms in them. One being 'straight', and the other being 'solid'. If you want to use those definitions, I guess you're saying that all bars need to be straight, and not have any bends in them, as well as not having something like a heim joint attached to the end to facilitate mounting.
Chris,
You hit on it w.r.t. the upper mount. Most of the bolt-on ones that I've seen have at least 2 bolts, per side, so I don't think you can restrict it to two points (although, I can see someone arguing that it doesn't matter how many bolts, it is just using multiple fasteners to attach to one point, I don't buy that, but I can see that line of thinking).
David,
Like I said, you could make that 'X' out of a single, continuous piece of tubing, with mounting points attached to it. Nowhere do it say that the mounting points have to be attached to the end of the rod. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about the mounting points, just that you can attach the piece to the car, at the specified location(s). Think about what George always says.
Dam, I would like to get into this legality discussion except that real quick the moderators will show up& then it don't mean shit how anyone else understands the rules.
[/b]
Just what is that comment supposed to mean David?
***Think about what George always says.***
The one thing I always respect George for was the large pinch of common sense he used on a regular basis. Need I say some of the moderators who have ganged up have lost the pinch of common sense.
Bill, not taking the bait with the question.
The one thing I always respect George for was the large pinch of common sense he used on a regular basis. Need I say some of the moderators who have ganged up have lost the pinch of common sense.
Bill, not taking the bait with the
question.Bill Miller
New member
David,
I happen to be one of the moderators here, and I don't like what you're implying. The ONLY thing I've ever used my moderator privileges for is to remove spam posts. You want to shoot your mouth off, that's fine with me, but don't imply that I've used my position as a moderator here to try and sway anyone's opinion or censor anything that anyone has had to say.
You've known me long enough to know that I'm a straight shooter, and that if you're going to float bullshit like that out there, you better expect to get called on it.
And you want to talk common sense when it comes to the rules? You mean like the common sense that allowed people to stuff a MoTec inside their stock ECU box? I didn't think so. Don't get pissed at someone because they see a way to meet the rule that you didn't see. And if you don't like the way the rule is written, work to get it changed. Something like this is probably like spherical bearings as suspension bushings, it could go either way. Point is, that design meets the current letter of the rules.
I happen to be one of the moderators here, and I don't like what you're implying. The ONLY thing I've ever used my moderator privileges for is to remove spam posts. You want to shoot your mouth off, that's fine with me, but don't imply that I've used my position as a moderator here to try and sway anyone's opinion or censor anything that anyone has had to say.
You've known me long enough to know that I'm a straight shooter, and that if you're going to float bullshit like that out there, you better expect to get called on it.
And you want to talk common sense when it comes to the rules? You mean like the common sense that allowed people to stuff a MoTec inside their stock ECU box? I didn't think so. Don't get pissed at someone because they see a way to meet the rule that you didn't see. And if you don't like the way the rule is written, work to get it changed. Something like this is probably like spherical bearings as suspension bushings, it could go either way. Point is, that design meets the current letter of the rules.
***I happen to be one of the moderators here, and I don't like what you're implying. The ONLY thing I've ever used my moderator privileges for is to remove spam posts. You want to shoot your mouth off, that's fine with me, but don't imply that I've used my position as a moderator here to try and sway anyone's opinion or censor anything that anyone has had to say.***
Bill, I said "SOME of the moderators have ganged up". Usually a rat smells his own hole first. < That is mothing off.
***David,
Like I said, you could make that 'X' out of a single, continuous piece of tubing, with mounting points attached to it. Nowhere do it say that the mounting points have to be attached to the end of the rod. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about the mounting points, just that you can attach the piece to the car, at the specified location(s).***
Bill, this ^ is FLOATING BULLSHIT IMHU of the rules. I will not use the word intent but I'll use the word common sense. There was a day on this site when common sense was valued & way to many people have lost site of common sense. The sad part being they think working around the rules will propell them to the sharp end with wins.
Continue the arguenment
David
Bill, I said "SOME of the moderators have ganged up". Usually a rat smells his own hole first. < That is mothing off.
***David,
Like I said, you could make that 'X' out of a single, continuous piece of tubing, with mounting points attached to it. Nowhere do it say that the mounting points have to be attached to the end of the rod. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about the mounting points, just that you can attach the piece to the car, at the specified location(s).***
Bill, this ^ is FLOATING BULLSHIT IMHU of the rules. I will not use the word intent but I'll use the word common sense. There was a day on this site when common sense was valued & way to many people have lost site of common sense. The sad part being they think working around the rules will propell them to the sharp end with wins.
Continue the arguenment
David
shwah
New member
David, what would you expect racers to do?
I can tell you for sure that I will do everything that I can within the rules as they are written to win, and I expect nothing less from my competitors. I fully understand that this leads to unintended consequenses coming out of well intentioned allowances. However, this is racing, and that is the nature of the beast. The only way to counter the 'creep' that will naturally occur is the refine the wording of said allowance to make it match the 'intent' of the rule - IF it is deemed detrimental to the class (and this IF requires a very long range view of the consequences).
I went into this conversation thinking the eurosport part in question was not legal. After reading Bill's posts and looking at the words in the rule, I beleive that it may in fact be legal per the written rule. Now if someone wants to chime in and let me know how this will ruin IT because the rule wasn't intended to allow such a part, go ahead, but it would be just as easy to argue that NO stayrods should be allowed as they do not fit the stated intent of IT allowed modifications to make a car safe to race. Under that argument the allowance itself is just another example of dreaded rules creep.
The value in a conversation like this is that we can identify implementations of a specific allowance that may not have been expected, and apply that information in future rule writing (or re-writing) to improve the correlation between intended and real consequences. It won't ever be nailed down completely, but we can teach ourselves to be more specific, even when it seems not required, and reduce leeway down the road by paying attention to these evolutions of existing allowances.
I know not everyone agrees with me, but I also consider part of our competition to be in the engineering and building of a competitive car, and the key to that is to find advantages everywhere you can within the written rules, especially where others don't see them. This is not a spec class and there is some room for injenuity. It is also not Production, and we need to restrict injenuity well below their levels. It ain't an easy line to walk. Maybe this is why, as dysfunctional as it is, I still see myself converting my car to Prod some day (I'm not a professional driver, but I am a professional engineer - gotta take advantage of your strengths).
I can tell you for sure that I will do everything that I can within the rules as they are written to win, and I expect nothing less from my competitors. I fully understand that this leads to unintended consequenses coming out of well intentioned allowances. However, this is racing, and that is the nature of the beast. The only way to counter the 'creep' that will naturally occur is the refine the wording of said allowance to make it match the 'intent' of the rule - IF it is deemed detrimental to the class (and this IF requires a very long range view of the consequences).
I went into this conversation thinking the eurosport part in question was not legal. After reading Bill's posts and looking at the words in the rule, I beleive that it may in fact be legal per the written rule. Now if someone wants to chime in and let me know how this will ruin IT because the rule wasn't intended to allow such a part, go ahead, but it would be just as easy to argue that NO stayrods should be allowed as they do not fit the stated intent of IT allowed modifications to make a car safe to race. Under that argument the allowance itself is just another example of dreaded rules creep.
The value in a conversation like this is that we can identify implementations of a specific allowance that may not have been expected, and apply that information in future rule writing (or re-writing) to improve the correlation between intended and real consequences. It won't ever be nailed down completely, but we can teach ourselves to be more specific, even when it seems not required, and reduce leeway down the road by paying attention to these evolutions of existing allowances.
I know not everyone agrees with me, but I also consider part of our competition to be in the engineering and building of a competitive car, and the key to that is to find advantages everywhere you can within the written rules, especially where others don't see them. This is not a spec class and there is some room for injenuity. It is also not Production, and we need to restrict injenuity well below their levels. It ain't an easy line to walk. Maybe this is why, as dysfunctional as it is, I still see myself converting my car to Prod some day (I'm not a professional driver, but I am a professional engineer - gotta take advantage of your strengths).
lateapex911
Super Moderator
OK, go back and re read the rules and defs.
Here is some food for thought: My comments in bold italics.
Question:
When you think of a strut bar, or a stayrod, does the one pictured in post # 6 match what you think the rules writers were intending? (I ask to get opinions, not to lead the answer in any way)
Here is some food for thought: My comments in bold italics.
Question:
When you think of a strut bar, or a stayrod, does the one pictured in post # 6 match what you think the rules writers were intending? (I ask to get opinions, not to lead the answer in any way)
Bill Miller
New member
"What the rule writers were intending"?
Doesn't really matter, now does it Jake? Do you think that the people the wrote the original rule that opened the door on the ECUs intended for people to be able to stuff a MoTec in there?
Once rules get codified, it really doesn't matter what the people that wrote them were thinking.
Doesn't really matter, now does it Jake? Do you think that the people the wrote the original rule that opened the door on the ECUs intended for people to be able to stuff a MoTec in there?
Once rules get codified, it really doesn't matter what the people that wrote them were thinking.
Bill Miller
New member
Actually David, you said the moderators. And I'd expect a better back pedal from you.
QFT
Renaultfool
New member
I believe that the rules say that you can modify the tops of the towers to install chamber plates. In that case the way is clear to cut and weld.
I do not see any allowence for that in the stay rod rule. I think that you would have to bolt it to the suspension mounting points, bolts as it were.
If you have 4 suspension mounting points on the lower arm, such is in cars with a wide A arm where it mounts to the chassis you might be able to make the argument that you could use either set of points, but the rule specifys "one" stay rod. The "one" would not have been important in the rule if multiple rods welded together met the criteria.
I believe that if it connects to anything other than the suspension pivot points it would be illegal. If it connects to more than two suspension pivot points it would be illegal. Just my opinion.
Lets look at it in a different way. I think I remember a Ford being protested for using the optional cowl brace that only came on the high performance models because it connected the strut towers, legal, but also to the firewall, and was considered illegal.
A "rod" being a system of tubes welded together in a configuration that is something other than a straight line is very creative!
Carl
I do not see any allowence for that in the stay rod rule. I think that you would have to bolt it to the suspension mounting points, bolts as it were.
If you have 4 suspension mounting points on the lower arm, such is in cars with a wide A arm where it mounts to the chassis you might be able to make the argument that you could use either set of points, but the rule specifys "one" stay rod. The "one" would not have been important in the rule if multiple rods welded together met the criteria.
I believe that if it connects to anything other than the suspension pivot points it would be illegal. If it connects to more than two suspension pivot points it would be illegal. Just my opinion.
Lets look at it in a different way. I think I remember a Ford being protested for using the optional cowl brace that only came on the high performance models because it connected the strut towers, legal, but also to the firewall, and was considered illegal.
A "rod" being a system of tubes welded together in a configuration that is something other than a straight line is very creative!
Carl
Bill Miller
New member
Carl,
If you take 'one' in context, it's related to where you can mount them. In this case, the singularity means that you can't have one between the lower points AND one between the strut towers.
And nowhere does it say that you can only use two attachment points for the lower member. It says 'between the lower suspension mounting points". That means exactly what it says. And if you want to restrict it to a 'straight line', you just tossed out anything that has a bend to it. And if the multiple tubes welded together is getting you, as I said before, you could bend the thing up out of a single piece, and then add the attachment points.
If you take 'one' in context, it's related to where you can mount them. In this case, the singularity means that you can't have one between the lower points AND one between the strut towers.
And nowhere does it say that you can only use two attachment points for the lower member. It says 'between the lower suspension mounting points". That means exactly what it says. And if you want to restrict it to a 'straight line', you just tossed out anything that has a bend to it. And if the multiple tubes welded together is getting you, as I said before, you could bend the thing up out of a single piece, and then add the attachment points.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
OK, To follow that train of thought, Bill, what if I took the unit in post 6, added some sections that ran diagonally upwards from the mounting corners and were wedged and locked into/under special camber plate brackets? (Since the camber plate is free)(not welded or bolted, but secured ingeniously, this would be legal as they wouldn't be "connected") Of course, they'd be designed to miss the engine, etc, but now you'd have a connection between the upper strut mounts and the lower suspension mounts of the opposite side as well as between the opposing lower points.
If I'm reading you correctly, this would be legal too, right?
If I'm reading you correctly, this would be legal too, right?
Bill you are 50% correct. How's that for back pedaling. 
I made two post within this thread. In the first post I said "the moderators will show up" & in the second post I said "some of the moderators". End that discussion with a half loss to each. 
GCR Glossary
Stayrod- A rigid reinforcement BAR or ROD interconnecting opposite sides of a car at structurally significant locations. Now PLEASE lets now get into the definition debate about "structurally significant locations".
Two key words within the rule are BAR or ROD...................
When I consult Websters there is a definition of BAR & ROD.
BAR:
Any piece of wood, metal, ect. longer than it is wide or thick,
ROD:
Any straight or almost straight, stick, shaft, bar, staff, ect., of wood, metal, or other material.
IMHU using the rule & Websters a stayrod is a one piece BAR or ROD. When more than one piece is added to each other it will not be called a one piece BAR or ROD.
Continue the Fun
David
I made two post within this thread. In the first post I said "the moderators will show up" & in the second post I said "some of the moderators". End that discussion with a half loss to each. GCR Glossary
Stayrod- A rigid reinforcement BAR or ROD interconnecting opposite sides of a car at structurally significant locations. Now PLEASE lets now get into the definition debate about "structurally significant locations".
Two key words within the rule are BAR or ROD...................
When I consult Websters there is a definition of BAR & ROD.
BAR:
Any piece of wood, metal, ect. longer than it is wide or thick,
ROD:
Any straight or almost straight, stick, shaft, bar, staff, ect., of wood, metal, or other material.
IMHU using the rule & Websters a stayrod is a one piece BAR or ROD. When more than one piece is added to each other it will not be called a one piece BAR or ROD.
Continue the Fun
David
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Looks like David has my posts on "Ignore"...