So how did the meeting go?

[Dave_G]

I might suggest links are part of the sway bar (don't work without them) therefore, links should also be free.

Well, that's also the argument that I would make if I were planning to install adjustable end links under the rules as written. However, playing devil's advocate, a person might also say that the aftermarket bar and the aftermarket end links are made by different companies, purchased separately, and installed separately, and therefore are two different parts. Rather than depend on the friendliness of the judge, it might make better sense to have the rule clarified. (Next year.)

[tju-vette]

Aftermarket links cannot be used, but bushings are free. In other words, you may use any type of bushing in the stock link and remain legal in ST.

Non-stock suspension links of any type will push the car into SP.

For the record, that's the answer I was looking for, and thanks for the clarification.

BUT I'm not sure it passes the common sense test. Since Sections IX and X both state "or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component", and bushings are free as stated elsewhere, why would a fixed length link being aftermarket make a difference?

I read it as you can add any swaybar. If my car didn't have a swaybar, what do I use for links?
I might suggest links are part of the sway bar (don't work without them)
therefore, links should also be free.

That's what I thought as well. That certainly doesn't pass the common sense test.

[WillM]

Aftermarket links cannot be used, but bushings are free. In other words, you may use any type of bushing in the stock link and remain legal in ST.

Non-stock suspension links of any type will push the car into SP.

For the record, that's the answer I was looking for, and thanks for the clarification.

BUT I'm not sure it passes the common sense test. Since Sections IX and X both state "or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component", and bushings are free as stated elsewhere, why would a fixed length link being aftermarket make a difference?

Sorry, I'll clarify what I meant to say.

The section in IX and X that say "or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component" is a way of describing a "stock" part. In other words, the part (suspension arms) do not have to be made by the original manufacturer, but they must be made to OEM specifications.

Kind of like buying "stock" rotors, ball joints, body parts, etc. at NAPA

So yes, aftermarket parts can be used in ST as long as those parts meet the "identical form, fit, and function of the factory component". In my mind, that means "stock".

If the "aftermarket" part in question is an exact replica of the stock part, including material, dimensions, and weight, then yes, they would be legal.

I read it as you can add any swaybar. If my car didn't have a swaybar, what do I use for links?
I might suggest links are part of the sway bar (don't work without them)
therefore, links should also be free.

That's what I thought as well. That certainly doesn't pass the common sense test.

The fact that the rule doesn't make sense in all situations, is another reason why the rule should be updated. At the end of the day, I think we are all better served with a clear and specific rulebook. The rulebook shouldn't rely on "common sense" and subjective steward interpretations anymore than it has to.

[Stynger]

The fact that the rule doesn't make sense in all situations, is another reason why the rule should be updated. At the end of the day, I think we are all better served with a clear and specific rulebook. The rulebook shouldn't rely on "common sense" and subjective steward interpretations anymore than it has to.

Can we vote on a change on this next month?

[cuda6666]

Another example of how stupid the ST rules are. I'd be willing to bet that whoever added the verbiage about sway bars being permitted, actually intended to include the end links in the provision. But, because the ST rules are built around the concept of "if it's not in the book, you can't do it," we'll be wasting brain cells on strings like this until someone goes back and corrects the wording of the original rule so that it matches the exact intent of it's creator.

And by the way, it's ridiculous to consider control arms and sway bar end links to be analogous components that should be covered by the same rule.

And finally, before anyone chimes in with the usual "If you feel strongly about it, propose a rule change," I did.

[Grippy]

I agree with Stynger, the end links are part of the swaybar as are the swaybar bushings, therefore free. There is a big difference between the swaybar end links and adjustable control arms or links. ST is the "suspension class" so why would you not be able to use adjustable end links but you can run solid control arm bushings? That's just rediculous.

The proposed rule change was for adjustable control arm links which allow you to change the suspension geometry. A little common sense please.

[tju-vette]

The section in IX and X that say "or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component" is a way of describing a "stock" part. In other words, the part (suspension arms) do not have to be made by the original manufacturer, but they must be made to OEM specifications ... If the "aftermarket" part in question is an exact replica of the stock part, including material, dimensions, and weight, then yes, they would be legal.

That does clarify the Section IX & X statement, thanks. I don't necessarily agree with it but that's OK too. I realize that is a broad statement that has to cover many areas of the car.

The fact that the rule doesn't make sense in all situations, is another reason why the rule should be updated. At the end of the day, I think we are all better served with a clear and specific rulebook. The rulebook shouldn't rely on "common sense" and subjective steward interpretations anymore than it has to.

I would certainly agree with that.

Are rule changes only submitted once a year or can they be at any time?

[tju-vette]

The proposed rule change was for adjustable control arm links which allow you to change the suspension geometry. A little common sense please.

I never intended to lump suspension links with swaybar links. They just happened to come up at the same time and admittedly I used the "common sense" arguement for both.

I do agree that swaybar links should be lumped in with the swaybar bushings and swaybar as being "free".

I will pursue the suspension link issue as a seperate rule.

[Grippy]

Tom,

I know you didn't mean to include the end links in the discussion or in the rule proposal. My comment about the common sense refered to the notion that the end links were not part of the swaybar therefore illegal in ST.

Gordon

[DanDarcy]

The ST class is the suspension Class yet when I proposed a panhard bar be allowed, it was voted down 5-to-5. The panhard bar is a simple bolt-in options for a solid axle car to hold the axle in place. Most modern solid axle cars have a third link which holds the axle in place, my 10 year old car with a 25 year old design does not. Now I may try an adjustable swaybar with solid mounts instead of the stock one I have. I hope the links are considered part of the swaybar. Lets have some agreement on this issue before I do it.

[tju-vette]

What if the wording in sections IX & X was changed from

"or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component"

to:

"or having identical function, and functional dimensions as the factory component, without adding more adjustability"

[Stynger]

What if the wording in sections IX & X was changed from

"or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component"

to:

"or having identical function, and functional dimensions as the factory component, without adding more adjustability"

IMO not needed. The original line say's it all.

[tju-vette]

IMO not needed. The original line say's it all.

So how would you view an aftermarket part that serves the same function but perhaps looks different than a stock part? The reason I ask is because that's what I read as intended from "exact replica" below.

If the "aftermarket" part in question is an exact replica of the stock part, including material, dimensions, and weight, then yes, they would be legal.

[WillM]

Can we vote on a change on this next month?

We tabled one rule for the December meeting, so I believe that we can. Could be wrong, but what's one more (relatively simple) rule?

I was going to propose the endlinks rule, but figured it would be more productive to stir the topic a bit, and get a proposal from an ST competitor.

Propose it - if we can, we'll vote on it.

For what it is worth, I thought non-stock links would be a reasonable fit for ST and voted that way. Same with the panhard bar, though that was a slightly tougher sell. I do appreciate both sides of the discussions though.

Also, my thoughts are more in line with Dave G's, that endlinks are not part of a swaybar. Non-stock endlinks provide a new type of adjustment where one did not exist, and though its performance is directly related to the swaybar, the two are not the same. To me, that is like saying it is OK to remove a center console because it has a cup holder molded into it, and the rules allow removal of cup holders.

<devil's advocate>
To take the question to the next step, can we modify control arms to allow the use of endlinks?
</devil's advocate>

Is the endlink's mounting bracket also part of the swaybar? If we are adding a swaybar where one did not exist, and we are considering that the endlink is part of the swaybar, to what exactly do we mount the other end of the endlink (the control arm end)? The rule says "bolt on", does that mean we can bolt (not weld) an endlink bracket to the control arm? How do we bolt it on if there is no hole in the control arm? Can we drill holes in the control arm too? Oy, I have a headache. I'd much rather see a more specific rule in place than discuss these dizzying points.

Frank - I agree with many of your points. That said, ST cars are the most difficult ones to tech. I think that several rules are written in order to make the rules possible to police. At least, that is my thinking for the "or having identical form, fit, and function as the factory component" discussion above. A NAPA rotor will look just like a "Chevy" rotor, same thing with fenders, arms, ball joints, etc. This is important because at the end of the day, a competitor has to prove that "x" part is "stock", and the most reliable "proof" is within the factory manual, which ST competitors are required to provide during a tech inspection if requested by the steward.

I ran in ST for many seasons. It is a great class which captures a huge range of cars, performance modifications, and competition. It was fun to try and find creative solutions within the rules, and now that I'm in SP, there are many more options. Each year in ST, I'd suggest a rule change or two, much to the dismay of Herb and others!

The ST rules aren't perfect, but they have served the club for a while. I think it would be interesting to look at a points-based system. Perhaps it would be possible to combine ST and SP into a single "category", and revisit some safety requirements. That would take some time to develop, but could be a win in the long run. At the November meeting, Bruce mentioned that the club looked at a points system many years ago, maybe it is time we revisit. Would be nice to find a happy middle-ground to allow common "street" mods to daily drivers (turbo chips, wings, etc) without pushing those cars into SP, where rollbars and such are required. I do believe in safety first, but I can also understand why members would not want to have rollbars/cages in their daily drivers.

[rajito]

Would be nice to find a happy middle-ground to allow common "street" mods to daily drivers (turbo chips, wings, etc) without pushing those cars into SP, where rollbars and such are required.

Will, I agree with all your points, but I hope you aren't proposing allowing boost increase (which most turbo chips have, unless explicitly tuned otherwise) in ST. It would unfair to non-turbo cars, unless the turbos were moved up one class from SS.

That is, if we allow boost mods in ST, an SSA car would land in ST1 instead of ST2.

Raj