pethier@isd.net writes:
<<
The way I think the rule ought to be applied is that the entire sway-bar
SYSTEM is unrestricted, but that the existing frame and body may not be
chopped on to install the system. If it is a sway-bar system, and you can
mount it with bolts, either by clamping it to existing frame and/or
suspension members or by bolting it through either stock or created-by-you
holes, you may legally use said system on the front end of a Stock-category
car in SCCA Solo2. >>
Phil,
I would agree with you that the wording of the Stock front swaybar allowance
rule is open for some interpretation. As some SEB members have mentioned,
the rules are intentionally open-ended to some degree to cover a broad range
of applications. However, consider under your definition above that someone
could tie the swaybar brackets together with some type of singular framework
that was not originally available from the manufacturer, essentially a
strut/frame type bracing system for stiffening the chassis in this area,
which is what the original question was on the subject. IMO, this is not
what is intended in either the wording of the current rules or the overall
concept of the Stock classes, no more than any other type of strut or frame
bracing system. Consider the ruling on harness braces in Stock.
On a more subtle application of the current rule relative to the original
question, consider the 93+ RX-7TT front swaybar brackets. The swaybar pivot
bushing brackets mount to an extension bracket, that in turn mounts to the
chassis. These flimsy extension brackets flex and break over time. There
are aftermarket beefed-up braces available that fix the problem, but I would
argue that this is not legal in Stock because IMO the bracket is an extension
of the chassis, not the swaybar system. Someone could easily argue the
opposite. Thats an interpretation of not only the wording of the rule based,
but also on my view of the overall direction & concept that the SEB appears
to be maintaining in Stock (something some don't seem to consider in their
creative interpretations of the rules). I guess it would come down to an SEB
ruling. My gut feeling is that the SEB will *almost always* rule on the
conservative side of an issue. Consider the rear trunk mat clarification as
an example.
M Sipe
|