From: TeamZ3@aol.com
>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.
And wouldn't change. See the rule below, which I had no intention of
changing:
==============
13.7.A.2. Substitution, addition or removal of anti-roll bars may serve
no other purpose than that of an anti-roll bar.
==============
Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that this rule pretty
effectively disallows brackets which act as frame strengtheners.
Phil Ethier Saint Paul Minnesota USA
Lotus Europa, VW Quantum Syncro, Chev Suburban
LOON, TCVWC, MAC
pethier@isd.net http://www.visi.com/mac/
|