Ok, correct me in my interpretation (perhaps i'm reading what i want to
read considering my current circumstances)
At 05:30 AM 8/23/1999 -0700, Craig Blome wrote:
>==begin quote==
>13.7 Anti Roll (Sway) Bars
>A.
>Front anti-roll (sway) bars:
>...
>4. No modification to the body, frame or other
>components to accommodate anti-roll bar addition or
>substitution is allowed, except for the drilling of
>holes for mounting bolts.
>==end quote==
I read this to mean that if i do install a reinforced bracket, it would NOT
be a modification to the body (which it isn't), it would NOT be a
modification to the frame (which it isn't) nor would it be a component to
accommodate the ADDITION or substitution of a sway. All the reinforced
bracket would mean is just to beef up the current bracket to prevent it
from breaking again. And even MORE interesting is the ALLOWANCE for holes
to be drilled for mounting bolts which I would argue would support Jimmie
Edrington's idea of using LONGER bolts for the brackets. the extra long
bolts would be used to mount the swaybar bracket/bushing onto the mounting
bracket and then continue upwards to bolt into the frame, thus eliminating
any extra flex/stress in the swaybar mounting bracket.
Am i reaching? Is anyone from the protest committee available to comment?
dan pedroza
the M road
http://www.mroad.com
mailto:dan@mroad.com
tel : (512) 9 9 0 - 8 2 1 1
fax : (603) 6 9 7 - 6 3 3 6
solo dos bs 99 <><
|