From my understanding of the STS classification rules posted here at http://moutons.org/sccasolo/Ru...NSION, traction bars such as the JimFab units are legal. Also, it seems that replacement of rear LCA is legal as long as it has the same mounting points, such as an ITR LCA on a "pedestrian" DC2. Can anybody find any fault in my interpretation of the rules?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo rule book &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
17.8.D Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting axle or De Dion to the chassis which controls lateral suspension location) is permitted. Traction bars or torque arms may be added or replaced. A Panhard rod may be added or replaced. Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't know anything about the JimFab, but if it meets the above then you're golden. But, this rule does not allow you to break other rules (so if the JimFab unit replaces your front subframe, then it's a no-go).

I see nothing that allows replacement of rear control arms. If it doesn't explicitly say you can, then you can't.

 

Well, I'm honestly not sure about the Jimfab unit replacing the front subframe. I'll have to look into that. I was hoping the ITR LCAs would be legal under the "Camber Kit rule" F section, as long as they help correct negative camber like Todd00 says in his Koni sport seller post here https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=394462.

Here is a copy of section F from the aformentioned site:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the ITR LCA's were not designed specifically to correct camber. So maybe I'm just pipe dreaming. Perhaps the SRR rear LCAs could pass?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thirdvector &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here is a copy of section F from the aformentioned site:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the ITR LCA's were not designed specifically to correct camber. So maybe I'm just pipe dreaming. Perhaps the SRR rear LCAs could pass?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, if they change camber (and camber only, there is no allowance for other alignment changes), then I suppose they are legal. "Designed specifically to correct camber" is poorly written, as it is unenforcable. Sure, the ITR CA wasn't originally "designed specifically" for this purpose, but in your application, you could easily say it was.