Front Anti-Roll Bars


Since we now allow smaller front sway bars, why not allow them to be adjustable? They effectively are adjustable under the current rules…you just need to change the whole bar. I propose changing the rule from: An unmodified non-adjustable front anti-roll bar, 22mm at the largest cylindrical point and an unmodified adjustable rear anti-roll bar, 19mm at the largest cylindrical point are permitted.

To: An unmodified adjustable front anti-roll bar, 22mm at the largest cylindrical point and an unmodified adjustable rear anti-roll bar, 19mm at the largest cylindrical point are permitted.


The rule allows only a 22mm sway in the front and only a 19mm sway bar in the rear. I dont think we should start getting into any more adjustability than the current sway bars give via the end links.


Let me try to help by providing the history of how we got to the current rule.

Obviously OEM sway bars are little wimpy things. The original SpecE30 rule, I think unchanged from it’s inception to Dec17, was intended to limit the size of the sways to 19/22. That was written with the assumption that everyone wanted stiffer sways, so it was targeted at the guy scheming re. how to do oversize bars. Since our cars were under-sprung, it was a reasonable assumption, imo.

The rule did not attempt to restrict smaller sway bars, because it was (prob accurately) assumed that smaller sways would be a disadvantage so no one would bother.,

We had some issues in 2017 Champ events (Sebring only?). This is 2nd hand so I might not have all the facts exactly right. There was an attempt to measure sways at Impound to confirm that they were legit. But it was found that measuring them was actually a little tricky. If the “can’t exceed” is 22m, what do you do when the dia at a bend exceeds that? Sure, that seems silly, but ask around re. Valvegate and you’ll understand that this sort of " no one would care" thing can have serious consequences.

There was a perception that the rule needed clarity re. how to make the measurement. So Shawn put in verbage that referenced “largest cylindrical point”.

Fast forward to today and our new springs. It is not necessarily a given anymore that stiff sways are good, so maybe someone might want to adjust the front bar weaker by installing a thinner bar. And now the rule seems to allow that, even it that wasn’t the intent.

Personally, I would be against additional adjustability. More adjustabilityadds complexity. It rewards those with the time and money to do additional testing of suspension adjustments. My thought is that we should just fix the wording to more closely reflect what was intended…the front bar needs to be 22mm.


Well, let’s clarify the rule then so that some folks don’t go out and buy/test/use softer bars. Theoretically, I could change a front bar to say a 19mm bar if the forecast called for rain. I would never bother, but maybe some more competitive, higher-budget folks might be inclined to do so at the Nationals.


I agree, and you’ve done everyone a service spotting the issue. But pls be patient and give Shawn time to address it. I’m a reliable source of hot air, but my actual authority is not an inch more than the SE guys allow me from month to month as their mouth piece(*).

(*) Try not to imagine sexual connotation there, no matter the temptation. I flat-ass couldn’t come up with a better way to say that.



I need to wash my eyes out now. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


I needed a word that implied that it was the group of SE racers that made the decisions as to how their group runs. I’m just the guy that articulates what they want, and organizes things behind the scenes. And writes lots of long emails that make people’s eyes glaze over.