[Jeff Lee]

This issue is really no different than the long-standing rule that allows for the replacement of biscuit rubber bushings with those of solid metal material such as aluminum or steel. Those applications include frame to body bushings in vehicles such as 1st & 2nd Generation Camaro's / Firebirds, Nova, etc. Why would NHRA allow for the replacement of those body bushings? Obviously NHRA understands these are race cars, not streets of New York street cars.

You have to ask what a rubber bushing is for on a vehicle. Is it something there to make the car function better (or worse) or is it something to do with ride harshness, vibration and functionality on various road conditions?
The body bushings obviously are made for ride and comfort compliance. NHRA allows the replacement of body bushings with solid metal bushings.

Strut rod bushings are no different. The are designed to flex under varying road conditions and provide isolation of the suspension from the rest of the vehicle. There is little, if any (I'm at a loss to think of any performance advantage), reason to replace strut rod bushings with some other attachment that does not use rubber bushings. There is a myriad of ways around the rubber bushings but the bottom line is; why would a racer eliminate the rubber bushing? It is simple. A more solid method of attaching the strut rod (which holds the lower control arm in compliance to the suspension travel), allows for better fore & aft control of the lower control arm from point "A" to point "B" of the drag-strip. This includes the movement from the starting line, wheel-stands if applicable, traveling the length of the track (and no track is lazer straight), and finally, hitting the brakes at the conclusion of the race. Obviously the most extreme focal points of the strut rod are wheelies and heavy breaking. Heavy breaking can be either to avoid a potential break-out Or in the instance of accident avoidance. Either way, the strut-rod bushing takers a beating. Obviously the results of heavy breaking and breaking a strut rod support will cause disastrous results to the vehicle. And quite possible the opponent and even the spectators.

Now, in the interest of the rule as presently defined, this leaves the racer with a few choices. He can use poly type bushings which are less compliant than OEM rubber bushings. This obviously will tighten up the front suspension and will most likely lead to less weight transfer. Ah Ha! That may be what your competitors are after and they most likely pushed for this rule "clarification". OK, a racer will get around that. He will go the old tried and true method of using an OEM style bushing and install it so loose it will hardly function. Now your competitor should be happy along with NHRA. But what have you created? You have created a race vehicle that is unsafe as the strut rod, if not secured properly may break; thereby loosing control of the vehicle. If nothing else, an improperly secured strut-rod will cause stability control issues.

Remember, none of these old strut-rod vehicles were designed as race cars with wheelies in mind, 130-150 MPH trap speeds, and heavy breaking at high speeds on skinny front tires.

To dictate a suspension must be OEM compliant when a racer is simply looking for a safer ride is unacceptable. The same argument applies to inner control arm bushings. The arguments before my post that NHRA requires OEM bushings is preposterous, NHRA requires OEM suspensions and that is not a dictation of methods of controlling those OEM suspension pieces. Again, the alternative to the purist argument is the installation of sloppy, cut-down OEM style bushings that are more effective than an OEM application for performance at the expense of an improperly controlled suspension used in an environment it was never intended for.