PDA

View Full Version : Main Hoop Braces/Bulkhead interpretations



Speed Raycer
01-01-2005, 03:45 AM
I'm getting ready to do a cage in an ITB Pinto and have run into a slight problem on the rear hoop braces. The factory package/speaker tray is in the way of the desired line of the rear hoop braces.

Regarding the rear braces, ITCS 10.4 (p19) states "Such rear braces may pass through any mandatory or optional bulkhead or panel separating the driver/passenger compartment from the trunk/cargo area/fuel tank/fuel cell area, provided the bulkhead is sealed around said cage braces."

I read the "or panel" to mean that I can cut the package tray to run the braces through as long as they're sealed back up.

What is the IT.com gallary's take on this while I wait for a reply from Topeka?

In the meantime, I've planned on running through the speaker hole which is about 1.5"-2" off of the desired line, but still workable.

I'll have pics tomorrow if anyone can't picture what I'm talking about.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

Knestis
01-01-2005, 10:49 AM
http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-34.jpg

This installation shows a notch in a panel that might be analogous to your Pinto situation, right?

It also should make for interesting discussion re: the maximum plate size and number of cage tie-in points rules. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Bill Miller
01-01-2005, 02:00 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">It also should make for interesting discussion re: the maximum plate size and number of cage tie-in points rules. </font>

Interesting indeed! Sure looks like it could be thinner than 2" in a spot, and it's probably real close to the 12" limit when you lay that vertical piece flat.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
01-01-2005, 02:11 PM
I think you'll be fine cutting a hole where you need to, and when you're done, attaching a metal panel over the speaker holes, and around the rear brace if the hole you cut needed to be larger than the tube for installation.

Re: the red car, that DID look impressive at first, but I bet it's OK.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

bsholden
01-01-2005, 06:26 PM
Scott-
For further information regarding the non-clarification of this "bulkhead" rule (BR) see:

http://www.scca.org/garage/forum/forum_pos...sp?TID=633&PN=1 (http://www.scca.org/garage/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=633&PN=1)

I am aware of solutions within the SM crowd involving the use of metal tape and caulking to achieve a semblance of legality.
I have asked Topeka for clarification of acceptable materials to meet the BR, so far with no response.
Like the SM exhaust rule, the latest BR rule is sweeping in its generality while lacking in specifics...possibly leading to several configurations incapable of meeting the requirements of every region on a day to day basis.
Kinda like an experience with my SM exhaust at Blackhawk last year.

Bart Holden
#9 SM

Geo
01-01-2005, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It also should make for interesting discussion re: the maximum plate size and number of cage tie-in points rules. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Wow. Clever bunny!

I do agree with Bill that the horizontal and vertical pieces might have an issue if laid down on a flat surface with exceeding 12", but if not, I say BRAVO!


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

racer_tim
01-01-2005, 09:42 PM
But, it can only attach to the chassis in 8 places. My math makes that 12 points. 2 for the forward braces to the firewall, 2 for the front hoop, 2 for the main hoop, and 3 on each side of the rear braces = 12 points.

Or am I missing something?



------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

Bill Miller
01-01-2005, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by racer_tim:
But, it can only attach to the chassis in 8 places. My math makes that 12 points. 2 for the forward braces to the firewall, 2 for the front hoop, 2 for the main hoop, and 3 on each side of the rear braces = 12 points.

Or am I missing something?



Tim,

The GCR/ITCS considers the plate to be the attachment point. Says right in there that you can have any number of tubes running to a single plate, and it's still considered 1 attachment point. The question, in the case, is does the plate meet the rules?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

jlucas
01-01-2005, 10:25 PM
GCR:
"B. Each mounting plate shall not be greater than 100 square inches and shall be no greater than twelve (12) inches or less than two (2) inches on a side.

D. The mounting plate may be multi-angled but must not exceed these dimensions in a flat plane.
E. Any number of tubes may attach to the plate or each other."

Basically the plate is the mounting point. Any number of tubes can attach to the plate but the plate can't exceed the dimensions listed.

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

lateapex911
01-01-2005, 11:10 PM
You know............on second thought...if the tubes are 1.5", I would be surprised if the horizontal and vertical "L" is LESS than 12". IT's close, that's for sure. Would love to see a ruler in the pic for scale. Of course, if it's intended for IT, then it MUST be ok, right?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
01-02-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
You know............on second thought...if the tubes are 1.5", I would be surprised if the horizontal and vertical "L" is LESS than 12". IT's close, that's for sure. Would love to see a ruler in the pic for scale. Of course, if it's intended for IT, then it MUST be ok, right?



Jake,

That's what I figured, probably 1.5" tubing, which means the short dimension is real close to 2", but I doubt if you flattened the whole thing out that it would be less than 12" in the long dimension.

Ok Kirk, time to spill the beans. What car is that picture from? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Marcus Miller
01-02-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,
<snip>
Ok Kirk, time to spill the beans. What car is that picture from? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



I'm not Kirk,
But the car is from here:
http://www.tcdesignfab.com/E36%20BMW%20CCA...pared%20Car.htm (http://www.tcdesignfab.com/E36%20BMW%20CCA%20Prepared%20Car.htm)

The main page here: http://tcdesignfab.com
Tony built quite a few of the Spec Miata cages here in SFR...
Marcus

[This message has been edited by Marcus Miller (edited January 02, 2005).]

Andy Bettencourt
01-02-2005, 12:32 PM
I wouldn't put to much effort into deciding if it was SCCA legal or not. The passenger door is gutted to accept a modified NASCAR-style cage...I wouldn't need to look any further than that.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bill Miller
01-02-2005, 01:51 PM
Andy,

I looked at the pics on the website, and saw the disclaimer about 'pushing the rules' w/ the cage design, and that it may not be legal for a given sanctioning body. I also saw that they stated that the car is designed BMWCCA prepared, NABRA A-class, and SCCA ITS. They also talk about reinforcing the subframe and suspension pickup points. I sure hope Mr. Dadgar doesn't plan on running that car in ITS. If so, he's probably going to be in for a big surprise at his first event. Too bad too, I'm sure he paid a lot of money for that cage.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
01-02-2005, 02:13 PM
Although some may argue this, I don't see anything in the rules allowing the removal of the radio harness. Did any E36 come to the states w/o a radio (and the attendant harness).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

MMiskoe
01-02-2005, 11:28 PM
If we're on the thread of picking on the cage design of the red car, why go to all the trouble in the back and then have no forward-firewall mounted supports for the A-pillar bars? More concerned w/ the rear suspension stiffening than broken feet?

Just another peanut gallery comment.

ShelbyRacer
01-03-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I wouldn't put to much effort into deciding if it was SCCA legal or not. The passenger door is gutted to accept a modified NASCAR-style cage...I wouldn't need to look any further than that.

AB




Andy-

I didn't look at every pic, but if you're referring to the last two, I believe he's showing the pass side door as the "before" pic and the drivers side as "after". Again, I'm not sure if there's another pics showing a gutted pass side door, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to help the legality of the car anyway...




------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Bill Miller
01-03-2005, 07:45 AM
Matt,

I think if you look at this picture, you'll see what Andy is talking about.

http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-44.jpg

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Speed Raycer
01-03-2005, 12:03 PM
WOW! I go out and make some cage pads for the weekend and come back to this!!

Yes Kirk, that pic's close to what I'm talking about, if you moved the tube over to about where the 1/2" hole is.

To me, the tubes in the TC Design cage look to be 1.75"... With the number of tubes in that cage, I doubt that the builder would use the heavier 1.5"x.120 wall over the stronger 1.75" tubing.

This has become a very interesting thread http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

ShelbyRacer
01-03-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Matt,

I think if you look at this picture, you'll see what Andy is talking about.



DOH!

I thought I looked at all of the ones that would show it, but I missed one or two, or a few maybe...

I was just looking mostly at the last few, that showed two different views. I thought at first that those were what Andy was talking about, but I saw the fact that the one was the other door.

I'll just shut up now and go back to being sick.



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

tderonne
01-04-2005, 11:59 AM
One more nit-pick.

I don't see where the rear downtube attaches to the mounting plate. Looks like it only goes to the horizontal bar, which looks like the first tube that was installed.

(Just looked the pics. There is a clear picture before all the tubes were in place. Yup, horizontal went in first.)

Tim.



[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited January 04, 2005).]

VWPartsGuy
01-04-2005, 12:43 PM
There is alot of talk about the legality of the red car's mounting points but not much opinion on the original question. CAN we cut/notch/poke though a factory bulkhead?

tderonne
01-04-2005, 02:11 PM
Oh yeah, original question. Heck yeah. It says the downtubes have to go to the chassis/frame. How else you going to get there?

Joe Harlan
01-04-2005, 04:00 PM
Back to the question....Yes and it is in the itcs in plain engrish.....

lateapex911
01-04-2005, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think you'll be fine cutting a hole where you need to, and when you're done, attaching a metal panel over the speaker holes, and around the rear brace if the hole you cut needed to be larger than the tube for installation.

Re: the red car, that DID look impressive at first, but I bet it's OK.



I'll just quote myself on this one...it's done all the time, and the GCR is pretty clear as well.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
01-04-2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by tderonne:
One more nit-pick.

I don't see where the rear downtube attaches to the mounting plate. Looks like it only goes to the horizontal bar, which looks like the first tube that was installed.

(Just looked the pics. There is a clear picture before all the tubes were in place. Yup, horizontal went in first.)

Tim.

[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited January 04, 2005).]


Tim,

You're right. When I look at the first picture that Kirk posted, it's obvious from the fish mouth that's welded on the 'continuation' tube.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
01-04-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by tderonne:
One more nit-pick. ... Just looked the pics. There is a clear picture before all the tubes were in place. Yup, horizontal went in first.

Interesting. I've never worried about that question. I'm wondering how, from an engineering standpoint, does it matter?

K

tderonne
01-04-2005, 09:01 PM
Engineering? Not in question here (good or bad).

Rule says that the downtubes have to go to the chassis or frame, not to another tube.

[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited January 05, 2005).]

seckerich
01-05-2005, 01:13 AM
The down tube is continuous to the shock tower and continues to the plate on the floor. The other tubes are welded to it. Very strong and legal if the plate measures up.

RSTPerformance
01-05-2005, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
The down tube is continuous to the shock tower and continues to the plate on the floor. The other tubes are welded to it. Very strong and legal if the plate measures up.

From the pictures it looks like the cross tube goes to the plate at the shock tower and all other tubes leading away form that location are coming off of the cross tube including the 2 going to the floor and the tubes going to the main hoop. I am not an engineer but it does seem like it would be weeker in a rollover accident but I honestly have no idea on strength so i'll stop here http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Stephen

Bill Miller
01-05-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
The down tube is continuous to the shock tower and continues to the plate on the floor. The other tubes are welded to it. Very strong and legal if the plate measures up.

Copy the image to your PC, open it in an image editor, and zoom in. It's pretty obvious that the rear down tube is not a continuous run.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

tderonne
01-05-2005, 09:55 AM
I wasn't positive until I saw this picture:

http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-20.jpg

The short rear tubes may be an attempt to hide this fact.

Bill Miller
01-05-2005, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by tderonne:
I wasn't positive until I saw this picture:

http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-20.jpg

The short rear tubes may be an attempt to hide this fact.




Yeah Tim, that would make it pretty clear. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

/edit/ Another intersting thing that Tim's pic shows, is that the mounting plate under the short rear tube isn't part of the original mounting plate used for the other tubes. Now I understand that the rule says that the plates may be multi-plane in design, but I don't see anything in the rules that says the plates may be multi-piece.

Boy, is this guy going to be surprised at his first SCCA race w/ this car.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited January 05, 2005).]

theenico
01-06-2005, 11:47 AM
You guys crack me up http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif....

Isn't there something in the GCR about tortured interpretations

Knestis
01-06-2005, 06:50 PM
The "tortured and strained" clause gets invoked sometimes to shoot down entrants' defenses of their interpretations but I don't know that I've ever seen it applied equally enthusiastically the other direction, on prosecutions as it were.

K

Geo
01-06-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by theenico:
You guys crack me up http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif....

Isn't there something in the GCR about tortured interpretations

I don't see what's tortured and strained in this thread.

That car is ILLEGAL AS HELL for IT.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Speed Raycer
01-07-2005, 12:07 AM
Geo... I believe Nico is referring to this (but I could be wrong)....



Now I understand that the rule says that the plates may be multi-plane in design, but I don't see anything in the rules that says the plates may be multi-piece.

lateapex911
01-07-2005, 02:54 AM
hmmmmm.......

If you take two plates, weld them together at 90 degrees, grind the weld into a nice radius, is it a two peice item?

If so, and the rule requires a single peice design, half the cars in IT are instantly illegal.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
01-07-2005, 08:22 AM
Well, I made that comment based on what you see in the pictures. In the picture that shows the missing rear stays, that run from the crossbar to the floor, you can see that no plate to mount the tube to is in place.

Jake, is that how the rule is supposed to work? If you weld adjacent plates together, do they become a single plate? My interpretation of the rule is that if you're going to make a 'composite' plate, you should have it build, and then installed as one piece. I really have no problem w/ that. In my mind, that's a single piece.

But, the cage in question is so blatantly illegal for IT, I guess it really doesn't matter how many more ways it is illegal.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Ron Earp
01-07-2005, 09:43 AM
Is the owner of this car aware his car is being discussed here? And, is this car an offering by a build shop?

How would anything happen to the fellow to get disqualified? Wouldn't someone have to protest him, or, would a tech inspector not pass or sign off on it?

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

Racer Chris
01-07-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
That car is ILLEGAL AS HELL for IT.

I mostly agree!
There's nothing wrong with using more than one piece of material to make a mounting plate but that rear plate easily adds up to more than 12" in length.
There's nothing wrong with the rear downtube terminating at the crosstube, however, I think the argument that the additional bars are legal because they all attach to the same mounting plate constitutes a strained interpretation of the rules.
The car might be legal as an ITE car because it is prepared for a BMWCCA race series.

------------------
Chris Foley
www.tangerineracing.com (http://www.tangerineracing.com)

erlrich
01-07-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Racer Chris:
There's nothing wrong with the rear downtube terminating at the crosstube, however, I think the argument that the additional bars are legal because they all attach to the same mounting plate constitutes a strained interpretation of the rules.


Chris, I have to respectfully disagree. Right out of the GCR: "The main hoop shall have two braces extending to the rear attaching to the frame or chassis."(emphasis added) and under the section on mounting plates: "Any number of tubes may attach to the plates or each other".

I do have one question for the rules nerds, though, directly related to the cage in question here: the GCR requires two rear braces, but where does it state that they must be one continuous piece of tubing? I realize that common sense and sound structural design need to be considered when building a cage, but strictly by the rules the only place in the GCR I see a reference to a single continuous piece of tubing is in the section on the main hoop.

Earl

Knestis
01-07-2005, 11:59 AM
Hi, I'm Kirk. I'm a rules NERD and I have an illegal rollcage - if the letter of the law as it is being put forth here applies.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/itrear.jpg

The horizontal piece went in first, then the downward braces were fishmouthed into the joint where that tube met the plates. The centerlines of those tubes - and the additional diagonal - all align, per engineering best practices.

To suggest that the ulta-literal interpretation of a rule that was written years ago, to define a minimum standard that most current cage structures, should trump good practice is enough for me to turn in my NERD badge and join the ranks of the cheaters.

K

erlrich
01-07-2005, 12:36 PM
Kirk -

Don't resign your membership just yet. I'm not an automotive engineer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once), or a rules nerd (they keep returning my application stamped "not in this lifetime"), but (and correct me if I'm wrong) given the unibody nature of your car aren't your downtubes technically connected to the chassis? Even if that's technically not correct, there is still that whole part in the ITCS that specifically allows the tubes to connect to the rear shock towers/suspension pickup points. I can tell you this, if yours are illegal so are mine, because I did virtually the same thing with the rear braces.

The point I was making with the GCR quote was, and I still stand by this, that it is not permitted to terminate the rear braces into another tube alone.

Isn't it funny how these ultra-literal interpretations only seem to be valid when they are supporting our side of an argument (this case being no exception).

Cheers
Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited January 07, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 01:01 PM
Kirk, While I have no problem with the way you did your rear tubes I could make a case that the rear tubes are connected to a rear strut bar (which is not legal)So is this a case of a legal part doing an illegal function. We had a couple of guys do a similar deal in 240z's. Again not a big deal to me because I would rather worry about safety first.

ryotko
01-07-2005, 01:41 PM
I think this is a case where the GCR contradicts itself.
18.6 - Bracing - states that rear bracing must attach to "frame or chassis"
Yet 18.8.E - Mounting Plates - specifies, "Any number of tubes may attach to the plate or each other."

The contradiction is that the bracing (or any part of the cage structure) can't attach directly to the frame or chassis but has to attach to a mounting plate. So wouldn't the mounting plate rule trump the bracing rule?

-Bob

apr67
01-07-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Kirk, While I have no problem with the way you did your rear tubes I could make a case that the rear tubes are connected to a rear strut bar (which is not legal)So is this a case of a legal part doing an illegal function.

Can't call it a strut bar when it connects shocks...

Anyway, any number of tubes may connect between your legal mounting plates, ergo that configuration is legal.

[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited January 07, 2005).]

bldn10
01-07-2005, 05:02 PM
"The contradiction is that the bracing (or any part of the cage structure) can't attach directly to the frame or chassis but has to attach to a mounting plate. So wouldn't the mounting plate rule trump the bracing rule?"

It doesn't really trump it - it is inherent in it. Since the cage can ONLY be attached to the car via mounting plates, it is assumed throughout the rules that any cage attachment point is via a plate. Thus, the support braces must be mounted on a plate that is attached to the frame or chassis. And that certainly includes the shock towers on unibody cars. Kirk's is legal because it does attach to the plate, the one in qustion attaches to the horizontal tube and I do not think that is legal. This has come up before in the context of "X" support braces, where one of them obviously is cut where it crosses the other and, thus, is not attached to the frame or chassis. The notion that the horizontal tube is an illegal shock tower brace is somewhat troublesome but IMO as long as it is part of an otherwise legal cage, it is OK.


------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 05:31 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The notion that the horizontal tube is an illegal shock tower brace is somewhat troublesome but IMO as long as it is part of an otherwise legal cage, it is OK.</font>

Again,this is not enough that I would ever push the issue but the cross brace is performaning an illegal function as far as I am concerned, It is a shock/strut brace first and a mounting point for the rear down tubes second The same thing could had been done by attaching the back braces to the plate and the cross tube up hill about 3 inches....Same effect less intent....

ITANorm
01-07-2005, 05:55 PM
The "rearmost horizontal cage stiffening brace", which just so happens to do a very good job of bracing the rear strut towers, has been defined as probably technically illegal but too gray to push. I asked the question several years ago. I believe the trigger for the inquiry was a certain ITS RX-7 out of Memphis. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Bill Miller
01-07-2005, 06:47 PM
I'd like someone to show me where it says that you can use a 'multi-piece' mounting plate. And while we are limited to 100 in. sq. and 12" / 2" on a side. So, you can have a plate that's 12x8.25, or one that's 8.25x12, or one that fits in the 'evnvelope' defined by those two. I don't think you can start cutting a plate apart and aligning the pieces so that they fit into that same envelope. In other words, your plate must fit in a 100 in. sq. box. If the X dimension is 12", they Y dimension cannot exceed 8.25, and vice-versa. It's doesn't matter if you actually have 100 in. sq. of material in the plate. The BMW plate in question surely will not meet this test.

As far as Kirk's cage goes, I'm not convinced that it's legal. As was said, I believe that if the down tubes attached to the plate and the cross bar attached to either the down tubes of the plate itself, there would be no question.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 07:09 PM
Bill, Using multi pieces if plate to build a mounting plate is the only way the job can be done right. Lets not take the rule down to a pimple on a nats ass to get the job done. If the Bimmer cage was presented to me for approval it would be bounced in IT without any further thought. Kirks cage present an interesting set of thoughts on weighing between what is proper and safe and what could be considered illegal. Again I see no real issue with Kirks cage other than it doesn't really meet the letter of the law
in that one area.?

Greg Amy
01-07-2005, 07:40 PM
Legal, with the cardboard templates to prove it (plan to bring your own ruler if you don't trust mine...)

http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollca...ge/DCP_4724.JPG (http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollcage/DCP_4724.JPG)

Greg Amy
01-07-2005, 07:41 PM
Technical clarifications letters, for reference:

http://www.kakashiracing.com/SCCARollcage.html

...and the reply:

http://www.kakashiracing.com/RulesReply.txt

Knestis
01-07-2005, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
... Again I see no real issue with Kirks cage other than it doesn't really meet the letter of the law in that one area.?

So what I'm hearing is that you don't think it's legal because the rear braces hit the optional lateral cage element, in addition to the plate on the shell - rather than exclusively to the plate?

K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 07, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 09:40 PM
So Greg, Please show me the rule that allows the rear strut bar? I can't find it.

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 09:47 PM
Kirk, again I am not a rules geek here. I do build cages and I would have done it different to avoid even a question. I think an argument could be made for either side but I think the argument that the cross bar creates additional chassis stiffness and that was the intended reason for its placement is pretty strong.

Geo
01-07-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
So Greg, Please show me the rule that allows the rear strut bar? I can't find it.

If you're talking about Greg's car, that tube is part of the cage by virtue of being attached to the cage mounting plates. I don't see how anyone could have an issue with this since attachment points are now defined by the plates.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 10:25 PM
Geo, Again I would not make an issue but somebody might.
ITCS D5d8...No other.......reinforcement of any suspension compnent or mounting point is permitted.

ITCS d5d5... cars may add (1) stayrod, located in one of the following areas:....

Now I don't remember the exact language but it goes something like "no legal modification shall provide an illegal function. In both cases I think you could show the reason for both cross bars is to stiffen the rear shock mounts.

Greg Amy
01-07-2005, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
So Greg, Please show me the rule that allows the rear strut bar? I can't find it.

You ain't lookin' hard enough <grin>:

GCR 18.2.6: "The main roll hoop shall have two braces extending to the rear attaching to the frame or chassis." Thus, the location of my plates is legal.

GCR 18.2.8.E: "Any number of tubes may attach to the plate or each other." Thus, adding additional tubes to those plates is legal.

Note my 100sq-in plate wraps around the rear upper strut area in order to spread out the loads of compression to a maximum area. The transversly-mounted bar is there to strengthen the rear legs such that a hard rear quarter hit will not stove said legs (thus leaving me vulnerable to a main hoop collapse upon a possible subsequent rollover.)

It's all totally legal. If you disagree, as noted I carry my templates with me for someone to exercise their GCR 13.2 prerogative...

If you wish to induce the "prohibited function" clause (specifically, ITCS 17.D. "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function") by claiming it also stiffens the vehicle's chassis, you should be adequately prepared to demonstrate or otherwise prove how *any* properly-designed cage CANNOT at the same time strengthen or stiffen a chassis. It is, by definition and design, a required function of a rollcage, for if the car's chassis was adequately stiff such that it could withstand the forces of a crash, there would be no need for a rollcage in the first place... GA

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 07, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
01-07-2005, 11:38 PM
Greg, I have no personal issue in this so you can do as you like. I think if written up correctly I could win a protest..that was the point. I also will say that letters from the tech dept mean nothing. Anyway i am not interested in an argument so we can agree to disagree.

As far as the strut brace being part of the cage it is clearly put there to stiffen a suspension point (shock mount) and could have been put between the 2 tubes so it was an integral part of the cage.

Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited January 07, 2005).]

Geo
01-08-2005, 12:35 AM
Well, as I'm fond of saying, if it says you can, you bloody well can. Greg has reprinted the exact words that say you can.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

seckerich
01-08-2005, 01:30 AM
This as well as other bars to the front firewall mounting points were protested on the Speedsource cars at the ARRC in the past and found legal. Great cage!! Those that complain should copy if you think it is an advantage. You just got a free seminar on grey areas.

Joe Harlan
01-08-2005, 02:18 AM
Well know there you go. I made it very clear it made little difference to me and I certainly was not complaining. I learned nothing I didn't already know and you make the key point. Those that feel its an advantage. Well fact is it isn't and I can get to the same place without getting into the grey area....Its been fun.

jlucas
01-08-2005, 08:31 AM
Boy, after looking at this thread I can't imagine anybody would be turned off by the SCCA (tongue firmly in cheek).

If you still need more closure on this....
Here's a picture of one of our SS cars when we first got it (it used to be a driver training car):
http://img1.exs.cx/img1/8788/rearplate3xy.jpg

We were concern about it being interpeted as suspension reinforcement (as well as a couple other areas of the pre-existing cage), so we sent a photos to the Club Racing Technical Manager and received a written response that it's OK. First season we carried that around with us in case someone complained.

How about arguing about something that makes a difference?

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

Geo
01-08-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
This as well as other bars to the front firewall mounting points were protested on the Speedsource cars at the ARRC in the past and found legal. Great cage!! Those that complain should copy if you think it is an advantage. You just got a free seminar on grey areas.

One thing in the specific case we have been discussing that cannot be gotten around is the dimensions of the mounting plate. Granted we don't have a ruler in the photo, but I'd bet money that it exceeds 12" in length and that is strictly illegal if it is.

Then there is the gutting of the passenger door, the removal of the radio wiring, etc. Of course, those are not strictly cage related.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

seckerich
01-08-2005, 11:04 AM
George you are correct about the plate and door bars. The plates on this car are evidently covered by previous logbook and would not be legal in a new car. The plates can be 100 square inches total with the stated 12 max and min 2 restrictions. It can however look like an L shape with 2 12 by 2 legs in different directions and is encouraged to extend to vertical surfaces for strength. This is stretching the rule to the max, but it is the max for a reason. The grey area I was speaking about is the ever present "perform no ilegal operation" and gets the usual vague response. A cage is meant to strengthen the structure of the car and the fact that mounting points are required in the rear at or near the strut or shock towers is equal for all and should be taken advantage of by all. I have seen the rear section of a cage ripped loose from a plate that was attached to the floor above the frame rail only. I will however skip the long and painful wrestle over the radio harness and agree to disagree!!

bldn10
01-08-2005, 12:04 PM
"The "rearmost horizontal cage stiffening brace", which just so happens to do a very good job of bracing the rear strut towers, has been defined as probably technically illegal but too gray to push. I asked the question several years ago. I believe the trigger for the inquiry was a certain ITS RX-7 out of Memphis."

Norm, I assume you mean my old car - I don't recall being aware that there was a big issue of the strut tower stiffening; I thought the issue was w/ the fact that the cage builder had cut away the speaker enclosure to put his mounting plate right on top of the tower itself. It got by because somewhere it says you can cut pretty much whatever you need to install your cage.

I think Greg hit the nail on the head - we all know very well that people spend big bucks on chassis-stiffening cages, and there is nothing wrong w/ that even though the cage clearly performs another function. The free allowance of other tubes w/i the cage is a suggestion that we are not going to nitpick cages and ask "is this for safety or some other purpose" about every additional tube.

I have an early SpeedSource car and am looking at a photo of the "Evo" cage in Wade Williams' later SS car and neither has any attachment to the shock tower. There is a tube connecting the floor-mounted braces.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

Bill Miller
01-08-2005, 01:04 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by seckerich: It can however look like an L shape with 2 12 by 2 legs in different directions</font>

I have to disagree w/ this. If your plate measures 12" in one direction, you're limited to 8.25" in the other direction (12x8.25=100).

Joe,

I understand your point about multi-piece plates, and will even concede that it's probably ok. However, there's no need to 'shout me down' about it. Present a logical reason as to why it falls w/in the rules.

I suppose I need to think outside the box sometimes. I was looking at it as the plate had to be assembled before it was attached to the car, not that it could be installed in pieces.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITANorm
01-08-2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by bldn10:
Norm, I assume you mean my old car - I don't recall being aware that there was a big issue of the strut tower stiffening; . . ..

I don't remember either. It was either your old car or Joe Holley's.

Greg Gauper
01-08-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I have to disagree w/ this. If your plate measures 12" in one direction, you're limited to 8.25" in the other direction (12x8.25=100).




Your math is wrong Bill. An 'L' shaped plate that is 12" on each side but only 2" wide would be legal since you wind up with 44 quare inches of plate surface.
[(12"x12") - (10"x10")] = 44in2. You forgot to subtract the 10" x 10" hole.

This would be less than the 100 inch max limit.

Joe Harlan
01-08-2005, 04:14 PM
Joe,

I understand your point about multi-piece plates, and will even concede that it's probably ok. However, there's no need to 'shout me down' about it. Present a logical reason as to why it falls w/in the rules.


I don't think I did and it was never my intent.

Greg Amy
01-08-2005, 04:42 PM
Bill, I have to disagree with you; I think your position is incorrect.

First, you are assuming the plate must be a parallelogram (i.e., a rectangle). There is nothing in the rules that requires this, nor anything that limits that 100sq-in plate to any number of sides, let alone four. There's not even an implication that only four sides is allowed, nor anything to demand any particular shape.

Second, let's clarify your point of "multiple plates." Nothing in the rules allows "multiple plates." I think what you mean is 'multiple plates that have been welded together to create a single multi-angle plate'. Any first-year welding student can attest to the fact that two properly welded parts are, de facto, one part. In fact, the weld is usually stronger than any other area of the part.

Third, multi-angle plates are specifically allowed by GCR 18.2.8.D: "The mounting plate may be multi-angled but must not exceed these dimensions in a flat plane."


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">[I was looking at it as the plate had to be assembled before it was attached to the car, not that it could be installed in pieces.</font>

I can understand how you got there, but I don't see how it's required. Honestly, BIll, in reference to the mounting plates, I think all these examples are legal. - GA

Geo
01-08-2005, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
George you are correct about the plate and door bars. The plates on this car are evidently covered by previous logbook and would not be legal in a new car.

I don't see how this can work. The rule is very specific. There is no mention of grandfathering. Can you elaborate?


Originally posted by seckerich:
The plates can be 100 square inches total with the stated 12 max and min 2 restrictions. It can however look like an L shape with 2 12 by 2 legs in different directions and is encouraged to extend to vertical surfaces for strength.

If I lay a tape measure along the long legs (of which there are 2) the length will be more than 12". Just because they are opposite sides of a "T" doesn't mean you count them separately.


Originally posted by seckerich:
The grey area I was speaking about is the ever present "perform no ilegal operation" and gets the usual vague response. A cage is meant to strengthen the structure of the car...

I have no problem with that.

In the interest of not going down some sidetrack with a big argument, I won't get into the radio harness (which isn't attached to the radio http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

JohnRW
01-09-2005, 03:13 AM
Multi-angled X-Y-Z axis mounting plates - I have mounting plates in a Spec Miata that look like a 3-D relief map of a Congressional District in the Rockies. Nobody (SCCA Pro, a couple of Club Nat'l Tech Chiefs, etc.) has any problem with that. Why ? Because the rules say you can do it.

Additional tubing that might or might not serve as chassis stiffening/strut bar stuff - 17.1.4.D.10.a.5 (really...) says "...any number of additional reinforcing bars ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CAGE...blah blah blah quack quack quack." So...no matter the INTENT, no matter the additional benefits it might provide, the GCR specifically allows ANY (!!!!!) additional reinforcement, as long as it's "within the structure of the cage".

It says you can do it.

Bill Miller
01-09-2005, 08:35 AM
Your math is wrong Bill. An 'L' shaped plate that is 12" on each side but only 2" wide would be legal since you wind up with 44 quare inches of plate surface.
[(12"x12") - (10"x10")] = 44in2. You forgot to subtract the 10" x 10" hole.

This would be less than the 100 inch max limit.

Greg and Greg,

If you look back a few posts, I stated that I didn't believe it was allowable to 'subtract' the metal that is not there, from the total area defined by the max. X and Y dimensions. As George said, you can't measure the two legs seperately. Greg (Gauper), by your logic, I could take a 12x12 plate, cut a 8x8 plate out of the middle, and then use that as a legal plate (total in. sq. of remaining plate material is 80, ((12x2)+(12x2)+(8x2)+(8x2)) = 80).

I don't believe this to be the intent of the rule nor do I believe it to be legal.

As far as where the tubes attach to a legal plate, I guess that's pretty much wide open. As Greg's pictures show, the tubes don't have to touch. In Kirk's example, it does appear that part of the rear stay contacts the plate, so more than likely, it's legal. If they (rear stays) only contacted the cross bar, I would say that would not be legal, as well as not being a very sound design.

Interesting side note about multiple tubes going to one plate. On my old IT car, I had to pull out a GCR and show the tech inspector that it was in fact legal to have multiple tubes attached to a single plate, and have it considered one point. He was adament that it was not legal, was not going to issue a tech sticker, and was going to make a notation in the log book.

/edit/ corrected 10x10 to 8x8. Had 10x10 on the brain from the earlier part of the post.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited January 09, 2005).]

Geo
01-09-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If you look back a few posts, I stated that I didn't believe it was allowable to 'subtract' the metal that is not there, from the total area defined by the max. X and Y dimensions. As George said, you can't measure the two legs seperately. Greg (Gauper), by your logic, I could take a 12x12 plate, cut a 10x10 plate out of the middle, and then use that as a legal plate (total in. sq. of remaining plate material is 80, ((12x2)+(12x2)+(8x2)+(8x2)) = 80).

I don't believe this to be the intent of the rule nor do I believe it to be legal.

Intent is unimportant. Regardless, what Greg and Greg have said is correct. You can indeed start with a 12x12 plate as long as you remove 44 sq in from the original plate before attaching to the car. The maximum dimension in any direction is 12" thus both the X and Y axis may be 12" as long as the total area is 100 sq in or less.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited January 09, 2005).]

lateapex911
01-09-2005, 01:44 PM
Any chassis stiffening arguements are huge red herrings. OF COURSE it stiffens the chassis.

It's OK to stiffen the car in bending moment but not between the two shock towers?

It's fine to tie the front and rear downtubes together in an X pattern in the door, but not cool to add torsional rigidity?

Where and how will you draw the line in such a judgement?? EVERY tube in the cage can be viewed as adding "additional benefits"!

The rules makers knew darn well about the aditional strenthening, and set limits in the design of the rules. If you can get more from the plate rules, good on ya!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

m glassburner
01-09-2005, 03:50 PM
Well said jake!! You took the words right off of my keyboard...I don't see how it's possible to install a proper "safe" cage without stiffening a unibody and not compromise handling http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Bill Miller
01-09-2005, 04:25 PM
/edit/ Never mind George, you've obviously got all the answers.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited January 09, 2005).]

Joe Harlan
01-09-2005, 08:26 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Any chassis stiffening arguements are huge red herrings. OF COURSE it stiffens the chassis.</font>

Jake I hope you don't think I am stupid enough to not know this....The point is there is a legal way and an ilegal way to get to the same thing.

Knestis
01-09-2005, 09:15 PM
"Any number of tubes may attach to the plate or each other" (GCR 18.2.8.E) being one of the legal ones, right?

Evidence presented here seems to suggest reinstatement of my NERD status is appropriate, and that only my cheater wire harness bypass fix is illegal. That, and the holes in my hood for the enduro lights.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

lateapex911
01-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Of course not Joe...actually, if I need good solid info on something, you're one I would count on for good legal info...

But, my point was twofold:
1- Where, and how do you draw the line?
2- I think, to some degree, the CRB threw us a "freebie" in the rules, in order that while there may be some performance advantages when certain bars are added, the exchange for safety is worthwhile. Of course, it's not for me to say, but the "NASCAR" door bar rule is a great example of an allowance that is so beneficial for the cost involved (not financial, but from a build point of view) that there are few reasons NOT to do it.

Thats all.....NO offense intended, and sorry if you took it that way.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Geo
01-09-2005, 11:24 PM
I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Joe Harlan
01-09-2005, 11:37 PM
NO Geo not always true. When you misread a rule it is just your mistake. When I misread a rule it cost me money and reputation. Again I look for ways to get to the same place without having to hang in the grey. One of the things killing this sport is the cost of playing in the grey.

Jake I didn't mean to sound like it was personal it's for sure not. One of the things that gets me going is when we see a rule being pushed to its limits, ECU's come to mind. It get to far down the road and we end up with a rules change because to many people have already done it. Believe I have been there. When 8 points were allowed I found a really cool fix for the 240z....Not that the rule was clarified within a year to state the other 2 bars were to go to the firewall.

Matt Rowe
01-10-2005, 03:52 PM
Although I wouldn't waste my time in a protest or even much of an argument on this. If pressed on the "no legal part may perform and illegal function" issue I would refer to 18.1.1 for cage prep which says:

"The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the ..."

That followed with ITCS D.8.H:

"Structural repair . . . Unless specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair or allowed by these rules, no reinforcement, i.e., seam welding, material addition is permitted."

So, someone could make the case that cage bars that act specifically to reinforce the car and has no impact on the safety of the driver are an illegal material addition. Again, I wouldn't bother enough to write a protest based on it, but I could see a way to make the argument. It's twisiting the rules a little, but so is putting in a rear strut bar and saying it is for the sake of driver safety. Remember, a grey area in the rules means it is an unclear intrepretation, and unclear means someone might just rule in the other guys favor when the planets all align properly.

My rear bar is mounted just above the plate anyway so I'm not really worried. But I do find the trend in cages over the past few years to be a real sign of preparation creep. I'm all for having a good safe cage, but more and more people are putting in cages for the sake of stiffening the chassis with driver safety being an added bonus. That certainly seems like a creep towards production level preparation.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Geo
01-10-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I'm all for having a good safe cage, but more and more people are putting in cages for the sake of stiffening the chassis with driver safety being an added bonus. That certainly seems like a creep towards production level preparation.

Bah....

If someone is doing their homework right, a cage serves two purposes: 1) protect the driver, and 2) stiffent he chassis. This has always been the case. It's not a new phenomenon (sp?).

Lastly, who gets to argue if a tube is there to stiffen the chassis or to protect the driver?



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Joe Harlan
01-10-2005, 05:01 PM
"The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the ..."



Well said and any other intent is truely cheating no matter how much homework you do.

Matt Rowe
01-10-2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Bah....

If someone is doing their homework right, a cage serves two purposes: 1) protect the driver, and 2) stiffent he chassis. This has always been the case. It's not a new phenomenon (sp?).

Lastly, who gets to argue if a tube is there to stiffen the chassis or to protect the driver?



Well, the cage's primary purpose in IT has always been to protect the driver, stiffening the car is just a side benefit. Sure anyone with a brain will try and maximise the chassis stiffness within the cage rules. But the cage rules didn't always allow so much. The days of 6 point bolt in cages with limited reinforcement bars didn't leave nearly as much room for chassis stiffness. What is a new phenomenom is unlimited bracing, the additional 8 pt allowance, weld in attachments.

All of this make the cages you can build today FAR different than what was allowed 15 years ago. Sometime take a look a cage built to the full extent of the rules from 1990 and compare it to a current fully built cage. Then tell me there is no rules creep. Sure much of it was done in the name of safety, but the effect is a cage that contributes far more to chassis stiffness than it did 15 years ago. As many people have said before rules creep in the name of safety can bring about some unintended changes, like previously illegal strut bars now being allowed.

As far as who gets to argue safety vs. reinforcement? That's the point of a really well written protest. Now, I don't think I've ever met an inspector or steward that would take the side of a technical infraction when a safety aspect is concerned, but that doesn't mean your aren't deep in a grey area of the rules. But remember I said I would never bother protesting something like that.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Greg Amy
01-10-2005, 05:23 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I would never bother protesting something like that.</font>

Actually, Matt, I wish you would, if for nothing else to get it either blessed or damned. If we don't protest items we beleive to be illegal then they will never get changed, and in the end they may become de rigeur legal by apathy. Tech is certainly not going to pull us down for something like this.

Tell you what, Matt: if I make it down to Summit this year, let's you and I get together and I'll cover the $25 for you to protest my cage. We'll do it in such a way that it won't kill my weekend (like they tell me to go home on Saturday morning). We'll each debate our positions to the chief Stews and let them decide. If they bless it, I'm golden; if they damn it I'll be given the opportunity to bring my case to Topeka in the form of an appeal. Worst case, I lose my appeal and have to cut it out and re-weld a tube between the bottom of the rear legs (which, as I'm certain we all realize, does *exactly* the same thing.)

No harm, no foul, and definitely no ill feelings.

Whadya think?

Greg

Matt Rowe
01-10-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Actually, Matt, I wish you would, if for nothing else to get it either blessed or damned. If we don't protest items we beleive to be illegal then they will never get changed, and in the end they may become de rigeur legal by apathy. Tech is certainly not going to pull us down for something like this.

Tell you what, Matt: if I make it down to Summit this year, let's you and I get together and I'll cover the $25 for you to protest my cage. We'll do it in such a way that it won't kill my weekend (like they tell me to go home on Saturday morning). We'll each debate our positions to the chief Stews and let them decide. If they bless it, I'm golden; if they damn it I'll be given the opportunity to bring my case to Topeka in the form of an appeal. Worst case, I lose my appeal and have to cut it out and re-weld a tube between the bottom of the rear legs (which, as I'm certain we all realize, does *exactly* the same thing.)

No harm, no foul, and definitely no ill feelings.

Whadya think?

Greg

Sound like a decent plan to me. It would be interesting to see what they say, although I'm reasonably certain they will err on the side of safety, which means any tube is likely to be allowed. Try to give me some warning if you're coming down as my limited budget means I don't make every MARRS race. But it should make for a more entertaining weekend. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Geo
01-10-2005, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Sound like a decent plan to me. It would be interesting to see what they say, although I'm reasonably certain they will err on the side of safety, which means any tube is likely to be allowed.

I am 100% certain it will be allowed. If it says you can, you bloody well can. I don't see how this can be in question. Greg quoted EXACTLY where the ITCS says you can. But, in the interest of satisfying everyone, Greg has made a nice gesture here.

Regarding changes in the rules, it doesn't matter. Whatever the cage rules I will ALWAYS use the cage to stiffen the chassis as much as possible within the rules. The cage should always be built with this in mind, second only to safety. Fortunately those two things are seldom mutually exclusive.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

seckerich
01-10-2005, 08:12 PM
The whole arguement about the rear strut brace is moot anyway as most cars have shocks which dont exert the same bending force and have little effect on the chassis, The plates are limited to keep someone from spreading the plate all the way down a door opening (I have seen this in tech) and building a tube frame. The limits on the bars stopping at the firewall more than limit you from anything close to production. The rule on plates has been protested and a plate that is 12 x 12 with in an L shape with 4 inch wide legs is legal and within the rules per 2002 decision. Not necessary to get a legal, safe, stiff cage, but legal. Nothing personal in my posts Joe, but for $20 more in tubing someone might spend I will live with that horrible rules creep in the name of safety.

ddewhurst
01-10-2005, 08:58 PM
Joe, I been quitely reading & for my 2 cents the rule allows the rear strut to strut tube as long as the tube attaches to THE plate or other tubes that attach to THE plate.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Matt Rowe
01-10-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I am 100% certain it will be allowed. If it says you can, you bloody well can. I don't see how this can be in question. Greg quoted EXACTLY where the ITCS says you can. But, in the interest of satisfying everyone, Greg has made a nice gesture here.


Maybe you can reread the discussion to see why a bar like that fall in a gray area. I see your point and I understand your logic, why you are blind to the opposing view I don't know. I suspect you're bringing a preconceived bias to the rulebook when you are reading it. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by Geo:
Regarding changes in the rules, it doesn't matter. Whatever the cage rules I will ALWAYS use the cage to stiffen the chassis as much as possible within the rules. The cage should always be built with this in mind, second only to safety. Fortunately those two things are seldom mutually exclusive.



So rules creep doesn't matter? Considering a bolt in cage for $550 used to be a reasonable cost for anyone to order and install and have a competitive car. Assuming your paying some labor and not just materials what does a current limit of the rules, fully cross braced cage cost? It isn't close to $550. As I said safety improvements are great, but can you tell me the rules changes for cages haven't significantly added to the cost of a competitive car.

Also, a overstiffened cage can actually contribute to driver injury. Remember energy disipation is the name of the game and the more the car deforms the less energy the driver has to take. I've seen firsthand when a driver died when the cage never gave, and the driver took all of the deceleration. A little cage deformation might have made the difference without further endangering the driver. Adding a rear strut bar does little or nothing to protect the driver but does limit the crumple zone available in the event of an accident. That's why the argument can be made that it performs an illegal function without contributing to the safety of the vehicle.

Of course if the rule had been written that the tubes must meet on the plate at single node that would have prevented some of this confusion. But you can never anticipate everything. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Bill Miller
01-10-2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.





Matt,

George knows he does that. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Matt Rowe
01-10-2005, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Matt,

George knows he does that. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



I know, I guess I need to more obviously facetious?


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Geo
01-10-2005, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Maybe you can reread the discussion to see why a bar like that fall in a gray area. I see your point and I understand your logic, why you are blind to the opposing view I don't know. I suspect you're bringing a preconceived bias to the rulebook when you are reading it.

Not hardly. Just reading the rules as written.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Of course if the rule had been written that the tubes must meet on the plate at single node that would have prevented some of this confusion. But you can never anticipate everything. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Actually, if effectively does. All tubes must attach to a single point as defined by the mounting plate. Sure it's not an actual node, but it defines exactly what you want defined.




------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Actually, if effectively does. All tubes must attach to a single point as defined by the mounting plate. Sure it's not an actual node, but it defines exactly what you want defined.



Ah, but the definition as a node is exactly what would eliminate some of the issues we have been discussing. Allowing to mount anywhere on the mounting plate creates all this freedom for interpretation and adds to the gray area. I would say that from engineering standpoint adding "node" into the rule would be better as well as following the intent of the 8 point rule.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Bill Miller
01-11-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.


Not hardly. Just reading the rules as written.




George, I had no idea that you had a corner on the market of being right all the time. Your lack of objectivity is only exceeded by your arrogance. Maybe nobody needs to buy a GCR, they can just ask you for the answer.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
01-11-2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Ah, but the definition as a node is exactly what would eliminate some of the issues we have been discussing. Allowing to mount anywhere on the mounting plate creates all this freedom for interpretation and adds to the gray area.

What's grey about it? It specifically says what you can do.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
What's grey about it? It specifically says what you can do.



The grey area is when you take into account the rule of a legal part can not perform a prohibited function. The ITCS specifically calls out reinforcing front suspension points and specifically disallows reinforcement of any other suspension mounting point. Therefore even though cage reinforcement is legal the bar is performing a prohibited function bringing the situation into a gray area.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Greg Amy
01-11-2005, 12:29 PM
Matt, I can see where you're coming from, but this is going to be one of those "agree to disagree" situations.

The regs governing rollcages specifically allow large plates, they specifically allow these plates to be mounted to the rear suspension shocks mounts/tower/pickup points, they specifically allow additional bracing within the cage, and they specifically allow any number of tubes to attach to those large plates. Taken in context, strengthening of the chassis is - in my opinion, "obviously" - allowed and even encouraged.

While I can certainly appreciate your position of seeing rules creep in the rollcage rules versus the original in the 80's that only allowed bolt-in cages (which, by the way, I built and raced in back then) the rules today specifically and explicitly allow and encourage this activity.

Honestly, short of requesting a written rules change, there is no way you're going to curb or restrict this activity. It's plainly legal.

Greg

bldn10
01-11-2005, 12:48 PM
Matt, we have all agreed that any decent, modern cage is going to be designed to and in fact stiffen the car - a prohibited function. Therefore, per the rule you are focusing on, most all cages are illegal. Extreme? OK, let's step back and and look at additional tubes w/i the structure, that are expressly allowed: are we going to examine each one and ask whether it adds to safety or adds to stiffness? Of course not because they are expressly allowed even if they are put in solely to stiffen. Therefore, the cage rules have to be exceptions to the "no other purpose" rule. You have certainly pointed out a facial inconsistency but, unfortunately, we can't always interpret rules in such literal fashion. Like some others, I am 100% certain on this one.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Matt, I can see where you're coming from, but this is going to be one of those "agree to disagree" situations.



First off, let me remind everyone that I said I can see what people are getting at with respect to what is a effectively a rear strut bar being illegal. I also specifically said I would never protest something like this (Greg's request for a friendly protest and clarification aside) because it's definitely a gray area that almost any official is going to err on the side of safety. I don't even think we really disagree as much as I see both sides.


Originally posted by GregAmy:
The regs governing rollcages specifically allow large plates, they specifically allow these plates to be mounted to the rear suspension shocks mounts/tower/pickup points, they specifically allow additional bracing within the cage, and they specifically allow any number of tubes to attach to those large plates. Taken in context, strengthening of the chassis is - in my opinion, "obviously" - allowed and even encouraged.



I would say strengthening of the chassis for the purposes of driver safety is plainly allowed and stated. Anything else is reading intent into the rules and as we know the intent doesn't matter. Strengthing of the suspension points is specifically prohibited in many cases and if it says you can't, then you can't. In this case application of the rulebook contradicts itself.



Originally posted by GregAmy:
While I can certainly appreciate your position of seeing rules creep in the rollcage rules versus the original in the 80's that only allowed bolt-in cages (which, by the way, I built and raced in back then) the rules today specifically and explicitly allow and encourage this activity.

Honestly, short of requesting a written rules change, there is no way you're going to curb or restrict this activity. It's plainly legal.



I was pretty sure you were familiar with the old style cages. Since my car was originally built in the early 90's I have a reminder of those rules everytime I have the chance to upgrade something. I certainly wasn't implying that rewriting the rules to limit chassis stiffening was a good idea, I just was pointing out the incredible difference in cage construction allowed by rules changes in the name of safety. "Rules creep" is a term frequently thrown around here but I don't think this is an example that has been pointed out before.


Originally posted by bldn10:
Matt, we have all agreed that any decent, modern cage is going to be designed to and in fact stiffen the car - a prohibited function. Therefore, per the rule you are focusing on, most all cages are illegal. Extreme?


As I think virutaly everyone feels that pure safety issues should take precedence over any other issue. No, in most cages built with the IT rules all of the bars contribute to saftey in some respect. But, there are some extreme cases where an argument can be made that a bar serves no other purpose than to strengthen the car.


Originally posted by bldn10:
OK, let's step back and and look at additional tubes w/i the structure, that are expressly allowed: are we going to examine each one and ask whether it adds to safety or adds to stiffness? Of course not because they are expressly allowed even if they are put in solely to stiffen. Therefore, the cage rules have to be exceptions to the "no other purpose" rule. You have certainly pointed out a facial inconsistency but, unfortunately, we can't always interpret rules in such literal fashion. Like some others, I am 100% certain on this one.



As far as how the rules is taken in application I agree it's difficult if not impossible to argue each element of the cage. Greg Amy's is probably the most borderline example I have seen but I think a protest is ultimately doomed. It's just too much of a grey area. But nowhere does it say the cage is excepted from the "prohibited function" clause, that is an interpretation that is being made and interpretations are subject to the decision of the SOM and COA. The clause exists to prevent unforseen rules intrepretations from bypassing specifc rules that disallow an advantage

Again, I am just trying to clarify on what basis a protest could be made. It's nothing more than a friendly discussion and certainly doesn't mean that I don't see why several of you chose to interpret the rules the other way. It's a gray area, despite George's denial that there should even be a question about it. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited January 11, 2005).]

Greg Amy
01-11-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by bldn10:
...in fact stiffen the car - a prohibited function.

One last point before we stop flogging this dead horse.

Everyone, it seems, has taken as a base assumption that using the rollcage to stiffen the chassis of the car, especially at the suspension, is a prohibited function. It is not. In fact, it is specifically allowed (nay, encouraged) by ITCS 17.1.4.D.10.a.4, which allows the attachment of the rear main hoop braces to the "rear shock mounts/towers or suspension pickup points." If this is not an encouragement to brace the rear suspension, then why is it even mentioned?

Again: I believe that stiffening of the chassis or rear suspension is not a prohibited function of the rollcage, expressed or implied. It may have been twenty years ago when we bolted in Autopower cages, but it is not today...GA

Edit: typo

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 11, 2005).]

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Everyone, it seems, has taken as a base assumption that using the rollcage to stiffen the chassis of the car, especially at the suspension, is a prohibited function. It is not. In fact, it is specifically allowed (nay, encouraged) by ITCS 17.1.4.D.10.a.4, which allows the attachment of the rear main hoop braces to the "rear shock mounts/towers or suspension pickup points." If this is not an encouragement to brace the rear suspension, then why is it even mentioned?

Again: I believe that stiffening of the chassis or rear suspension is not a prohibited function of the rollcage, expressed or implied. It may have been twenty years ago when we bolted in Autopower cages, but it is not today...GA



The rules do state that reinforcing suspension points is limited to certain limitations as far as strut bars.

17.1.4.D.5.d.8 - No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted.

As for why the strut/shock towers are mentioned, I think your reading an intent into the rules by making the assumption that it is to allow stiffening. I would suggest the reason is that those areas are universally among the strongest point in the rear of any car and would be the most secure to mount the cage to. Similar to calling out the rocker boxes for the main hoop mounting, it's not to stiffen the car, it's to make sure the cage mounts don't rip out of unreinforced sheetmetal in the event of an accident.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

lateapex911
01-11-2005, 02:50 PM
I'm thinking that even IF this were an issue, how can an official judge the builders intent??

Is the official gonna say "That tube over there IS there for safety, but this tube over here is NOT...it's a stiffener, and you are outa here!"? No... I don't think so.

Maybe we can tell if we crash all the cars on test sleds and record g-loading in 3D on a crsah test dummy. (Maybe Gregg of Isaac can pony up a spare dummy..............) Of course, we will need multiple examples of identical models with cage variations.

You really get into deep water when a protest requires the officials call on the builders intent!

Look, the rulesmakers knew damn well what the benefits were when they wrote the rules. They put specific limits in to keep it under control. Easy to enforce limits. And the limits result in design decisions for the builder. The points are largely defined, the tube size is a given (which will result in the builders compromise...is the resultant strength gain worth the weight added?) and plate sizes.

Sure it IS rules creep, but the benefit to us as competitors with families, etc. is far greater than the cost of increased build complexity or performance gain realized on the track.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

JohnRW
01-11-2005, 02:52 PM
"Groundhog Day".

Greg Amy
01-11-2005, 03:02 PM
We're flogging past each other, Matt.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">17.1.4.D.5.d.8 - No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted.</font>

I completely agree. The above rule thusly allows "relocation or reinforcment" of suspension components or mounting points that it does allow. The rule I quoted before allows (I say "encourages") reinforcement of the rear suspension mounts.

My cage does not reinforce any suspension pickup or mounting point other than the one allowed by 17.1.4.D.10.a.4.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I think your reading an intent into the rules by making the assumption that it is to allow stiffening.</font>

"Stiffening" of what? The rollcage? The suspension pickup point itself? Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that stiffening the chassis with the rollcage is a prohibited function (a point with which I disagree). If I stiffen the rollcage to the suspension mount, am I doing it to stiffen the rollcage or am I doing it to stiffen the mounting point? Chicken or egg? If my intent was the former but the latter resulted, am I illegal? So, what we're really talking about here is proof of intent?

Fine, I heretofore formally renounce that my intention for the design of that rollcage was to stiffen the rear suspension points; it was PURELY to stiffen the rollcage for maximum safety. It is very unfortunate that my rollcage design resulted in a potential performance advantage but I assure you that it was not my intent. Therefore, despite any perceived performance advantage I have thus not in any way violated the "intent rule"; therefore, I am 100% in compliance with the rules. However, now that an illegal potential result has been proven possible, and you have been made aware of it, it would be in clear violation of the regs if you were to do the same to your car, because your intent would be clear.

Now, really, just how silly is this?

Matt, again, I agree with you: the rules have creeped from 1984. Yes, my rear suspension has been strengthened by my rollcage design. But, if you continue to tilt this windmill it will fill you with frustration to the point of self-destruction.

I wholly encourage you, if you feel that strongly about it, to pursue a rule change with SCCA. If the rules change, I will comply. But I also feel strongly that this cage is completely and totally legal, to both the letter and the intent, even to the point where I am willing to risk time, money, and effort to prove it with you.

But, please, don't take time trying convince me otherwise. I, and many others, believe these designs are completely legal. - GA

Edit: DOOH! Typos and maybe a Freudian slip???

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 11, 2005).]

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Look, the rulesmakers knew damn well what the benefits were when they wrote the rules. They put specific limits in to keep it under control. Easy to enforce limits. And the limits result in design decisions for the builder. The points are largely defined, the tube size is a given (which will result in the builders compromise...is the resultant strength gain worth the weight added?) and plate sizes.



I'm sure we can all acknowledge that when these rules were changed they could not have forseen every possible manipulation possible. I think everyone realizes that if there is a rule someone will find a loophole to exploit it. I would guess that allowing multiple bars to attach to the plates was done to make fabrication easier. Greg's cage has taken that allowance and stretched it pretty far, probably farther than originally intended. On the one hand, congrats to him for exploiting the rule. On the other hand, does it really contribute to the driver's safety which is the stated purpose of the cage. If he wants to follow through with his offer then maybe we'll find out.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Sure it IS rules creep, but the benefit to us as competitors with families, etc. is far greater than the cost of increased build complexity or performance gain realized on the track.



Hey, as I said, I agree that the benefits to safety are worth it. I'm just clarifying why it's a gray area. I'm certainly not saying anyone is cheating by exploiting the ambiguity in the rules.

In the meantime, I'll try to stop responsing as long as no one claims that it is a black and white issue. Deal? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
But I also feel strongly that this cage is completely and totally illegal, to both the letter and the intent, even to the point where I am willing to risk time, moeny, and effort to prove it with you.
[/B]

I take it you meant to say legal and not illegal right? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

dickita15
01-11-2005, 04:51 PM
I must admit that even I am on greg's side on this one. the no prohibited function clause is just to broad for it to be well applied in this case. the rear "strut bar" also changes the weight distribution by adding balast in a non approved location. is that another prohibited function. in order to enforce this clause it has to be obvious.

if I put a heat shield on my exhaust out of 16 ga metal it should be legal. how about 1/8 " probably would pass. if it was 1/4" plate I would say no.

because the no prohibited funcion clause is vauge the proof must be obvious.

dick patullo

gsbaker
01-11-2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
(Maybe Gregg of Isaac can pony up a spare dummy..............)

Not necessary, Jake. I'll drive. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

G

pfcs
01-11-2005, 06:07 PM
it is (just my opinion, of course)

lateapex911
01-11-2005, 08:21 PM
Awww...c'mon! It is what !??????

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
01-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Wait until you see the cage in my NEXT car.

K

pfcs
01-11-2005, 10:18 PM
black and white (nice sceme for a cage Kurt)

------------------
phil hunt

01-11-2005, 10:35 PM
Question,

Is there a reason that Greg needs wait for the next race to have his cage inspected? That "could" effect his weekend of having fun? Is there a way to have a SCCA inspector to be paid for his time to inspect the cage long before the race so changes could be made if it is infact not legal.

Could Greg send pictures of the mounting points in question to SCCA for clarification long before the racing starts to give him time for mods?

My opinion is if Gregs cage design might save lives then get the rule changed and everyone
do it. And if this is such a grey area Give Greg some time to make changes "Just" in case.

Just a thought.

Mont

[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 11, 2005).]

Matt Rowe
01-11-2005, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Marzracing:
Question,

Is there a reason that Greg needs wait for the next race to have his cage inspected? That "could" effect his weekend of having fun? Is there a way to have a SCCA inspector to be paid for his time to inspect the cage long before the race so changes could be made if it is infact not legal.

Could Greg send pictures of the mounting points in question to SCCA for clarification long before the racing starts to give him time for mods?

My opinion is if Gregs cage design might save lives then get the rule changed and everyone
do it. And if this is such a grey area Give Greg some time to make changes "Just" in case.

[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 11, 2005).]

Options for clarifications are possible by submitting a request to national along with a check for $250. I don't think anyone here feels it is worth that kind of money one way or the other. It is unclear to me if that would eliminate the possibility of a future protest, if additional information is lodged in the protest although I'm sure most people think it is a get out of jail paper. My only question is a good protest would make a case based on the various rules interpretations that we have been discussing. Were Greg to submit his rear bracing for an opinion I doubt he or anyone else would make a strong case for why it is in question. So I don't know that it would prove anything beyond what everyone already accepts. As I said I don't think anyone here would think its worth the money.

I seriously doubt Greg is any danger of receiving a penalty or DQ. I think the cage in question has been around and under scrutiny for long enough. Since he put forward the idea of a test protest I would imagine he's had people look at it before but no one has protested yet or we wouldn't be having this debate.

If you take a look at the pictures in question I think you'll also find that the bar in question really has a marginal effect on safety at best. Plus it appears that almost everyone is doing something with a better impact on safety, this design just pushes the limits of the mounting plate rule more than most. So getting a clarification on this extreme case isn't really going to make cage building safer.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Greg Amy
01-11-2005, 11:52 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Is there a way to have a SCCA inspector to be paid for his time to inspect the cage...</font>

As Matt pointed out, I could pay $250 to have an opinion rendered. Not only am I really not interested in spending that money, but (again as Matt noted) I don't know that this would ncessarily be a "get out of jail free" card should someone else disagree.

To me, the value my offer is multi-fold:

- First, it encourages other competitors to come up to me and look at it in person for themselves, which also gives me the opportunity to explain my position in person. My car is an open-hood, open-door, open-hatch policy any time you feel like it. Stay out of my crew chief's way and you can look in, under, and through the car any time.
- Two, the process as I described it to Matt allows me to go through the protest and appeal process for significantly less $$$ than the inspection/pre-opinion actions ($25 for the protest or $125 max for the appeal versus $250).
- Three, I get to meet some of the faces from this board.
- Four, there was a "four" but I forgot what it was.

I've had local qualified SCCA tech inspectors look at my car, specifically during the last annual tech inspection. One of those inspectors is on this board and shall remain nameless 'lest he choose to reveal himself. His initial reaction was the same as yours, Matt, and I thought there for about 5-10 seconds he was gonna bark, but when my crew chief explained our logic he kinda rolled his eyes, looked at us sideways and mumbled something as he walked away...

I'm not gonna BS you guys; you know why we did it the way we did it. But there you are and there we are and never the 'twain shall meet... GA

01-11-2005, 11:54 PM
Just took a look at the Photo that Greg has supplied, I have to agree that it is a really grey area, now if the bar in question was secured to the rear "roll" cage I wouldnt see a problem, in either place it would serve the same purpose. Just adding the plate too the strut top that the bar is welded to helped and would need to be removed also.

My guess? He will need to move the rear strut support, if not, good for us and him and on with one we go too!

Can't wait to see how this turns out, We will put up the $25.00, just don't swat any flies on the wall we might be one.

Man I hope my spelling is right, not going to edit this one, not looking back.

Mont

Had to edit too not to.

Plus the #4 cracked me up, needed a good one about now, you cracked me up Greg.




[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 11, 2005).]

Knestis
01-12-2005, 01:03 AM
Sorry, guys - I'm pretty darned nerdy about rules and I don't see this as anything like gray.

Once it became OK to connect multiple tubes to the same plate - as specifically described in the rules - Greg's solution became totally acceptable.

There may be as many tubes in the cage as you want and they may be anywhere you want, as long as they attach only to the plates, and the plates are legal in size and number.

K

01-12-2005, 01:20 AM
Ok, I will start welding in the morning. Same thing goes for Rabbit and GTI, right?

Thanks Knestis. Gotta love the rule book and a nerd, That's why I married one, The rules started with "I DO". The nerd is what I married long ago.

Btw, looks like I got off cheap, no charges to any of the cards.


What's up with your home page K, over the limit? Or just all of my walls.

Mont

[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 12, 2005).]

Geo
01-12-2005, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry, guys - I'm pretty darned nerdy about rules and I don't see this as anything like gray.

Sure it is. Black and white are just two shades of grey. But that's about the extent of it.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
01-12-2005, 01:35 AM
Hehe, this whole thing about legal tubes and plates just reminded me of how I originally considered building my cage. I was going to use a sufficiently long plate for the main hoop to be able to attach one set of supports to the same plate. Since that still only constitutes a single mounting point, I was going to run an additional set of supports going to be the back of the hatch/frame for my second mounting point.

Boy, I'm sure that would have given some folks fits. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

01-12-2005, 02:20 AM
Geesh, What is the date when this is all going to get done and over. I need to get welding soon.

GregAmy, Matt, when is this all goin down?

Mont.

[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 12, 2005).]

pfcs
01-12-2005, 11:52 AM
if your want/intent was to bring a frown to my face then you are quite sucessful. (or is this your alter-ego 36/2 pesona making this post. seems possible) Please take your prejudice and moronic juvenile toxic attitude and just go away. I wonder who gets to scrape the undercoating off your next racecar project. Maybe you should spend some time on the bottom, looking up. Maybe then you could understand what it means to be a brother. You give me the space to be furious.

pfcs
01-12-2005, 11:57 AM
apparantly while I typed the above reply, martzracing edited the post above it-which was an offensive rant against Mexicans and a sophmoric allusion to how "we" all ought to procreate to defend ourselves. I'm confused and dismayed about this. phil

Speed Raycer
01-12-2005, 01:07 PM
Wow... I never thought this topic would get 3 pages of response... Thanks for posting that 1st pic Kirk!

This topic has taught me quite a bit on how people view the cage rules in IT.

It's also taught me not to hit the "send email when there's a response button" when posting a new topic http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Guys, how about we keep it on the topic of Cages and edit out the off topic posts above. I'd hate to see a great topic get locked or deleted.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

JohnRW
01-12-2005, 01:37 PM
This whole thread 'went circular' sometime on the 7th or 8th of January. No new information, just "can...can't...can...can't...

Now it's just ideology vs. practicality. I'm sticking with the 'practicalists', as 'ideologists' have made a complete hash out of everything they've touched in recorded human history. I just can't grasp an argument that says, if something is specifically allowed, it must then meet a non-specific 'intent' test. How the hell do you do that ? Maybe the rules-writers actually meant what they wrote, and that all the individual rules aren't incongruous or mutually exclusive, when read in total.

Over and out, kids.

(edit - eye kant spel)

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited January 12, 2005).]

Matt Rowe
01-12-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
I just can't grasp an argument that says, if something is specifically allowed, it must then meet a non-specific 'intent' test.



I'm not talking about intent, but what does the modification do in practice. That distinction is what a tech inspector, the SOM and the COA are there to decide.

For those people that can't grasp why a legal part would be disallowed because it performs an illegal function I'll give you this free example to make your car faster. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Oil pans are unrestricted. I make an oil pan that has a piece on the bottom that is a large flat sheet of aluminum. That piece extends from the front air dam to the rear bumper including a diffuser tunnel. Is that legal? If you read only the rule on oil systems it is. If you read the whole rule book then you know you'll have a number of people crawling under your car next race.

It's an extreme case, but so is the bar in Greg's cage. Also, note that the response from Club Racing's Technical Mirector specifically refers to "exceedingly large" mounting plates are limited by "a prohibitve function" so he certainly acknowledges that even otherwise legal cages are limited by that rule.

For a bunch of people that want to stop discussing this we all can't seem to stop.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

ddewhurst
01-12-2005, 04:23 PM
One of the kids needs to read GCR rule 1.2.4...........

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Knestis
01-12-2005, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Marzracing:
... What's up with your home page K, over the limit? Or just all of my walls. ...

It seems to be working - I might have dorked up the url previously so try...

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti

K

01-12-2005, 09:31 PM
k,

It works here but not in your profile, looks great, keep the wheels on the ground! Was there a little puckering going on? In that left hand turn.

Mont

Knestis
01-12-2005, 09:45 PM
Ah - missing "http://..." Thanks!

The interesting thing about the "Rabbit Cup Lean" is how much you don't notice it in the car. The overwhelming impression is one of sloppiness - the steering wheel just isn't connected to much.

K

------------------
PhilsTireService.com Team GTI - ITB Class Winner, 2004 13 Hours at VIR (http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/enduro04.php) - Tuned with Cobalt Friction (http://cobaltfriction.com/) brake pads, KONI (http://www.koni-na.com/racing.html) racing struts, and quality OE Volkswagen and racing parts from Bildon Motorsport (http://www.bildon.com/)

TOYO and HOOSIER Racing Tires available at Phil's Tire Service (http://www.philstireservice.com/)

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 12, 2005).]

01-12-2005, 10:13 PM
K,

Any on board movies in the 13hrs? Hope so.

That story about the stock stuff hanging in there is incredible, really shows driver skills and vw's toughness.

Mont.

Greg Amy
01-12-2005, 11:41 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Any on board movies in the 13hrs?</font>

About 4-5 hours' worth, IIRC. However, since digital camera AVIs cost about 14-16Gb of hard drive space per hour, I converted the video directly to DVDs. I'm planning on eventually snagging a half-dozen each good day and night laps to convert to MPEG before I over-write the tapes, but after about 30 minutes of watching VIR go round-and-round it tends to mesh all together... GA

01-13-2005, 12:11 AM
Great,

We have not been or even seen that track from a drivers point of view and it will be very interesting to see to say the least, we can't wait for you to get them done, hell burn them to dvd and send away! Don't even edit them, we want to see how it really is. Send them c.o.d.

What are you waiting for?, you have had a month to recover! LOL.

Here in Phoenix the tracks have no trees, no green, we would like to see the other tracks and what we are missing.

Your all spoiled from what we see, look at all those nice tracks you have.

Mont.

Knestis
01-13-2005, 12:26 AM
Do you still have the link to the Miata Massacre of 2004, Greg? Post that up so Mont can get a glimpse...

K

01-13-2005, 12:43 AM
Miata?

I hate that word after our last race, a miata driver spun Joe around (looked to be out of frustration) spun him sideways and then plowed into the right front putting us out of the race until the next day, wasted the fender and the lower strut bolt pulled through the metal, we had a very nice car. I hope you got even for us. Here they run the Miata I don't care cars with us.

Bring on the movie, got the beer and popcorn ready.

Mont.

Greg Amy
01-13-2005, 08:44 AM
We're WAAAY off-topic, but I guess that's better than a pissin' contest...

Low res: http://home.comcast.net/~whitney.bill/87sm.wmv

Hi res: http://home.comcast.net/~whitney.bill/87sm2.wmv

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 13, 2005).]

bldn10
01-13-2005, 12:49 PM
Which damn cage are we talking about here? I've been looking at the red BMW (illegal) and Kirk's (legal). In that context:

"Oil pans are unrestricted. I make an oil pan that has a piece on the bottom that is a large flat sheet of aluminum. That piece extends from the front air dam to the rear bumper including a diffuser tunnel. Is that legal? If you read only the rule on oil systems it is. If you read the whole rule book then you know you'll have a number of people crawling under your car next race.
It's an extreme case, but so is the bar in Greg's cage."

Matt, like I said, you can't read the rules that literally, they assume a certain amount of common sense. A pan like that would be so far removed from its intended purpose that it will have morphed into something else altogether. Indeed, the illegal purpose becomes predominate. On the other hand, an additional tube in a cage (expressly allowed) does not change the essential nature or function of the cage and, arguably, almost any additional tube adds somewhat to the strength of the cage. The rear braces are allowed to be attached to the towers not to reinforce the suspension points but because they are presumed to be stable platforms and, it least IMO, a tube that spans them adds to the strength of the braces. Your arguments are logical, just too literal.

Now, having just looked at the photo of Greg's cage, it looks like his horizontal bar is attached to its own plate and it is not otherwise attached to the cage. If that is so, then that tube is indeed illegal because it is not even part of the cage and the cage rules are irrelevant. If the plate wraps around the tower then it is arguably part of the cage, but it may or may not be deemed an additional tube WITHIN the structure of the cage. So, if we are talking about Greg's, I agree w/ the guys who say it is in a gray area.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

ShelbyRacer
01-13-2005, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by bldn10:
Your arguments are logical, just too literal.

<snip>

So, if we are talking about Greg's, I agree w/ the guys who say it is in a gray area.



Well, if you reread what Matt was saying, that was his point. The arguement is not that Greg's cage is illegal and he should be allowed to race, the arguement is that it can be interpreted both ways, allowing for the difference of opinion and therefore discussion. I hope for Greg's sake that it's not found illegal, as then he'll have a change to make...

At the same time, I want to say I think that those who are willing to participate in these discussions are the ones who really want to race the other drivers, rather than the other cars. Besides, this is a *discussion* forum, so if you don't want to participate, don't look at the topic (not aimed at bldn).

I, for one, find these boards to be free entertainment. As I said to another board member last night on the phone, I really hope most of you guys are sitting there with big smiles on your faces having a good chuckle, and not getting bent out of shpae about this stuff... I know that I'm always smiling during every post I make here (versus some other places...)


Edited to mention Freudian slip in first paragraph- that Greg *shouldn't* be allowed to race... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited January 13, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited January 13, 2005).]

01-13-2005, 09:36 PM
I'll bet there were some words said after that race! Did they pull the camera out after the race and download to a laptop to show what really happened to the drivers?

That was a great accident and makes me feel better in some sick way, the Miata driver here needs that done to him to give him the feel.

Mont

Knestis
01-14-2005, 11:07 AM
Race Karma caught up with the perp a few laps later and he was out, poked in the wall with the nose of his car creamed. The bumper cover was stuck in the Armco for the rest of the race as I recall...

K

Ron
01-15-2005, 12:00 PM
Race Karma? If you watch closely the Mustang never moves of its line! It was the Miata that came over.Yes the car did end up in the gaurd rail because of a failed suspension piece from hitting the Miata. I know, 13 hour race why push so hard, bla,bla,bla. The driver of the Mustang ran in IMSA back in the 70's when they raced hard every lap, even if it was a enduro! Kurt sorry if the little tap in passing your car might have been too much. But we are all racing hard.

Ron, owner of said Mustang

lateapex911
01-15-2005, 04:58 PM
Well, regarding the videos, the high res makes it much easier to see whats what..

As to what happened....well opinions will vary on this one....seems silly to wreck on a straight though...no matter who's "holding the line" or who's "moving over"...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
01-15-2005, 06:53 PM
I have no heartburn over the situation, Ron so no apology is necessary.

Karma isn't about whether someone has done something wrong or not, necessarily: It's about the way the universe works things out for itself. Racing is a messy business and I think ultimately, once all of the racing miles are run, it all works out.

I got absorbed in a race for position and made life really hard for one of the fastest cars on the track, making him leap a curb rather than punt me, so I know not to get too involved in stone-throwing...

K

theenico
01-17-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Marzracing:
Ok, I will start welding in the morning. Same thing goes for Rabbit and GTI, right?

Thanks Knestis. Gotta love the rule book and a nerd, That's why I married one, The rules started with "I DO". The nerd is what I married long ago.

Btw, looks like I got off cheap, no charges to any of the cards.


What's up with your home page K, over the limit? Or just all of my walls.

Mont

[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 12, 2005).]

Here are some pics of an A1 chassis cage. The rear shock towers are done similar to Kirk's.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/theenico/hatch-01.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/theenico/dsst-01.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/theenico/psst-03.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/theenico/dsft-04.jpg

------------------
Nico Prelogar
ITB/GP Scirocco sold

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited January 17, 2005).]

Bill Miller
01-17-2005, 06:17 PM
150 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Tom Donnelly
01-17-2005, 09:36 PM
I just caught the video. It looks like the miata driver just didn't know the mustang was there at the kink. The mustang (Ron) was riding the fine edge of the track and came up on the miata pretty quickly.

A pass is the responsibility of the overtaking driver, isn't it? The miata does look like it was coming over in the kink. Alot of us didn't have the experience of racing in IMSA, (which is pretty cool by the way), so maybe you could cut a slower driver some slack since this is just club racing anyway?

JMHO,
Tom Donnelly
ITS 240z

01-19-2005, 02:00 AM
GregAmy,

13hrs done yet? Ship away! If you need any software let me know, I will send all and everything you need. What software are you going to use to save this important race win?

Let me know if I can help.

Mont