September Fastrack...

[Banzai240]

The September Fastrack is now out... Interesting new Cage rule on the first page that effects IT...

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-0...09-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-09-fastrack.pdf)


Read Item 5 under Proposed Rule Changes - GCR...


"Item 5. Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/06: Allow NASCAR-Style side bars on the passenger side of Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring competition cars. Change section 18.2.7 to read as follows:

7. Side Protection
Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05 two(2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. Door side tubes may extend into the door... etc. etc..."

Looks like it's now legal to remove the window glass, etc., from the passenger door!


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[ddewhurst]

Thanks Darin....... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

This should be interesting when people use their three pieces of tubing to make their X diagonal side protection & call them two tubes. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

Is this rule written intentional to somewhat eliminate the X's in the doors ? You can still have an X but will need to add another tube to meet the rule IMHU.

"two(2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory."

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited July 26, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

David, read the def of a NASCAR bar....it's pretty open. I think we have a lot of latitude here.

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

[Banzai240]

David, et.al.,

The ITAC had no input, nor quite franky, any idea, that this change was happening, so read into it what you will... I'm assuming, not having fully read everything, that the rules for "NASCAR" style bars which applied to the driver's door, apply to the passenger side now as well...

Or, at least that appears to have been the intent... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif OOOOMPH!~

Either way, I think it's a good change...

Of course, I have already cut out my "NASCAR" bars from the Speed World Challenge days and installed formerly IT-Legal bars... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[itmanta]

I do not read it that way at all. The ruling specifically states that the tubes may go inside the drivers door and the mechanisms from the drivers side can be removed. No mention of the passanger side

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITE Volvo 740 Turbo
ITB Opel Manta
Oregon Region

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by itmanta:
I do not read it that way at all. The ruling specifically states that the tubes may go inside the drivers door and the mechanisms from the drivers side can be removed. No mention of the passanger side



Read it again. The sections the call out the driver's side door have been lined out. Therefore, the rule applies to either (or both) doors.

On a side note, the fact that the "Regional Only" designation has been removed from SM, sets precedence that a class/category that is designated "Regional Only" does not have to stay that way.

And on a totally different note, I noticed that hard tops are no longer required in SM. I wonder if the same allowance will be extended to the IT Miatas? And if not, why?



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I wonder if the same allowance will be extended to the IT Miatas? And if not, why?



Bill,

Go read the spec lines for the Miatas in ITA... it specifies that removable hard tops MAY be installed... They don't have to be...

We talked about this at some length, and based on info we were presented, we could find no reason to require them... The cars have better aero WITH the tops than without... Quite a bit better, actually, from what we've been told...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Darin,

I honestly hadn't looked at the ITA Miata specs recently, and hadn't recalled any discussions about the tops. And yes, I know that the cars are faster w/ the tops. But I'm certainly glad to see the consistency w/ the top requirments between SM and IT. You know me, I think consistency is a good thing.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... I think consistency is a good thing.



We're trying... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[RacerBowie]

If 2 tubes are mandatory, are 3 tubes better than 2, or illegal?

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

What in the world are you doing up so early??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

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

[ddewhurst]

Darin, I agree it's a positive move.

***David, read the def of a NASCAR bar....it's pretty open. I think we have a lot of latitude here.***

Jake, my understanding of the NASCAR bar intruding into the door cavity connecting the main hoop & the front hoop per the NASCAR-Style Door Bars rule is that the bar is one continious bar. NOT two or more bars welded together.

Others understanding please http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[joeg]

RacerBowie--Put any number of tubes in there you like!

[turboICE]

Since I wrote them in May requesting exactly this (and was told no way/no how by some on this forum)I am all happieness.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[itmanta]

The rule now says that the "nascar" style door bars may intrude into the door cavity on both sides, but the passanger side mechanisms must remain. Am i still missing something? Who proclaimed Nascar "style" door bars to be safest? Certainly not in a two door sedan where the Main hoop is behind the B pillar by six inches or more.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITE Volvo 740 Turbo
ITB Opel Manta
Oregon Region

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

What in the world are you doing up so early??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif



http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif... I'm usually up at 4:30am... On the bike riding to 15-miles to work by 5:30am... Riding back home at around 4:00pm... and in bed, sound asleep, by 11:30pm...

Then I get up and do it all over again...

And you wonder why I can't keep my head on straight half the time... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


Back on topic... THANK YOU CRB for the roll-cage rule change... This just makes a lot more sense. Cars will be "safer" on multiple levels, and now everyone who takes advantage of this rule can get rid of the window glass on the passenger side! That's all goodness...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[planet6racing]

Umm, where does it say you can remove the glass on the passenger side?

It still says "Drivers side window..."

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[turboICE]

Originally posted by itmanta:
The rule now says that the "nascar" style door bars may intrude into the door cavity on both sides, but the passanger side mechanisms must remain.

The GCR definition of NASCAR style has always included a bar intruding into the door cavity - if a bar didn't intrude into the door cavity it was not a GCR defined NASCAR style door bar.

I expect that first the permitted 10/1/06 part is a typo and was meant to be 10/1/05. I also expect that it was an error of ommission that the second "driver's" part was not also crossed out as the first one was. I would expect those to be corrected in future versions.

Clarification on the proposed rule change wording should be asked for from the CRB if there is any lack of clarity.

Also there is no requirement in IT to use NASCAR style (though there is in Touring for some reason). The only mandatory part is that two bars be employed between the front and main hoops across the door openings - so if you feel that they would not be safe on your car feel free to not employ them - but don't gut those doors.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited July 27, 2005).]

[joeg]

It would be bizarre if 10/5 is not a typo.

In any event, can someone clarify the change made awhile ago about tube specs ("required tubes"). The new tubes will be "required"?; Can they be of different sizes--meeting the minimums or must they be the same size as the main hoop? Or am I imagining things?

I have to see what tubing I have in stock when I get home from work.

I always like rule changes that allow me to drag out the bender, notcher and welder.

Cheers.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
Umm, where does it say you can remove the glass on the passenger side?

It still says "Drivers side window..."



Bill,

Look at Item 3 under the Improved Touring section on page F-210. It's in the middle column, about the middle of the page. The language referring to driver's door has been lined out. I would agree that the failure to do this in the other section is an oversight.

Interesting to note, the section where it is lined out is under Improved Touring, and the section where it is not lined out is under GCR. This means that it's covered in the ITCS, which trumps the GCR.

To Darin or anyone else 'in the know', any idea why the language allowing the attachment of the window net was lined out?

Somewhat surprised that something like this wasn't put out for member input, but I'm glad that somebody decided to take the bull by the horns and just implement rules that make sense.



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

[turboICE]

I believe as a proposed rule change asking for member comments for or against is putting it out for input.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[turboICE]

Two things - the errors/typos/ommissions are in item 5 of the GCR changes not in item 3 of the ITCS changes.

Am I reading ITCS change #2 correctly here:

Should the change be taken to mean that we can now change intake parts between a MAF and the throttle body? I think it does.

Otherwise I don't see any point in the change to the wording - it was clear as previously worded. If the intent is not to basically free up all parts in front of the throttle body except for the MAF itself then they really did nothing but make the wording more labored.

If I am off base here please explain the wording change purpose.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE:
I believe as a proposed rule change asking for member comments for or against is putting it out for input.



Good point Ed.



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

[Banzai240]

I'll have to go read what was actually printed again, but on the air intake... The "intent" of the rule is to allow you to replace the entire air-intake tube all the way to the throttle-body, with the EXCEPTION of the MAF or Air-Metering-Device... So, the only real change to this rule is that the but between the metering device and the thottle body can now be replaced... Looks to me like they forgot to strike out one of the items in the parens ("air mass meter"), but the rest looks correct...

I don't see how one can say it's laboured, when mostly words were removed, and I think that it's pretty clear what can and can't be done... consise is the term I'd use... This has been on the table for some time (and out for member comment for a LONG time), and we went round and round with the wording... mostly involving what to do about controlling the LOCATION of the MAF device... This is the end result... You can replace the tubes, but you must leave the MAF operational and unmodified, just as before... The location of the MAF will be dictated by the wiring, mounts, etc.... that's about the best we could do without laying out a book full of parameters concerning the MAF location that would have certainly just caused confusion... over something that really isn't going to matter much...

The reason this was done is that there are cars that had an "unfair" advantage due to the wording of this rule allowing them to replace their entire air intake assembly right to the throttle-plates, while other were limited by the metering device location...

Plus, it'll let your competition waste their money on shiney aluminum "bling" tubes that heat up the air-charge and reduce their HP Potential, allowing you to pull them in the straights because you spent your money on good tires... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[turboICE]

Darin, thanx for the response. The new language only would have been labored if the parts between the MAF and the throttle body were still restricted. With your explanation of the intent and if the last item in parens is in fact going to be eliminated - I agree that it will be concise.

MAF relocation would only make sense for me if battery relocation were allowed. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif I would love to pull air from the intake manifold side of the car rather than the exhaust manifold side.

But I will be glad to improve both the shape and the heat resistance over the OEM parts I have.

I guess this edition has quite a few edits that weren't quite complete in the proposed changes.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited July 27, 2005).]

[whenry]

Finally the H-word intake rule is being exposed and addressed. Yes, I know that I am not guaranteed a competitive car but writing a rule that allows one brand a very real competitive advantage is also wrong. I will say that the original rule was written back when the staff at SCCA was different(and racing H-word products). YMMV

[RacerBowie]

Darin, is this a rule as of 10/1/05, or is it still up for debate? I have to buy a new intake for the repair of my wrecked car and this could make a difference for me.

Thanks,

Bowie


Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'll have to go read what was actually printed again, but on the air intake... The "intent" of the rule is to allow you to replace the entire air-intake tube all the way to the throttle-body, with the EXCEPTION of the MAF or Air-Metering-Device... So, the only real change to this rule is that the but between the metering device and the thottle body can now be replaced... Looks to me like they forgot to strike out one of the items in the parens ("air mass meter"), but the rest looks correct...

I don't see how one can say it's laboured, when mostly words were removed, and I think that it's pretty clear what can and can't be done... consise is the term I'd use... This has been on the table for some time (and out for member comment for a LONG time), and we went round and round with the wording... mostly involving what to do about controlling the LOCATION of the MAF device... This is the end result... You can replace the tubes, but you must leave the MAF operational and unmodified, just as before... The location of the MAF will be dictated by the wiring, mounts, etc.... that's about the best we could do without laying out a book full of parameters concerning the MAF location that would have certainly just caused confusion... over something that really isn't going to matter much...

The reason this was done is that there are cars that had an "unfair" advantage due to the wording of this rule allowing them to replace their entire air intake assembly right to the throttle-plates, while other were limited by the metering device location...

Plus, it'll let your competition waste their money on shiney aluminum "bling" tubes that heat up the air-charge and reduce their HP Potential, allowing you to pull them in the straights because you spent your money on good tires... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

[Banzai240]

On the Air Intake rule... If the Fastrack doesn't specify a date, then it's a CRB recommendation that won't be in effect until 2006, and only if the BoD approves the change in it's August or December meetings... unless I'm reading something wrong...

Not sure about the cage rules... There is a typo in there I think that makes it sound like it won't be allowed until 10/2006, but it then says 10/2005...

In most cases, these announcements for GCR or ITCS rule change recommendations do not take effect until the BoD officially approves them in their August or December meetings...

I'm confident the proposals will be approved, but it IS possible they won't be... (I'm thinking HIGHLY unlikely this will happen... The BoD has trusted us to this point...)

Hope this helps...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

yeah...I have to agree...I'll bet the cage ruling is as good as done.

My completely inaccurate rumour gathering device has this rule is part of a larger "We gotta look at the cage rules" movement by the CRB, and it is obviously a safer and wiser set up. I HIGHLY doubt the BoD will overrule the wants of the CRB, and more importantly, the insurance commitee on this.

They'll hammer out the wording, but I *bet* the desire (Note I avoided the word 'intent', LOL) is to have both sides match, and that the club would like to see cars that can put any form of "NASCAR" bar in to do so, and is willing to throw us all a bone in the form of a gutted door, as further temptation.

Works for me, I just wish I could just do it now!

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 27, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Okay - minority view, perhaps but I don't buy that NASCAR-style door bars on the passenger side make a car safer.

All that pushing the bars into the door cavity do is gain the driver some physical space between his/her elbow and the tube. That benefit doesn't happen on the passenger side.

It seems to me that this is being motivated by someone's view of "what a racing car should look like."

k

[JeffYoung]

Guys, bear with me, but I am not sure there was a clear answer to this question:

Does an "X" style side protection on the passenger side satisfy the new two-tube rule? I would argue that it does, but saw one post (dewhurst) that indicated it did not. Wouldn't the X constitute "two tubes" between the front and main hoops?

By the way, I'm with Kirk on this. Just what does door bars on the passenger side have to do with safety? The chances of a side impact on the passenger side coming anywhere near me are slim to none.

[turboICE]

My view is that if it keeps objects further from inside my compartment it is an improvement. Between accusump, cool suit cooler, ballast and who knows what else over on our right - I like the idea.

Keep in mind that nothing has been advanced requiring a NASCAR style door bar to be installed on your car if you don't want it as long as you do not gut the door. The option is being given and I think it is a good thing to have the option for those who want it whether for safety or because of their view of what a race car should be.

If there is ever a time when NASCAR bars are proposed as a requirement rather than an option - by all means communicate to the CRB any disagreement with it as a requirement.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[Knestis]

It's a little immaterial if it's required or not. If NASCAR passenger side door bars were argued as a "safety" enhancement, it's just another example of disengenuous rationale applied to satisfy the "IT cars are REAL race cars" mythos. That's just one more nail in the rules creep coffin.

K

[Banzai240]

...It never fails... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif

[tderonne]

One aspect of the safety argument that recently came to light in my world.

At Waterford (and similar in SCCA) we have insurnace that covers our race weekends. We hear a lot about how insurance drives safety improvements. Sounds simple.

Question:
We're going to hold a vintage race. What to do about insurance? Some vintage cars (pre-war) don't even have roll bars.

So what to do? Suck it up and pay some huge rate? Something else?

Answer:
Nothing, same insurance. They don't care. Wheel to wheel racing is wheel to wheel racing.

So much for the insurance drives safety argument.

[dyoungre]

Would the ALLOWANCE of Nascar bars make the IT cars more suitable to hold a passenger, say for a driver's school, or HPDE event? While adding Nascar bars to the passenger side may provide minimal safety improvements for a driver, I expect it could pay dividends to a student in the passenger seat.
One could argue that having curved bars protruding into the door may also help reduce passenger side impact Gs by absorbing a higher percentage of the energy by bending before the whole side of the car pancakes. Thoughts?

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[turboICE]

Passenger considerations was the primary original reason I sent a letter in May asking for what they are now proposing. I wanted to see it for many reasons - but consideration for an instructor when one of my friends wants to use the car for a PDE event was what actually caused me to write them. That discussion can be seen in the "driver's side glass" thread right below.

------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[ddewhurst]

***Does an "X" style side protection on the passenger side satisfy the new two-tube rule? I would argue that it does, but saw one post (dewhurst) that indicated it did not. Wouldn't the X constitute "two tubes" between the front and main hoops?***

Jeff, my thought of the "X" not being two tubes is the same as main hoops, main hoop diagonal, main hoop horizontal, front hoops side hoops & rear hoop braces. Do we make these TUBES out of more than one piece of tubing ? The basic purpose of the roll care is to protect the driver..................

For driver protection I'll take the NASCAR side protection. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif For chassis strength I'll take the "X". http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

This whole deal is really quit simple. The TWO tubes connecting the rear & front hoops are required at a future date. To those who feel better with the "X" I'll bet your overall design could be such that you could do both the TWO tubes & the "X" THREE tubes. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[JIgou]

Originally posted by dyoungre:
One could argue that having curved bars protruding into the door may also help reduce passenger side impact Gs by absorbing a higher percentage of the energy by bending before the whole side of the car pancakes. Thoughts?



One could also argue that strong steel bars extending into the door and attaching the remainder of the car's structure could, rather than absorb the impact forces, transmit them directly to the rest of the car - including the squishy part in the seat(s).

Having destroyed my Miata this past Sunday and had very little soreness during the ensuing days, I'm now a BIGGER believer in letting the chassis absorb the impact as much as possible. YMMV.

Jarrod

[turboICE]

I am not so sure that NASCAR bars eliminate chasis force abosrbtion from a crash.

They do not extend beyond the a-pillar and b-pillar. There is still a wide area of dispersion of force in front of and behind the door bars. The car may rotate differently to distribute the forces around the door bar - but I don't think NASCAR bars are going to eliminate chasis absorption and transfer forces to the driver directly. I would prefer direct transfer over compartment intrusion though.

I am strapped into a comfortably tight seat so that points of contact will spread through my whole body. Except of course my head flopping around.

Great these conversations always make me go to the Isaac site... I gotta make the budget for that.
------------------
Ed.
240SX ITA

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited July 28, 2005).]

[Fastfred92]

[quote]Originally posted by ddewhurst:
[B]***
For driver protection I'll take the NASCAR side protection. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif For chassis strength I'll take the "X". http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

From my NASCAR days we found on a chassis flex tester that the X was stiffer ( that seems obvious ) but if the "NASCAR" bars were properly braced ( in between diagonals ) the strength was the same and side impact was better with the NASCAR setup and offered more crush and reduced transmitted impact. I will take an extra few inches from someones bumper left or right side...

Kirk, BTW I think X bars LOOK better http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[ddewhurst]

Jarrod, we are riding in the same boat. I totally toasted (firewall forward all twisted to the drivers side,passenger side subframe stuffed into the firewall & kinked an area in passenger footwell up 4 inches, motor mounts, transmission mount) my 1st gen RX-7 at the Farm two weeks ago while leading the ITA class. 1st time out with the new suspension turning low 1.26's on 4 year old Toyo tires. Yep, the front took a hell of a beating but the driver had/has zero anything. Ya got to love it when the car is toast but the driver is clean.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

ps: Ya got to have a DREAM. New ITA RX-7 car, new Hoosiers & CRX hunting time. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by JIgou:
...Having destroyed my Miata this past Sunday and had very little soreness during the ensuing days,...

Glad you are all right.

(Okay, enough with the serious stuff.)

Hey Jarrod, what it is with you Isaac users and Miatas, getting turned around and parked looking upstream? You this past weekend and Bowie last month at Road Atlanta's T5 (caution, 500+KB):

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Users/RACrunch.JPG

We may have to title your photo series "RACrunch II". http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Edit: Oops, not everyone is on broadband.]

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited July 28, 2005).]

[itmanta]

I am glad my Volvo is in ITE and our rules here say the cage must meet or "exceed" IT specifications. My main hoop sits 10" behind the B pillar. This means to incorporate nascar style door bars I would have a straight section of tubing over 10" long before the tube could be bent to intrude into the door cavity. This design transmits no energy through the cage and makes it plain dangerous. I feel the new rule is BS and does not take into acount the various body styles in IT. There is no one safe design. Each car has to be evaluated and the safest cage possible should be built.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITE Volvo 740 Turbo
ITB Opel Manta
Oregon Region

[JIgou]

C'mon, Bowie, you can tear up a Miata better than that!!

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20004.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20004.jpg)

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20001.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20001.jpg)

OK, I do see some similarities....

Jarrod

[This message has been edited by JIgou (edited July 28, 2005).]

[ddewhurst]

***This design transmits no energy through the cage and makes it plain dangerous.***

Based on what techinal data ?

***I feel the new rule is BS and does not take into acount the various body styles in IT.***

What is BS about the new rule ?

***There is no one safe design. Each car has to be evaluated and the safest cage possible should be built.***

Are you going to do the design evaluation for each car ?

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[ddewhurst]

Greg, thanks for sharing the warmth with non Isaaac users.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JIgou:
C'mon, Bowie, you can tear up a Miata better than that!!

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20004.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20004.jpg)

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20001.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20001.jpg)

OK, I do see some similarities....

Jarrod

[This message has been edited by JIgou (edited July 28, 2005).]

While I don't have pics, there were some pretty munched Miatas at the 12 Hours of Summit Point!



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

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Greg, thanks for sharing the warmth with non Isaaac users.

Feel the love... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

G

[itmanta]

"***This design transmits no energy through the cage and makes it plain dangerous.***
Based on what techinal data ?"

If you follow the load path in a side impact the doorbars would intrude significantly (in the rearmost portion)before the mainhoop can help out.

"***I feel the new rule is BS and does not take into acount the various body styles in IT.*** What is BS about the new rule ?"

I insert foot in mouth here__ I read the new ruling to mean "nascar" style door bars would be MANDATORY.

"***There is no one safe design. Each car has to be evaluated and the safest cage possible should be built.***Are you going to do the design evaluation for each car ?"

I believe that has always been done by the cage builder and inspected by a tech official?

The basis of my post was "not well founded" so maybe I should have the whole thing deleted. I'll blame it on the heat.



------------------
Peter Linssen
ITE Volvo 740 Turbo
ITB Opel Manta
Oregon Region

[ddewhurst]

***I believe that has always been done by the cage builder and inspected by a tech official?***

Thisv ^ leaves something to be desired. I have a somewhat empty feeling.

***The basis of my post was "not well founded" so maybe I should have the whole thing deleted. I'll blame it on the heat.***

Peter, I'll buy into the heat ^. Now & then I don't read well when it's hot.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

ps: Gregg, do I get a T shirt for toasting a car with zero red mark, zero bruise & no medical injury ? The entire chassis in front of the firewall abbsorbed the energy. Matter of fact the subframe on the passengers side stuffed the floor up approx 4 inches.

ps: Bill, do ya think the easter eggs are being spent because the drivers are crossing the line of capability versus desire ? That's what I did & I know it.

[badal]

Originally posted by itmanta:

If you follow the load path in a side impact the doorbars would intrude significantly (in the rearmost portion)before the mainhoop can help out.

[/B]

The doorbars don't have to attach directly to the main hoop. You can add a vertical between the horizontal seat brace tube and a parallel bar at the bottom of the main hoop. Use this vetical tube to brace the door bars.

I find it interesting passenger side bars used to not be permitted (in SS at least)

Why not say "Do whatever you want, just meet the minimum requirements, and don't attach to or pierce the firewall"?



------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[Knestis]

It isn't really about the bars, though BAB. It's about the door panels and structure.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis:
It isn't really about the bars, though BAB. It's about the door panels and structure.

K


EXACTLY! The SCCA is not known for making rule changes to allow their cars to 'cross-polinate' other, non-SCCA series (nor do I think they necessarily should). Heck, they don't even do it to accomodate their own series. For example, just look at the the things that would need to be taken off a Street Prepared, or Street Modified Solo II car, to run in IT or Prod.


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

[RacerBowie]

Ouch man! Glad you are ok. That looks worse than mine, and I am in it for $3000 so far! Looks like you will have to replace the RF from the firewall if you keep that tub, where mine just had to be "clipped" in front of both strut towers.

And here I was hoping for more ITA Miatas at the ARRC!



Originally posted by JIgou:
C'mon, Bowie, you can tear up a Miata better than that!!

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20004.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20004.jpg)

http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2...%2005%20001.jpg (http://iowa.raquet.net/miata/Miata%20Cup%2005%20001.jpg)

OK, I do see some similarities....

Jarrod

[This message has been edited by JIgou (edited July 28, 2005).]

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:

...ps: Gregg, do I get a T shirt for toasting a car with zero red mark, zero bruise & no medical injury ? The entire chassis in front of the firewall abbsorbed the energy. Matter of fact the subframe on the passengers side stuffed the floor up approx 4 inches....

If you promise to wear it Dave, I'll see to it that you get a free hat, worn here by someone who knows:

http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Humor/He...orthKeeping.JPG (http://www.isaacdirect.com/images/Humor/HeadWorthKeeping.JPG)

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[ddewhurst]

Gregg, that works http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif because the comparative data tells me it is a great product. There will be an improvement for my head/neck safety upon completion of my new car. When I toasted the current car the car was going backwards but with more movement sideways. When the right front of the car hit a row of barrels I swear were filled with concret my head went big time right, while right I viewed the hood crush towards me & then my head went back to the left & smacked the covered side hoop. Upon impact the car whipped around another 180* coming to rest pointed in the correct direction.

Advertising for a great product is good for those whou know of the product & for those who don't know or have a clue that the Isaac exists or what it is.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

2551 North 67th Street
Wauwatosa, WI 54312

[gsbaker]

You da man, Dave! The FedEx truck is headed your way.

Oops, we need a phone number for those guys. Try me at gbaker (at) isaacdirect (dot) com.

Have a great weekend.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[JIgou]

Originally posted by RacerBowie:
Ouch man! Glad you are ok. That looks worse than mine, and I am in it for $3000 so far! Looks like you will have to replace the RF from the firewall if you keep that tub, where mine just had to be "clipped" in front of both strut towers.

And here I was hoping for more ITA Miatas at the ARRC!



Heh. There's a buckle in the transmission tunnel about 6 inches in front of the shifter. A local guy says we can cut it in half somewhere around the driver's seat area and weld on the same from another car.

On that note, I've commenced "Operation Red Car." Just happened that we picked up a '91 street car cheap about a week before.....and, while I'd like to keep driving it to work, my wife keeps reminding me that we picked it up for JUST such an occasion.

Mr. Dewhurst, have you found a chassis yet? I discovered a couple of shells here in Des Moines that are looking for new homes. (One is a "running" car that they can't keep running unless they keep spraying carb cleaner in it - $200. The other is a shell that he thought might be a GSL-SE non-sunroof....)

jigou AT raquet DOT net if you want me to drop by and snap some photos/gather more info.

Jarrod

[ddewhurst]

Jarrod, I appreciate the info on a 1st gen. I couldn't find a rust free within several local states so a racing friend checked one out in Oregon. Should be picking it up tonight. Shipping costs make the car cost kind of upwards but the thing is rust free.

Thanks
David

[m glassburner]

It's funny now that we're using the word "NASCAR" to describe a saftey item.When ever I have asked our local officals(god bless them one and all)why we don't use the white flag at one lap to go...the response I get is "this isn't "NASCAR". http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif p.s. I do enjoy watching twice a year at the road courses !!

[ddewhurst]

Gregg, done deal :023: