Jacking pads legal?

[seattle7]

Is it legal to install pads underneath the rocker panel, so you can jack the whole side of the car up without mashing the pinch rail?
I couldn't find this anywhere in the GCR or ITCS.
Thanks,
Mike

[chuck baader]

Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all. I saw a neat setup on nascar bars....a tube with flat plate extending down from the bars to the bottom area of the door...open the door...jack point. You are on your own on the passenger side. Chuck

[lateapex911]

basically, no.

But I have seen that and a whole lot more. On a first gen RX-7 I saw a U channel running the length of the car. No flattened "frame rail" on that car!

What I would suggest is to weld a pipe down from your lower door bar at the balance point and attach a plate to that pipe, flat to the floor. Then jack that part of the floor.

Don't attach the plate to the floor, that would be the 7th and 8th attachment points. Touching is not attaching.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 19 2005, 08:20 PM
Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all. I saw a neat setup on nascar bars....a tube with flat plate extending down from the bars to the bottom area of the door...open the door...jack point. You are on your own on the passenger side. Chuck

60624



I respectfully disagree Chuck. Where does it say you can add to the chassis?

On the passenger door, things should be different soon, as NASCAR bars are nearly legal on that side.

[Speed Raycer]

http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2Doorbars01.JPG

The only arguments that I've heard against the added bar/pad sites the "any # of tubes WITHIN the confines of the cage" rule. Is it within the confines of the cage???? IMO, yes, but I'm sure that there are other opinions.

More pics.... (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/MJYP2CageInstl.html)

[lateapex911]

Thats what I'm talking about!

But isn't the tube size rule not in effect any more? Well, as of......

[seattle7]

Judging from the responses,

a) it's probably not (or definitely not) legal to mount a pad directly to the bottom of the rocker panel, per IIDSYCYC
B) it's probably not a good idea to support 1/2 the car via the rocker panel alone anyway!

So does everyone just jack up one wheel at a time?

Thanks,

Mike
1986 RX-7 ITS

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by seattle7@Sep 19 2005, 11:55 PM
So does everyone just jack up one wheel at a time?

Ironically enough, my main hoop attachment point makes a perfect jacking point for the whole side of the car.

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Sep 19 2005, 11:58 PM
Ironically enough, my main hoop attachment point makes a perfect jacking point for the whole side of the car.

60661


Yeah, but your car's only 8 feet long!!!! :D

[MMiskoe]

One thing I have done is to build a jig for my floor jack. If you have a jack that you can remove the cup, leaving a round hole this works. A pc of small angle iron (1"x1"x1/8" or so) about 24" long w/ a stub of pipe/round bar in the middle. The round stub sits in the hole where the cup was, the angle iron, "V" up lands on the bottom of the rocker lip and distributes the load so it doesn't crush. Works ok, but has to be lined up right and hurts like hell when you leave this in the jack at shin height.

Now - WHY THE F___ CAN"T WE GET AN ALLOWANCE TO BUILD JACK POINTS?

If things like nascar bars are added over time in the spirit of safety and aren't considered class creep, why can't simple jack points get added? It would not be hard to write it up so that they are for jacking the car, not for adding stiffness. I'd be happy to help draft it.

[lateapex911]

have you submitted a leter to that effect??

If not, why not give it a shot?

(Although it is a workable situation)

[jc836]

IMHO-it is not legal to add what is shown in the pic. That is an attachment point for the cage. With that said-I do agree that there can be a way to connect a flat plate under the car at the CG (ala NASCAR) with a tube going to the cage once such is approved.
Meantime, We use the front and rear pickup/tiedown points to lift the end of the car. I grant this is not the best solution for those with airdam/splitter assemblies up front.
If we are truly concerned about costs and rules creep then the rules as they are should stay as is. I think it possible for someone to argue in favor of airjacks or even a plate/scissors hydraulic jack unit in the pits.

I do like the idea of a modified jack that has a way to connect to the existing jacking points. The channel device is actually made and used on several jacks currently on the market-but these are pricey. The homemade version is a good solution and in keeping with the rules since it does not add anything to the chassis. Just be sure that the jack is rated for 2+ tons.

[Bill Miller]

Not sure how that wouldn't be legal, or how it would be considered an attachment point. I don't see any welds around that pad. If it touches the sheetmetal, but isn't fastned to it, how can it be an attachment point?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Get your own avitars!!! :P

I see that pad from Izzy as legal. Not welded, not bolted - not an attachement point.

As far as writing a rule, make sure it includes maximum dimensions and a maximum quantity, and maximum EVERYTING. Why? Because creative builders will start 'using' them to relocate weight to wherever they dang-well please under the guise of a JP.

Whenever I read a new suggestion , I alsways try and 'torture' it as much as possible to understand the ramifications.

Matt - throw some wording around and lets tweak it for submission.

AB

[Greg Amy]

We've had the "touch" versus "attachment point" argument before, ad nausea,last time was 'how close can you make the tubes to the chassis' (the search is your friend...) The general consensus was that "touching" is fine (although it bunched up some panties), but "attaching" (welding, bolting, etc) is not. Ergo, the pictured pad is legal, assuming it is not "attached" (i.e., that tube could be cut and the rest would be removed by hand.)

I like the idea of having a slip-fit tube in the bars with the door open. Clever. - GA

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by jc836@Sep 21 2005, 06:32 AM
IMHO-it is not legal to add what is shown in the pic. That is an attachment point for the cage.


Which is why I took this pic:

http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2JackPads00.JPG
Here's the other side:
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2JackPads01.JPG

[chuck baader]

Respectively, Jake, who is going to carp about adding a reinforcment for 6" of pinch rail... :o Chuck

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 19 2005, 08:20 PM
Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all.
60624



Chuck I italicized the section I was referring to.

I guess the issue becomes where and how you "draw the line" as Andy pointed out above.

Again, I saw a 1st gen in Atlanta with a U channel that was welded to the "frame" section of the unibody...it was over 3 feet long.

I was told it was for "jacking purposes"...

whatever.... :unsure: :rolleyes:

[Knestis]

http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2Doorbars01.JPG

The jacking point is clearly legal. Removing the cross brace/seat mount on the floor, on the other hand... :P

K

[lateapex911]

Kirk, thats a 1st gen RX-7, and it appears to me that the peice I think you are referring to is still there.

(The grey thing that runs up the rocker and has three tabs with screws?)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 21 2005, 03:21 PM
...Removing the cross brace/seat mount on the floor, on the other hand...
60835


Nah, legal. ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.a. - GA

[lateapex911]

A tech guy who knows his stuff....impressive!

[mgyip]

I like the idea but fixed jack points such as described have some potentially nasty side-effects. A friend had very similar points on his car - tube extensions that ran thru the floor/rockers to provide a definitive jack point. The tubes didn't extend past the rockers to keep them from snagging on crew member body parts or other items that protruded from the pavement. HOWEVER, during a rather vigorous kerb jumping session in Phoenix, one of these jack points grabbed rather firmly to a kerb and popped the car neatly on its roof at about 100 mph :bash_1_: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

Just food for thought...

[Knestis]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Sep 21 2005, 08:06 PM
Nah, legal. ITCS 17.1.4.D.9.a. - GA

60841


Crap. I'm 0 for 2 tonight. My NERD status has obviously been adversely impacted by spending two seasons actually racing. I may have to turn in my badge.

K

[jc836]

I too stand corrected as to how the plate is positioned. The new picture is specific (rag under plate). However, what happens when the floor is pushed up could become an issue to some. Also, if I read the rule correctly, the cross brace/forward seat mounting point can only be modified so as to install alternate mounting rails.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by jc836@Sep 22 2005, 11:48 AM
.......However, what happens when the floor is pushed up could become an issue to some. .

60937



Well, it might be an issue to some, but they need to read the rule book. If it isn't attached, it isn't attached, whether it's touching, pushing or jamming into the stock surface.

[mbuskuhl]

Which is why I took this pic:

http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2JackPads00.JPG
Here's the other side:
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2JackPads01.JPG
[/b]


Bringing back an old post...I'm going to add jack points, my rockers and undercarriage are beat up from the jack.

Passenger side will be easy, going to drop a tube straight down, cut a hole in the floorboard and have it stick out 1/2" on the underside. It will only be welded to the cage.

Driver side I don't have figured out and and need some advice. I have Nascar bars. If I go straight down I would have to cut through the door sill, then the undercarriage and notch the bottom of the door, I am thinking this may weaken the car too much ? Yes, no? In order to get a tube to the floorboard, I would have to make a 90 degree bend with a tube - think 6" tube, 90 degree bend, 6" down. I'm not sure that would support the car? Other concerns would be that tube would get slammed into the seat and possibly me in a side impact. Another option was to run an additional bar (straight) from rear to front and then have a tube come off of it for a jack point - obviously added weight but I do have a good amount of ballast already.

Here is an older picture of my Nascar bars.. http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4594/abcpict0050rb1.jpg


EDIT: I recieved a PM about the legality of cutting a hole in the floorboard. To clarify, my post is about how to best add a jacking point like the above to the Nascar bar side.

9.1.3.f states "Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." The cage is required saftey equipment, one could argue the floorboard was required to be cut for the installation of this tube on the roll cage. Note, I also said the tube is only welded to the cage and nothing more. Either way, through the floorboard or with plate like the above pics, the same end result is accomplished. Jacking points will not make me go any faster, nor will they provide any other performance benefit.

Back on topic, any suggestions on adding a jacking point to the Nascar bar?

[Knestis]

As someone who's looking at doing this over the winter...


Passenger side will be easy, going to drop a tube straight down, cut a hole in the floorboard and have it stick out 1/2" on the underside. It will only be welded to the cage.

Driver side I don't have figured out and and need some advice. I have Nascar bars. If I go straight down I would have to cut through the door sill, then the undercarriage and notch the bottom of the door, I am thinking this may weaken the car too much ? Yes, no? In order to get a tube to the floorboard, I would have to make a 90 degree bend with a tube - think 6" tube, 90 degree bend, 6" down. I'm not sure that would support the car? Other concerns would be that tube would get slammed into the seat and possibly me in a side impact. Another option was to run an additional bar (straight) from rear to front and then have a tube come off of it for a jack point - obviously added weight but I do have a good amount of ballast already.[/b]

The bits that I've put in bold are outside of the rules.

K

[lateapex911]

The cage is required saftey equipment, one could argue the floorboard was required to be cut for the installation of this tube on the roll cage. Note, I also said the tube is only welded to the cage and nothing more. Either way, through the floorboard or with plate like the above pics, the same end result is accomplished. ......
Back on topic, any suggestions on adding a jacking point to the Nascar bar? [/b]

Well, you are correct that body work is cut all the time in the effort to accesss required weld areas when installing roll cages. I just added pass door bars to my car, and the front and rear hoop on the pass side were never designed to facilitate the installation of what the new rule required. So, I needed to open up a large section of the rear quarter, as well as two subsequent panels within. Then, of course, I rewelded those back in place, grinding them smooth and painting them as I went. And, if you need to cut a hole in your floor, and you wish to remain legal, then you'll need to do the same.

The picture shown is a great solution, and is perfectly legal.

On NASCAR bar equiped cages, I imagine just a little creativity will be needed. I'd start on a vertical section, angling down, and bending once inside the rocker box section, terminating with a pad. I'd triangulate it with another tube attached to the lower bar. And remember, these aren't required tubes, so you have considerable design freedomg, and can use whatever materials you find best suit your needs.

[joeg]

If I run the A or B pillar tube through the floor (and plate) welding the circumference of the tube to the interior plate and use the bottom open end of that tube under the car as a jacking point (adapting my jack accordingly), I think I am legal.

I also think I can weld a plate to the bottom of the tube and not need to adapt the jack.

[Speed Raycer]

I might be missing something, but if your pads already are welded to the floor, why do you have to do anything? Just jack it up under the pad and call it a day.

Under the bolt in cage rules, there's already provisions for pads underneith the floor... haven't looked at them much but maybe there's wording that would apply to your idea.

Personally, legal jacking points isn't as big of a deal as legal reinforced jackSTAND points. :D

[bldn10]

"The cage is required saftey equipment, one could argue the floorboard was required to be cut for the installation of this tube on the roll cage."



Mark, please get this kind of thinking out of your mind because it will only lead you astray. That tube serves no cage/safety purpose and is solely for a jacking point, so you can't bootstrap the hole in the floor as required to install the cage.



FWIW I favor the allowance of jacking points. Geez, we can have an after-market stand-alone computer but not a little ole plate to make jacking safer for us and our cars. :bash_1_:

[RacerBill]

have you submitted a leter to that effect??

If not, why not give it a shot?

(Although it is a workable situation)
[/b]

I have, several times, with very detailed limitations so the allowance could not legaly be abused. Response from Topeka - rule adaquate as written.

[mbuskuhl]

Mark, please get this kind of thinking out of your mind because it will only lead you astray. That tube serves no cage/safety purpose and is solely for a jacking point, so you can't bootstrap the hole in the floor as required to install the cage.

[/b]

It appears the common consensus (from this thread) of running a tube off your door bars to the floorboard is fine for a jacking point, so long as 1) it is not attached (welded) at the bottom and 2) it does not penetrate the floorboard.

My argument is gray I'll admit that, but it does have some legitimacy. It's a loophole in the rule that was not intended. It does absolutely nothing for performance and in fact could be argued as a disadvantage with the added weight.

The twisted interpretation to cut a hole in the floorboard does not cross over into the performance category, whereas those rules are black and white and should be treated as such. If you can create a valid argument by taking advantage of the wording of a rule to accomplish a non-performance and necessary task, by all means do it. Doing so for performance enhancement is crossing the line.

If you want to open a can of worms on the rules, bring back the 2nd gen rear camber link debate. ;)

[bldn10]

Mark, you again pointed out the exact kind of common but incorrect thinking I'm talking about. The GCR does not generally talk about performance or non-performance. An argument that a mod does not offer a performance advantage has no validity whatsoever if the rules don't say you can do it. The rules do refer to prohibited and "any other" functions but those references are not limited to performance functions. Illogical sometimes but we just have to grin and bear it. :blink:

[mbuskuhl]

An argument that a mod does not offer a performance advantage has no validity whatsoever if the rules don't say you can do it. The rules do refer to prohibited and "any other" functions but those references are not limited to performance functions.
[/b]

Agreed Bill. My point was simply that I felt the words in the GCR pertaining to roll cages and modifications could be argued in favor of cutting a hole in the floorboard from the wording I posted earlier. Since I felt this could be argued in favor, I only brought up the performance/non-performance to further make a a point that this was not any competitive advantage. On a purely legal level, you are right that does not matter.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the rules say you can make modifications to install the cage (required safety equipment). This tube is part of the cage and does not violate any other rules (additional attachment points). The number of tubes and how you use them is open. Did the GCR intend for jacking points? No. Is there a loophole to accomplish? Yes. Am I putting competitors at a disadvantage? No. The wording of the rules allow for unintended consequences. Am I missing something that prohibits this? I think our only sticking point is cutting the floorboard as common consensus of adding these tubes is agreed as okay.

Anyways, I had no intentions into getting into a rule debate. All I'm saying is cutting the floorboard has a valid argument. A lot of other things going on do not. By the way, I have not done the jacking points yet. That is for this weekend, there is still time to change plans.

[ddewhurst]

***If you want to open a can of worms on the rules, bring back the 2nd gen rear camber link debate. ;) ***

He, he, heee, I love it ^. There was one guy in that discussion who never did admit to what his 2nd gen rear camber link was.

[lateapex911]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the rules say you can make modifications to install the cage (required safety equipment). [/b]

It allows cutting of the dash, to facilitate the instalation, it doesn't make any references to cutting holes and leaving them cut in the floor or bodywork.



This tube is part of the cage and does not violate any other rules (additional attachment points). The number of tubes and how you use them is open.[/b]

If you attach your mirror to the cage with a tube weled on, is the mirror a cage component? The jacking point serves no purpose that the cage serves. Does it make you safer?



Did the GCR intend for jacking points? No. Is there a loophole to accomplish? Yes. [/b]


While I agree that the concept is harmless, and I would never dream of protesting it, it is, to my reading, clearly not a legal modification, and I'd avoid it myself. I don't think that your logic is well founded, and that the GCR allows cutting of holes in this manner. Thats just my take.

[mbuskuhl]

Jake, do we agree the picture below is legal?

http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/CustCars/MJRX/YP2/YP2JackPads00.JPG

[Knestis]

I'm not Jake* but I do. Cage bars are free unless they violate some rule, that is a cage bar, and it doesn't.

K

* Not strictly because Jake isn't Kirk but true nonetheless.

[lateapex911]

Ditto Kirk, (although I'm not, oh, nevermind, LOL)

(And I see where this is going.. ;) )

[ddewhurst]

(And I see where this is going.. ;) )

Really ^, TUBES are free BUT where in any rule does it say that PLATES are free. Oh, that would be the PLATE welded on the end of the free tube. We know that plate is not a mounting plate & we know that plate is not a gusset. :D

[JoshS]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the rules say you can make modifications to install the cage (required safety equipment). This tube is part of the cage and does not violate any other rules (additional attachment points). The number of tubes and how you use them is open.[/b]

How is a tube that connects at one end to the cage, but at the other end nothing, "part of the cage?"

The only rule I can find that allows arbitrary cage tubes is in the ITCS, not the main cage part of the GCR:
"Any number of additional reinforcing bars are permitted within the structure of the cage."

Is a bar that doesn't connect to anything on one end a "reinforcing bar?"

Note that the wording for the cage rules is likely changing in '08. The proposed new wording:
"Any number of additional tube elements is permitted within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure."

Maybe that's a little more lenient than the '07 wording.

But I would argue that 1) these optional tubes are not required safety equipment, so therefore, you cannot use the allowance you referred to at the top of this post; and 2) if you were to use the '08 proposed wording and extend a tube through the floorboard, then it wouldn't be "within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure", as that structure does not go lower than the floor.

[mbuskuhl]

I'm not Jake* but I do. Cage bars are free unless they violate some rule, that is a cage bar, and it doesn't.

K

[/b]

Okay, we are on the same page. So this is legal but as soon as it penetrates the floorboard you feel it becomes illegal. I presume this is because the floorboard recieves a 1.5"-1.75" hole and this hole is the problem.

Below is the rule I believe allows it to penetrate the floorboard, how is this any different when you penetrate the dash and cut holes in it? Is there a different rule that allows the dash to be cut that I'm missing?

"9.1.3.f states "Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

Edit: Lots of posts recently. I guess we are back to the old debate if the above pic is even legal. Going through the floorboard is another topic.

Good points Josh, you are right, this is not a reinforcing bar, therefore these jacking points pictured are illegal for current rules, I agree. Interesting that there is selective enforcement of the rules on here. Cutting floorboard, no. Adding a tube, sure.

[RacerBill]

This whole discussion would not be necessary if reasonable limited jacking plates were allowed. Unless the CRB wants us to 1) either read between the lines and develop 'creative' solutions, or 2) let the frames rust/crush to the point where we have to repair ('repair') them.

[JohnRW]

Cage mounting plates can be up to 100 square inches, and may be multi-angled and of irregular shape, as defined in the GCR (think "relief map of Zimbabwe").

So....every plate has two sides. The 100 square inch rule only refers to one side of said mounting plate. What about the other side of the plate ? ;)

[spnkzss]

That or build a Honda Civic/CRX or Integra. These cars are nice and stiff and when I pick them up at the front pinch weld, both the front and rear wheel come off the ground.

I know not productive, but I couldn't resist :)

[shwah]

Yeah. Makes me happy to have 67.xx % front weight bias. I just jack under the front cage down-tube.

[bldn10]

Mark, I've already said this once but I'll try again. The argument that you can cut through the floor to install a cage bar is only tenable IF the bar is necessary to or enhances the function of the cage. By your logic I could cut a hole through the roof, stick a tube attached to the cage through it, and mount my videocam on it.

:-) Same, exact logic.

I do think the pictured solution is legal or at least arguable in good faith.