So where's the March FasTrack? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

shwah

01-31-2006, 09:34 AM

Correct, but I believe that correlated with the production of the Sportscar Magazine. Having worked in printing and binding involving monthly magazines thats the normal lead time. Now your talking about a small mailer to a much smaller group which does not take as much printing and binding time to get out the door which is why I believe the addendum was the fill the gap and the next FT wont be out till mid feb.

Again its pure speculation on my part and I admit it. I would have been more surprised if we didnt see a the adendum and the march FT.
[/b]
Bummer. It would be nice to have that month lead time back on any changes allowed/required.

Chris

JamesB

01-31-2006, 11:13 AM

I hope they don't set effective dates that soon, in most cases they do not. I was actually shocked on the limited time the addendum gave the BMW owners to install the SIR.

Bill Miller

01-31-2006, 12:34 PM

I hope they don't set effective dates that soon, in most cases they do not. I was actually shocked on the limited time the addendum gave the BMW owners to install the SIR.
[/b]

Actually, the do. Most things are effective the 1st day of the month of the FasTrack issue, unless otherwise noted. I do agree, the BMW guys didn't get very much time.

turboICE

02-17-2006, 04:18 PM

Bueller?

JamesB

02-17-2006, 05:08 PM

20th is monday, even if its a holiday for some.

Marcus Miller

02-20-2006, 10:08 PM

and?!?!?! Nada.

Bill Miller

02-20-2006, 10:14 PM

They did modify the website to say that the changes, unless otherwise noted, would go into effect on the first of the month. They also say that the current issue of FasTrack would be published no later than the 20th of the previous month.

RacerBill

02-21-2006, 09:29 AM

And today is???????????? Oh, that's right. They are at least an hour behind us on the East Coast.

JamesB

02-21-2006, 11:03 AM

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-3-fastrack.pdf

its in there.

JamesB

02-21-2006, 11:22 AM

So far I find this the most interesting.

Item 17. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section 11 to section 20 as follows:
11. Head and Neck Restraint
The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by the SFI Foundation
and bear the SFI 38.1 label.

Greg Amy

02-21-2006, 11:29 AM

That's unfortunate, if approved. It will cause a lot of folks, myself included, who are currently using some form of HNRs to use absolutely nothing...

turboICE

02-21-2006, 11:32 AM

I agree if the equipment is not mandatory don't restrict to a standard that was developed in such questionable circumstances as 38.1.

I fail to see the benefit of a rule that will result in me not using a safety restraint when I have one.

Knestis

02-21-2006, 11:40 AM

I'm going to email and explain that my safety deposit box will contain a copy of that rule, for the use of my estate executors in the suit. The insanity of prohibiting use of a piece of safety equipment is amazing.

K

Greg Amy

02-21-2006, 11:45 AM

Many interesting IT items of note:

- RallyCross rules (yawn!)
- Minimum impound inspection to do weight plus two additional items
- Recommendation of right side restraint net (something I've considered doing anyway)
- Snell SA2000 or later verified
- Require window nets to fall down rather that flip up
- HNR recommended, but if used must be SFI (bad bull...)
- New car classifications
- A bunch of you rat bastards sending in requests (for once I'm not listed...)
- Change to GCR definition of bushing
- Change to IT suspension bushing rules to allow spherical bearings
- Spec clarifications

turboICE

02-21-2006, 11:50 AM

That is actually a huge shame - no H&N restraint may be used at all.

SFI Foundation does not certify anything and explcitly states such in their licensing.

Manufacturers certify their equipment's compliance with an SFI standard. As written SCCA just negated the use of any H&N restraint.

Joe Harlan

02-21-2006, 11:52 AM

I guess we all know what a bushing is now. Also interesting that soebody asked for a .040 piston for the Bimmer..

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2006, 11:55 AM

Lotsa IT-based letters huh?

Phew!

<div align="left">14. ITS - Remove the restrictor plate from the 1992-95 BMW 325i/s (Peterson).</div>
</span><div align="left">15. ITS - Spec a restrictor place for the Mazda RX-7 (Peterson).</div>
<div align="left">16. ITS - Do not penalize the BMW E36 (Robertson).</div>
</span></span></span></span></span>

JamesB

02-21-2006, 11:58 AM

What did you smoke this morning. Last I checked, R3, Hutchens II, and the well thrashed (on this board) HANS all display SFI 38.1 stickers.

This rule was comming, its been rolling around the back walls of PCA for a while also. Basically they are trying to ban joe racer from making his own H&N to save some money and it turns out not to work. And therefore if your going to highly recommend people use a devices you need to make sure it adhears to a standard. I dont see anyone here complaining about the SFI requirments on nets and belts, only H&N, and that propogates from one company.

Greg Amy

02-21-2006, 12:02 PM

What did you smoke this morning.[/b]
Don't be an ass, James. "Last time I checked" two other popular ones, the Isaac and the Wright, do not.

Basically they are trying to ban joe racer from making his own H&N to save some money and it turns out not to work.[/b]
And in the process, basically, they are banning the above-mentioned units which have been tested and proven to work, in some cases in a super fashion to the SFI-blessed ones.

I dont see anyone here complaining about the SFI requirments on nets and belts...[/b]
You, obviously, have not been paying attention.

JamesB

02-21-2006, 12:08 PM

Greg your right that was a little harsh. My apologies, I was out of line.

What was posted was that SCCA banned ALL (not some), H&N devices because companies certify the meet the specifications not SFI. But doenst SFI have to witness the test in order for a product to bear the SFI certification? If not couldnt anyone just apply for a sticker with falsified data?

While I understand ISAAC and Wright are not SFI, what do you expect them to do in the litigation centric world we live in? I dont mean to be rude but I guess since I hang out with WAY too many lawyers I tend to understand the power of requiring a certification from a recognized orginzation. I would like to see the wright and ISAAC find a way to certify, the more the merrier. But lets face the facts, they have to cover themselves from the home brew devices somehow and this is the most clearly defined way they can do it.

Well, I have only been reading here the past year. I saw noone complaining about the requirement for SFI belts, the only complaint I have seen the expiration of the belts which we all know spurred off the results from NASCAR. But I dont hear people saying the SFI requirement for the nets and belts are flawed or otherwise complain. Also now with the clarification that nets dont expire that should shut down that complaint that kicked up from previous stuff.

turboICE

02-21-2006, 12:24 PM

Greg Amy

02-21-2006, 12:29 PM

James, I do not understand your militant - and often times rude - responses to folks that disagree with you on this issue; it's almost your own personal HNR jihad.

At the risk of continuing this off-thread discussion, I direct folks to other threads (where you'll find similar comments from similar people):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6874 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6874)

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6876 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6876)

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...neck+restraints (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=777acc5a1bfc1fa47e37192306a1c517&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=head+and+neck+restraints)

On a side note, given that the SFI spec does not allow attachments to anything other than the driver, and given that Jay Wright succumbed to the racing-related injuries that motivated him to design his device in the first place, it's highly unlikely that these devices will ever pass SFI 38.1 (a spec that, as I understnad it, was developed with the assistance of the designer of the HANS Device...coincidental, I'm sure.)

B90278

02-21-2006, 12:33 PM

1. Section 17.1.4.D.5.d.6, clarify by adding to the end as follows: This includes the use of spherical bearings, so long as no suspension
component is modified to facilitate their installation. Retention of spherical bearings by use of tack welds is allowed, as long as the welds serve
no other purpose.

JamesB

02-21-2006, 12:40 PM

Your right, I do come off a way I never intended. I will just stay out of the discussions and hope one day someone can actually improve the SFI spec to include other effective devices.

For me, I will continue to follow the letter of the rule in my duties as a driver and as an official.

I will enjoy the rest of the rules arguments from the sidelines like others opt to.

its66

02-21-2006, 12:45 PM

Seen This??? To BoD for approval....

Effective 11/1/06: Change section 11.3.1 to read as follows:
The first three (3) finishers in each class shall be immediately impounded for a minimum of thirty (30) minutes after the completion of each
race, unless otherwise provided in the Supplementary Regulations. The Chief Steward may direct that the additional finishers in any class be
impounded immediately following a competition. It is the driver's responsibility to ascertain his or her finishing position and present his or her car
to impound immediately, without going to the paddock, if among the top three (3) in class. Failure to do so promptly may result in a penalty. Each
impounded car shall be given an inspection that shall, at minimum, include verification of conformity to the minimum weight and <strike>track
dimensions where applicable </strike> two additional items as appropriate for the class, as determined by the Chief Technical Inspector and Chief
Steward. During the weighing, if there is any doubt about the weight, the car shall be weighed in both directions. If there is any other doubt about
the car's conformity to the rules, any appropriate methods may be used by the Technical Inspector to determine the car's legality. The Chief
Steward may also order the removal of a wheel or intake choke(s) or restrictors during impound. These inspections are not subject to the fees
outlined in section 6.11.3.E. Additional inspections may be conducted through the protest procedures outlined in section 13.4.

comments??

Matt Rowe

02-21-2006, 12:48 PM

Well I'm so happy I have now experienced one of those defining moments in SCCA membership. I can now go on about how I was "lied to be national." Where's my ticker tape parade and commerative plaque?

Seriously, I specifically asked the question about SFI 38.1 and how it would affect the use of my newly purchased ISAAC device and was told by the head of risk management that SCCA was not going to prevent me from using the device. Now, this is a classic case of getting an answer from one of the people that should know, while the decision is made by another group. :018:

What's more the rule is meaningless since H&N devices aren't required. so I'll just say my ISAAC device is there to keep my head up while I sleep in the car while on grid. :P

Also, did anyone happen to catch that all window nets must latch at the top so that they fall down when released. I'm sure that's going to catch some people also.

But, keep in mind those items still have to be approved by the BOD. So write letters early and write letters often if you don't agree with something. I know I'll be sending a couple things in.

turboICE

02-21-2006, 01:07 PM

For me, I will continue to follow the letter of the rule in my duties as a driver and as an official.
[/b]
But you should also be concerned about whether or not the letter of the rule meets the intent. The letter of this rule fails in all respects - as an official you would be obligated to prohibit the use of any H&N restraint as no H&N restraints are certified by the SFI Foundation. Clearly not the intent of the rule - but if you were to follow the letter of the rule...

I can't recall where now, but I could have sworn I have seen the window net language before.

Regarding letters - mine was sent before posting here. As long as the H&N restraint is a recommendation, so should manufacturer certification of 38.1 compliance also be a recommendation. SCCA should be covered just as well by strongly recommending 38.1 compliance as by "optionally" requiring it.

I am curious as to whether or not I am going to be told to remove my Isaac in grid...

itracer

02-21-2006, 01:24 PM

comments??
[/b]

May not change anything for us Regional IT racers. Look at the rules preceeding and post the section being changed:

11.3. IMPOUND
A. Post-race impound is mandatory at all National Championship
events and recommended at all other events.
B. ...(EDIT - Removed for space. see GCR for complete text)

11.3.1. Minimum Impound Inspection
The first three (3) finishers ...(EDIT - Removed for space. see GCR for complete text)

11.3.2. Impound Waiver
A waiver of appearing at post-race impound may be implemented at
non-National Championship events in the presence of the Chief of Tech
prior to the race with the approval of the Chief Steward .

JamesB

02-21-2006, 01:49 PM

But you should also be concerned about whether or not the letter of the rule meets the intent. The letter of this rule fails in all respects - as an official you would be obligated to prohibit the use of any H&N restraint as no H&N restraints are certified by the SFI Foundation. Clearly not the intent of the rule - but if you were to follow the letter of the rule...
I can't recall where now, but I could have sworn I have seen the window net language before.
[/b]

Absolutely correct. If I really have an issue at an event I will turn to my specialty cheif or the tech shed for clarification. I will stick to letters, and clarification from sr officials, but I will no longer discuss my views since I come off too strong and attacking.

Racerlinn

02-21-2006, 01:54 PM

RSTPerformance

02-21-2006, 01:59 PM

James-

I express my views on rule interpretations and prefer to get beat up/questionsed/corrected, as I like to be open to see how my fellow drivers (my real peers) would like to be represented in a stewards eye... I will not "set in stone" any of my "interpretations" or "rulings" as I am always open to interpretation, and the SOM as a whole makes a decision, not any one steward (At least thats how it is in the Northeast).

I hope you don't take your peers attack on you personally, I learn everytime I get upset at someone here, that we are all friends in the end, thats why we all hang out!!! Understand thier view of your post and make changes to your responces as you see fit, if you don't see fit then stand by your word (or post).

Back on topic:

I can see the justification to the changes that are being made, I can also see why A LOT of people could be upset. I don't think these changes if made or not made will make everyone happy wich is unfortunate. As Bill and Jason pointed out though, read all the way through to see how it could effect or not effect you.

Raymond "interesting stuff" Blethen

Knestis

02-21-2006, 02:07 PM

Expect the price of rollcage padding to go up noticably, once it becomes clear that it needs SFI stickers. You pay for every one that you buy.

1. IT - Increase the spec weight of the VW Golf III to 2,450 lbs (Gran). The car is specified appropriately.[/b]

DAVE? Geez, guy. Are we that much of a threat? ;)

And no elimination of the stupid VIN rule, even after I sent such a nice note to the Bored, telling them how much faith i have in the ITAC. This is why I'm not a politician.

K

x-ring

02-21-2006, 02:07 PM

Another tidbit, under Judgement of the Court of Appeals, Davis vs. SOM. "The Court cites SCCA appeal COA-03-04-SW as historical precedent for this decision."

Interesting...

Doc Bro

02-21-2006, 02:12 PM

My letter to the SCCA dated 2/21/06

To whom it may concern;

I am writing to voice my disproval with the SCCA's endorsement of only SFI rated head and neck restraints. While I very clearly understand the need for approval by a sanctioning body (ie SFI), I totally disagree with making it mandatory on an optional piece of protective gear. I use and fully endorse the ISAAC device as do MANY of my fellow competitors. After having done countless hours of research I have chosen the ISAAC because of its superior performance in real world and sled testing. I will not use or purchase any other head and neck device. It is abhorent that the SCCA would rather a competitor wear no device than a non-SFI device. In my opinion this leaves the SCCA rather vulnerable and exposed to potential legal consequences should the unthinkable occur. It would be horrific for a competitor to suffer morbidity and mortality at an event while their ISAAC or Wright device sat in their trailer on-site but unused. I emplore the SCCA as a member, a doctor and a competitor to rethink its stance on head and neck restraints.

Thank You for your careful consideration of this very important issue.

Sincerely,
Robert A. Breault, DMD
member # 344538

Hope it has meaning....... :( :( :(

R

JamesB

02-21-2006, 02:16 PM

Raymond,

I understand what your saying. Believe me those closest to me in the region have developed a bit of a filter and have gotten used to my responses. I do read and learn a lot here, but at the same time, like you, I understand a lot of justification behind the rules.

Steve,

I have to replace all of the padding in my car next winter. But I have seen the SFI spec padding, and its a half moon pad with self adhesive but on the entire length of one of the edges it has a repeating SFI 45.1 sticker that runs the length of the padding. So even if your trimming it to fit you still have the SFI stickers on all the padding.

Bill Miller

02-21-2006, 02:22 PM

The H&N issue is simply amazing.

The Golf III / Jetta III one is interesting as well. IIRC, we were told that the 'process weight' for that car was 2450#.

Interesting stuff on the 1.7 Mk II Scirocco in ITC. They fixed the gear ratio, but then turn around and say that the engine specification is correct. Darin, would you please contact me off-line about this one.

Also some interesting stuff related to SIRs. A couple of cars are shot down in ITS because they 'exceed the performance parameters of the class', while a car for EP gets shot down while they 'collect more data on SIRs'.

The fact that the 'allow .040 overbore for the E36' was 'tabled for further research' probably does not bode well for non-OEM 040-over pistons.

I'm also somewhat surprised that the 15" wheel request for the 1.9 Z3 was shot down, for the reason given. Last I looked, snow tires were DOT-approved.

its66

02-21-2006, 02:23 PM

May not change anything for us Regional IT racers. Look at the rules preceeding and post the section being changed:
<DELETED>[/b]

I guess I should have read a little more. :( Thanks

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2006, 02:29 PM

18.1.3. Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver's helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/shoulder harness) shall be padded with non resilient material <strike>such as Ethafoam® or Ensolite®</strike> with a minimum thickness of one half (1/2) inch. Padding meeting SFI spec 45.1 or FIA 8857-2001 is <strike>strongly recommended </strike>required.

Last time I looked I didn't see a SFI or FIA rating stamped on padding. How do you enforce this? [/b]

This has been coming for a while.

http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productde...s.asp?RecId=636 (http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecId=636)

This stuff will knock you on your butt, it ain't soft!

AB

I'm also somewhat surprised that the 15" wheel request for the 1.9 Z3 was shot down, for the reason given. Last I looked, snow tires were DOT-approved. [/b]

The "snow tire option" was not available in the US.

AB

Bill Miller

02-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Fair enough Andy, but I would think that a more appropriate response would have been "15 inch wheels not offered on US models"

Banzai240

02-21-2006, 03:05 PM

Fair enough Andy, but I would think that a more appropriate response would have been "15 inch wheels not offered on US models"
[/b]

Actually, these wheels are considered "Dealer Installed Options", which are not allowed in IT... I think you could buy them, but they were "optional accessories" that you purchase from the dealer, and were NOT offered on the basic US Models of the car...

The response could have been more accurate, but it's the same difference... They weren't offered as standard equipment... the car came with 16x7s and that's what it needs to run...

I think we need a "picking the flies out of the ... " smilie... ;)

Banzai240

02-21-2006, 03:15 PM

Interesting stuff on the 1.7 Mk II Scirocco in ITC. They fixed the gear ratio, but then turn around and say that the engine specification is correct. Darin, would you please contact me off-line about this one.
[/b]

I'll try to answer this here... It's been awhile since we talked about this, so the details are sketchy, but if I'm recalling correctly, the information seemed to show that the gear ratios were definately not offered for the 1.7L, and since it's now in ITC, those ratios were corrected... I'm not sure, but I think the response is misleading... The 1.7 and 1.8 are now in seperate classes, so the gear ratios for the 1.7 are all that should have been changed... I'll have to look when the correction comes out...

Also some interesting stuff related to SIRs. A couple of cars are shot down in ITS because they 'exceed the performance parameters of the class', while a car for EP gets shot down while they 'collect more data on SIRs'.[/b]

SIRs may be a way of initial classification for Production... this is not the case for IT...

The fact that the 'allow .040 overbore for the E36' was 'tabled for further research' probably does not bode well for non-OEM 040-over pistons.[/b]

Or... maybe it "bodes well" for giving the ITAC time to research the issue and maybe rewrite the rule's wording to get the intent across...

NOT everything that isn't answered right away is because of a NEGATIVE response on the way... Doing things right takes time... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right??? ;) )

Knestis

02-21-2006, 03:24 PM

... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right??? ;) )
[/b]
OOOH! We have a choice? Let's see...

Does the VIN/shell rule decision reflect the ITAC's collective thinking on the subject? Assuming the issue came to that body for review. If it does, then "Oh, well." If it doesn't, I'm going to continue to lobby.

K

turboICE

02-21-2006, 03:40 PM

14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/b]

Just so as to be clear as to what the standard says vs. the rule.

Banzai240

02-21-2006, 04:29 PM

OOOH! We have a choice? Let's see...

Does the VIN/shell rule decision reflect the ITAC's collective thinking on the subject? Assuming the issue came to that body for review. If it does, then "Oh, well." If it doesn't, I'm going to continue to lobby.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

Again, the discussion happened awhile ago, so I'll leave myself open to correction should the other ITAC members disagree with what I'm about to say, but If I'm recalling correctly, the discussion could be summarized as there being a general feeling that the potential for opening up the class for issues outweighed the few real benefits that removing this requirement would have... With the Update/Backdate rules, etc., it was just felt that there wasn't a need to remove this requirement, and that it prevented more than it hindered...

I think that's right... Andy, George, Bob, Chris, Jake... Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong...

Knestis

02-21-2006, 04:42 PM

Thanks, D. It's a shame because the new ITA listing of the 2.0 16v Golf is a GREAT example of how we lose opportunities because of that constraint. But I do understand the thinking.

K

Bill Miller

02-21-2006, 06:00 PM

I'll try to answer this here... It's been awhile since we talked about this, so the details are sketchy, but if I'm recalling correctly, the information seemed to show that the gear ratios were definately not offered for the 1.7L, and since it's now in ITC, those ratios were corrected... I'm not sure, but I think the response is misleading... The 1.7 and 1.8 are now in seperate classes, so the gear ratios for the 1.7 are all that should have been changed... I'll have to look when the correction comes out...
SIRs may be a way of initial classification for Production... this is not the case for IT...
Or... maybe it "bodes well" for giving the ITAC time to research the issue and maybe rewrite the rule's wording to get the intent across...

NOT everything that isn't answered right away is because of a NEGATIVE response on the way... Doing things right takes time... (Do you want it fast or do you want it right??? ;) )
[/b]

Darin,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Part of my initial request was to have the 1984 model year removed from the Scirocco II w/ the 1.7. That's the correction I was referring to. I can forward you the information again, if you need it. Quick summary is, I have hard evidence that early production run (1st month of production) 1984 Scirocco IIs came w/ a 1.8.

And I certainly understand the wheel issue. Funny though, that car came w/ 16's, and has to run them, but some cars that came w/ 16's are not allowed to run them.

SIRs may be a way of initial classification for Production... this is not the case for IT...[/b]

:o

Banzai240

02-21-2006, 06:17 PM

And I certainly understand the wheel issue. Funny though, that car came w/ 16's, and has to run them, but some cars that came w/ 16's are not allowed to run them.
[/b]

I think we still have the info on the VW... The issue was discussed at length and I'm pretty sure we exhausted all the info, so the correct decision should be in the books... Here was the recommendation sent to the CRB from our Con-Call notes dated October, 2005:

2) 05-050

A ) Correct the 1984 Scirocco Engine Size

a) No Action Required. Documentation seems to support the existence of a 1.7L in the early part of 1984.

B ) Correct the 1983 Scirocco Transmission Ratios

a) The ITAC finds no documentation that conclusively proves that the 1.7L motor was available with the close ratio transmission listed. Additionally, the documentation we do have suggests strongly that this combination was indeed NOT available. We therefore recommend that the CRB remove the second set of transmission ratios from the spec line for the ’82-84 VW Scirocco II in ITC. Specifically, the ratios listed as:

3.45, 2.12, 1.44, 1.13, 0.89
[/b]

16s... I think the cars you might be referring to are cars like the 2nd Gen RX-7... the 16" wheel options were only available on special models, and not as a standard production run, as far as I know (cars like the GTU, etc... )... I think that's why they can't be used... Not part of the baseline...

Unless my research is wrong, I think it's the same deal with the big brakes, but we've already been down that road, so I'm not going to go there again... :dead_horse:

Racerlinn

02-21-2006, 10:28 PM

"14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program."

Just so as to be clear as to what the standard says vs. the rule.
[/b]

Can you point me to where that is on the web? It's not on the SFI web site.

lateapex911

02-21-2006, 11:22 PM

However, your litigation centric view should also understand that the when the SFI very explicitly states that it does not certify any product in its licensing agreement then NO product meets a certified by the SFI Foundation requiremnt. An SFI label is a manufacturer representation. This does matter to lawyers and if they were involved in the wording of the rule they should be fired.

Also there is no other SFI standard that was so blatantly written with such glaring conflicts of interests. It is highly questionable that any device could really pass section 2.4 of the specification. And section 2.5 has nothing to do with restraint of the H&N and is a fallacy anyway since single point release does not exist in SCCA club racing. And lastly if the standard wants to get into those issues then they should address full egress from the car not just releasing the belts.
[/b]

Ed, this is your best post that has crossed my screen.

I added bold and italics, and the word "such" to your quote as it really hits the nail on the head.

I would go further even than that, and that is to say that the whole standard setting process smells like a racket to me. SFI goes to Hubbard /Downing for "advice", then writes what Hubbard/Downing tells them to, which, magically lines up perfectly with their own device! Puullleeeeze. Were we all born yesterday?

I too dug around a bit and was given conflicting information regarding the legality of the Isaac. Conflicting because I see that it is on the list of devices to be excluded from legal use.

I am so sick of lawyers and judges mucking things up..... Any week now and common freaking sense will be against the rules.....

Yup, the guys who wrote THIS bit of @#%$# really whipped it out and tripped all over it.

:bash_1_: :018:

Expect the price of rollcage padding to go up noticably, once it becomes clear that it needs SFI stickers. You pay for every one that you buy.
DAVE? Geez, guy. Are we that much of a threat? ;)

And no elimination of the stupid VIN rule, even after I sent such a nice note to the Bored, telling them how much faith i have in the ITAC. This is why I'm not a politician.

K
[/b]

LOL Kirk.

I will admit that I was really on the fence on this one.

But, as you will see down the road, you are batting .500 lately, so all isn't lost.

turboICE

02-22-2006, 12:22 AM

Can you point me to where that is on the web? It's not on the SFI web site.
[/b]
It took me literally months to find it.

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

Though supposedly if you write them that you are a racer interested in the standard they will email it to you...

Ed, this is your best post that has crossed my screen.

I added bold and italics, and the word "such" to your quote as it really hits the nail on the head.

I would go further even than that, and that is to say that the whole standard setting process smells like a racket to me. SFI goes to Hubbard /Downing for "advice", then writes what Hubbard/Downing tells them to, which, magically lines up perfectly with their own device! Puullleeeeze. Were we all born yesterday?[/b]

So have I redeemed myself for my views on spherical bushings? ;)

You might find these quoted references interesting - http://www.jayski.com/pages/restraint.htm

From those sources you can put together the following:

1 - NASCAR wants a standard because drivers are pushing back on the limited options NASCAR was offering.
2 - NASCAR goes to SFI (don't think NASCAR acknowledges FIA as at all valid)
3 - SFI doesn't know a thing about H&N restraints
4 - SFI punts back to NASCAR saying sure write and we will make it the standard
5 - NASCAR has already been in bed with HANS for years as their experts and consultants on the topic are tied to HANS.

AntonioGG

02-22-2006, 01:59 AM

I bought the SFI padding made by BSR two years ago and it doesn't have any type of SFI label on it. It will be interesting seeing how the annual will go next year.

It's rock hard but it won't feel that way when your helmet hits it...which is not the same thing you can say about the pipe insulation most people seem to use: you won't feel the padding, only the tubing.

I've sent my e-mail to the CRB regarding the H&N. I wear a HANS but I'd rather see guys wearing the Isaac or Wright than nothing (and I think either is a better option than the Hutchens).

dickita15

02-22-2006, 07:03 AM

I bought the SFI padding made by BSR two years ago and it doesn't have any type of SFI label on it. It will be interesting seeing how the annual will go next year.

It's rock hard but it won't feel that way when your helmet hits it...which is not the same thing you can say about the pipe insulation most people seem to use: you won't feel the padding, only the tubing.

[/b]

when I have bought the padding from a circle track supplier in the past they had it with and without the sticker. same stuff two different prices. from memory it was something like $13 and $19.

Knestis

02-22-2006, 08:41 AM

I've been beating the anti-SFI drum for a long time, and publicly for a while now at http://www.headrestraint.org but frankly, we haven't gained any traction with that effort - simply because a majority of drivers just follow along with the sanctioning body requirements because the don't think they have a choice.

I'm going to work now so I'm not going to get on a long tirade but SFI is part of a liability shell game, where safety equipment manufacturers, SFI, and he sanctioning bodies all point at each other when asked who will take responsibility if the worst happens.

There are a dozen other issues but that's the one at work here.

K

EDIT - you'll notice that the SFI document posted above is an outlaw PDF, not on SFI's site. They don't have much incentive to make it very easy for folks to know how the system works.

Bill Miller

02-22-2006, 08:55 AM

I think we still have the info on the VW... The issue was discussed at length and I'm pretty sure we exhausted all the info, so the correct decision should be in the books... Here was the recommendation sent to the CRB from our Con-Call notes dated October, 2005:
16s... I think the cars you might be referring to are cars like the 2nd Gen RX-7... the 16" wheel options were only available on special models, and not as a standard production run, as far as I know (cars like the GTU, etc... )... I think that's why they can't be used... Not part of the baseline...

Unless my research is wrong, I think it's the same deal with the big brakes, but we've already been down that road, so I'm not going to go there again... :dead_horse:
[/b]

Darin,

Actually, I was thinking of the New Beetle in ITC. And, I should have been clearer. I should have said that some cars could not run the OEM 16" wheels that came w/ the car. The NB came w/ 16's, but they were 16x6.5, which exceeds the 6" limit for ITB and ITC cars. I remember doing some research back when the NB was classified, and was not able to come up w/ any off-the-shelf 16x6 wheels. I thought there was some discussion at the time about allowing them to run 15's. Did anything ever come of that?

RSTPerformance

02-22-2006, 09:05 AM

Didn't someone once say that the more "safety rules" we have actually sets SCCA and others up for more liability???

Sorta like a Ski lift...
1) How was I able to fall off the chair with the safety bar down? I thought the safety bar was thier to protect me, but obviosly it is flawed...
2) Ah but in fact you never had the safety bar down thus we can not cover you...
3) But the bar was down on every trip, didn't any of your employees correctly do their job and instruct me that it must be down?

I can see it now;
1) you (SCCA) made me use this safety device. I thought the safety device was a rule as it will protect me, but obviosly it is flawed... and better yet, this "safer" device that I am more comfortable with I am not allowed to use.
2) Yes but you were using this "safer" device, thierfor you are not covered.
3) I have been using this device all year and no-one ever stoped me. Isn't it part of our weekend check (tech sticker), the grid marshals job, and the post race tech inspectors to make sure that I am using the correct device?

Raymond "I am glad that I am not part of the "legal" department" Blethen

turboICE

02-22-2006, 09:50 AM

There is no question that H&N restraint is valuable, it is just a shame that sanctioning bodies are falling back on a manufacturer marketing organization for the setting of standards. As members the sanctioning bodies have played far to passive a role in the acceptance of this steamrolled "standard". If the SCCA really wanted to address safety, rather than protect against liability they would take a much more active role on behalf of the very membership they want to protect in the standard setting process and interject to standard failings appropriately.

zracre

02-22-2006, 09:51 AM

Fastrack is up...lots of stuff there and many IT.com people there too...just shows that they do look at what we send them!! good to know!

Tristan Smith

02-22-2006, 10:25 AM

Needless to say I am thrilled the spherical bearing bushing issues was resolved, and in a favorable way as far as I am concerned. I was truly surprized that tack welding them in was approved. But at least the over four thousand bucks worth of suspension components I have (remember there are four links on each side in the back of 240sx, and the TC rods in the front, plus spares of everything) would have been rendered useless.

Kirk, even though I may have appeared to have opposed your VIN idea when you first proposed it, I think that it would have been a cost-saver for racers in the long run. Perhaps this rule can be revisisted down the road.

In regards to the passenger side driver restraint system recommendation, do we now need to request a change in the rules to allow us to cut holes in the dash to access the dash bar as a means of securing the front portion of the restraining net? Since many dash bars are now behind the dash I think we would need allowances to get to it.

gran racing

02-22-2006, 11:16 AM

DAVE? Geez, guy. Are we that much of a threat?[/b]

That was written from a ITB perspective. Sorry Kirk, but the weight the Golf has is a mistake and should have been corrected during this process. I also wrote a request for the Jetta (was in ITA) to be re-classed to ITB at 2,450.

The Golf III / Jetta III one is interesting as well. IIRC, we were told that the 'process weight' for that car was 2450#.[/b]

You’re correct Bill.

It is interesting that the '89 Accord Lxi was classed at 2590 lbs (which I do agree with). I’m really not trying to pick on the ITAC (they’ve done a hell of a job) but it just doesn’t make sense to me. How does that happen yet the Golf can be justified at being 140 lbs less? I also do understand the Golf was classed by the old board.

Again, I’m talking from an ITB perspective but this is what I am most familiar with…the '87 Prelude si vs. the Golf (and now Jetta). The Golf has more HP, torque, larger brakes yet weighs 100 lbs less than the Prelude? And no, I do not think the Prelude’s weight should go down. From a Prelude owner’s perspective I would love it, but its not right for the class.

100 lbs is not a trivial weight difference, so it doesn’t fall into the “its close enough so lets leave it alone” envelope. From an impartial perspective (Kirk, put your general ITB hat on), how is it that the Golf and Jetta are at that weight?

Knestis

02-22-2006, 11:39 AM

<Golf cap off>

I confess that I don't know enough about all of the detail specs involved to really know how the various B weights should or shouldn't be at this point.

I do support - and have been vocal for years about - the idea of a gen-u-ine formula being used to set spec weights. I understand that the current ITAC process is about 80% there (my estimate), with subjective, microlevel "adders" being applied after the basic math gets done. I also firmly believe that the contribution of 100# of weight to the overall competitiveness of a model of car is pretty damned small, spread out over the entire nation and relative to ALL of the other contributing factors - even if, simply slapping 100# on any given car, on any given day, might in fact slow it down measurably.

I am ABSOLUTELY of the opinion that my lack of skill makes more difference between me and the front-running guys at the ARRC, for example, than would the weight in question. I say that not just out of self-loathing but as a reminder that we had better not go into these conversations with preconcieved notions about what is fast and what is not, based on who finished where.

Heck - a full tank of fuel in the Golf weighs about 85% of the amount being discussed here, and last year I was measurable FASTER with a full tank, on back-to-back laps during the VIR 3.5 hour enduro. Note here that we were damned near right at 2450 last year, with the light wheels. It's a huge challenge looming, to get anywhere near 2350 with the new build, and frankly is not at all likely to happen.

At the end of the day, I don't much care about where my particular weight gets set, as long as it's based on the physical attributes of the CAR and not on someone's success with it.

<Golf cap back on>

K

JamesB

02-22-2006, 11:40 AM

In reference to the accord vs the G/JIII. I think the weight difference might be in relation to the suspension geometry. the G/J is still solid rear beam and mcphereson front. I believe the accord has a much better suspension geometry once race prepared.

Racerlinn

02-22-2006, 01:50 PM

It took me literally months to find it.

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1...ecification.pdf (http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/SFI_38.1_Head_Restraint_Specification.pdf)

[/b]

Thanks. I just sent my letter addressing my disapproval of the new H&N mandate.

Racerboy03

02-22-2006, 02:23 PM

Racerlinn

02-22-2006, 02:53 PM

In regard to the new Roll-bar padding rule: I have a seat with head restraints (Sparco Circuit), where the head will hit the head restraints on the seat before coming near any bars. Does this mean I still have to use the SFI padding? I have regular padding on that part of the cage right now.
[/b]

Hmmmmm...I think it's going to come down to your inspector. It says: "Forward braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver's helmet (as seated normally and restrained by seatbelt/shoulder harness)".
Of course, then there is the scenario where someone at the track raises a stink about it. I'm going to be keeping this one handy as a reference since I have a LOT of "old style" padding on not only the other bars on the drivers side but on the passenger side as well. I still autocross the car with passengers in the stock passenger seat and I remove the passenger seat for racing, but I don't remove the extra padding.

DavidM

02-22-2006, 03:41 PM

As a 240sx owner with spherical bearings I have to say I'm happy with the clarification. Whether or not you agree with it, at least it's clarified. That seemed to be a lot of people's beef in the SB thread.

As far as H&N restraints. I will continue to wear my Issac no matter what the rules say. I evaluated the Hans, but it will not work for me because it requires a couple inches of space between the helmet and the seat, which I do not have in my seating position. I am 6'5" and there just ain't no space left. I will be adding my letter to everyone else's regarding this issue. If the rule does get passed and I am asked to remove my Issac on grid then I will politely leave grid and then politely file a class-action lawsuit against SCCA. This is one of those things that just leaves me speechless. SCCA would rather have you wear no H&N restraint than one that is proven to work, but doesn't meet some contrived "spec". Amazing.

David

Bill Miller

02-22-2006, 03:52 PM

That was written from a ITB perspective. Sorry Kirk, but the weight the Golf has is a mistake and should have been corrected during this process. I also wrote a request for the Jetta (was in ITA) to be re-classed to ITB at 2,450.
You’re correct Bill.

It is interesting that the '89 Accord Lxi was classed at 2590 lbs (which I do agree with). I’m really not trying to pick on the ITAC (they’ve done a hell of a job) but it just doesn’t make sense to me. How does that happen yet the Golf can be justified at being 140 lbs less? I also do understand the Golf was classed by the old board.

Again, I’m talking from an ITB perspective but this is what I am most familiar with…the '87 Prelude si vs. the Golf (and now Jetta). The Golf has more HP, torque, larger brakes yet weighs 100 lbs less than the Prelude? And no, I do not think the Prelude’s weight should go down. From a Prelude owner’s perspective I would love it, but its not right for the class.

100 lbs is not a trivial weight difference, so it doesn’t fall into the “its close enough so lets leave it alone” envelope. From an impartial perspective (Kirk, put your general ITB hat on), how is it that the Golf and Jetta are at that weight?
[/b]

Dave,

The Golf III was classed by a prior ITAC, but I do believe that it was moved from ITA to ITB under the current ITAC's watch. Oddly enough, it was one of the few cars that I have ever seen put out for member input re: reclassification.

turboICE

02-22-2006, 03:57 PM

While I think optional equipment can optionally recommend the standard and cover SCCA just as well. They are in an unfortunate position with the standard's existence - albeit they passively let it develop as it did.

I think it would be more appropriate to persue SFI and get a restraining order on the standard until such time that they can show it was developed independently of product manufacturers.

gran racing

02-22-2006, 05:28 PM

The Golf III was classed by a prior ITAC, but I do believe that it was moved from ITA to ITB under the current ITAC's watch.[/b]

That is correct - that's why I sent a letter in during the current review process. I also included that it was completed under the old post to explain the possible difference in weight classifications, thus thinking it may be adjusted due to its inconsistency with other ITB cars and recent decisions.

I also firmly believe that the contribution of 100# of weight to the overall competitiveness of a model of car is pretty damned small, spread out over the entire nation and relative to ALL of the other contributing factors - even if, simply slapping 100# on any given car, on any given day, might in fact slow it down measurably.[/b]

So why is a change being made to the ITA Integra and many other cars? Hey, it’s just one car why not just let it slide.

Kirk, careful…sounds like you are talking about driver abilities and results in your comments. Wheither you can get your car down to min. weight is irrelivant. I know you agree that cars need to be reviewed as classed not by on-track performance.

<prelude cap on>

I’m coming from ITA land where I had absolutely not shot at being competitive regardless of how well I drove. Believe me, I’m still psyched that the Prelude is in a that gives me an opportunity to succeed. If I personally need to work that much harder to beat cars that may have an advantage, than so be it. It certainly beats my former world!!!

Gotta run - have a hot bumper fixin' date tonight.

ddewhurst

02-22-2006, 06:09 PM

***2. IT - Questioning why the side protection rules are different in GT and Production (Dewhurst). The IT roll cages are based on the rules of Showroom Stock and, to some extent, Touring. The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT.***

"The door bars allowed in IT are compliant in both Production and GT." This statement my friends is a bunch of crap.

The SS/IT & Touring roll cage side protection rule is: Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. An example for SS/IT & Touring side protection could be that the mandatory upper tube is at a diagonal & the lower mandatory tube is horizontal.

The Production & GT side protection rule is: The minimum side protection shall consist of a horizontal side tube connecting the front and rear hoops across both the door openings. Additionally there shall also be either a diagonal tube from the front hoop to the rear hoop bisecting the door opening BELOW the horizontal side tube, or not less than two (2) horizontal side tubes.

The bunch of crap forwarded in the Fastrack is that per the rules the side protection which is legal for SS/IT & Touring as I described is compliant for Production & or GT race cars is NOT A FACT. THE TWO RULES ARE ABSOLUTLY DIFFERENT AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. :dead_horse:

Any ITAC folks care to set me straight with the above rules IF I am not correct ? :D

I would write a letter but what's the value when the rule making people can't read their own rules. :dead_horse:

Just as another example crap response to a rule of the answers given in Fastrack & updated rules which are ongoing, the main hoop diagonal for Production is no longer required to be WITHIN the main hoop. This keep people happy crap versus safety needs to go. :dead_horse:

While I'm on a roll (notice I didn't say rant) there is nothing new about the roll cage padding. In years past SIF 45.1 roll cage pad was/is required & it says nothing about a lable or marking required. I understand I would need to have proof that the pad is SFI 45.1 OR FIA 8857-2001.

With the response that bushing material is Spherical bearings the only thing I have to offer is that the ITAC/CRB/BoD has a short memory & has forgotten why Production cars cost is totally out of control & also why they the CRB/BoD initiated LP/Restricted Suspension Production cars. :dead_horse:

Still rolling (NAW, THIS IS RANT), the CRB/BoD is going to play follow the other racing groups (note I didn't say follow the leader) with the helmet restraint system. They also came along following other racing groups with the recomended right side safety net. You ask why the right side safety net is recomended, the answer is simple, the HANS will not reduce laterial loads of the helmet. A secondary devise is required. :dead_horse:

This rolling rant is provided by David who bought a new car to build/replace his totaled ITA/7 Rx-7 which is stuffed in one side of the garage while a Spec Miata is being built in the other side of the garage. :bash_1_:

gsbaker

02-22-2006, 06:26 PM

I've stayed out of this SFI H&N thing only because I don't want to influence the direction of the discussion. Besides, my personal--and the company's--position is well known here so let's not :dead_horse:.

It is very rewarding to see the level of enthusiasm among the Isaac fans, and we thank you all for your
support. While we may be tempted to storm the castle with pitchforks, I would recommend against any rash action for two reasons. First, this request of the BoD by the CRB comes within days of the first meeting of a reconstituted Safety Committee at this years annual meeting--that's right, the first meeting. The BoD will rely on this committee's work, and 2007 strikes me as an aggressive schedule for a complete review of the entire safety subject.

Secondly, and more important long term, there has been a tremendous amount of activity/enlightenment within the amateur racing community in just the past four months, including recent lab testing as well as on-track injuries, and none of it is favorable to the SFI standard. While sanctioning bodies want to "do something" and point to SFI as the only visible option (headrestraint.org being an alternate), the attraction is in the standardized test, not the SFI sticker.

In other words, the sanctioning bodies aren't as foolish as they may appear, and a lot of chess is being played in the background.

In the meantime, we would suggest those writing the SCCA, and others, to request wording to the effect of "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets The Minimum Performance Requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" This gives the body cover by requesting a minimum performance, gets the egress issue out of the equation (where it belongs), and expands the product choice to the Isaac, the Isaac Link, and probably others.

shwah

02-22-2006, 06:41 PM

I can't bring to words how bummed I am about the HN restraint news.

As a new father I spent the last year improving every safety system on my car - custom welded cage, firebottle fire system, new belts, new helmet, balaklava, better seat mount, ISAAC restraint. Now the one item that I was most sure that I had researched and selected the best performing option, that has a high likelyhood of saving my life in a situation where no effort by anyone outside my car could do so ... has been outlawed.

It just makes me want to spew profanity.

Chris

erlrich

02-22-2006, 07:26 PM

In the meantime, we would suggest those writing the SCCA, and others, to request wording to the effect of "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets The Minimum Performance Requirements of SFI Specification 38.1" This gives the body cover by requesting a minimum performance, gets the egress issue out of the equation (where it belongs), and expands the product choice to the Isaac, the Isaac Link, and probably others.
[/b]

Sure, now you pipe in :D

I won't print my entire letter (already sent) to the CRB, but I think this part pretty much follows your train of thought:

"I believe a much preferable, and equally protective, stance on the part of the SCCA would be to "highly recommend" the use of a head and neck restraint, as well as to "highly recommend" that the restraint conform to the performance requirements set forth by SFI Spec 38.1."

Gregg - please keep us up to date, and let us know if there are any other ears we should be bending.

Oh, and Chris - don't get too bummed out yet, I think this fight is a long way from over.

seckerich

02-22-2006, 11:43 PM

I think we still have the info on the VW... The issue was discussed at length and I'm pretty sure we exhausted all the info, so the correct decision should be in the books... Here was the recommendation sent to the CRB from our Con-Call notes dated October, 2005:
16s... I think the cars you might be referring to are cars like the 2nd Gen RX-7... the 16" wheel options were only available on special models, and not as a standard production run, as far as I know (cars like the GTU, etc... )... I think that's why they can't be used... Not part of the baseline...

Unless my research is wrong, I think it's the same deal with the big brakes, but we've already been down that road, so I'm not going to go there again... :dead_horse:
[/b]
Not that we would run them anyway--but the 16" wheels were delivered on the cars to the dealership and in qty's greater than most items approved on other models. The GTU and GTUs both could come with a 16. 325is sure had no problem getting 15 or 16??? If it was an available dealer delivered option, and not installed by the dealer--it is legal.

dickita15

02-23-2006, 07:37 AM

By the way what if you have a Hans or other brand that is now certified but was made before the certification procees. would the approval be retroactive or do you need to buy a current model.

Dave Zaslow

02-23-2006, 08:05 AM

Dave,

Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?

Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow

That was written from a ITB perspective. Sorry Kirk, but the weight the Golf has is a mistake and should have been corrected during this process. I also wrote a request for the Jetta (was in ITA) to be re-classed to ITB at 2,450.
You’re correct Bill.

It is interesting that the '89 Accord Lxi was classed at 2590 lbs (which I do agree with). I’m really not trying to pick on the ITAC (they’ve done a hell of a job) but it just doesn’t make sense to me. How does that happen yet the Golf can be justified at being 140 lbs less? I also do understand the Golf was classed by the old board.

Again, I’m talking from an ITB perspective but this is what I am most familiar with…the '87 Prelude si vs. the Golf (and now Jetta). The Golf has more HP, torque, larger brakes yet weighs 100 lbs less than the Prelude? And no, I do not think the Prelude’s weight should go down. From a Prelude owner’s perspective I would love it, but its not right for the class.

100 lbs is not a trivial weight difference, so it doesn’t fall into the “its close enough so lets leave it alone” envelope. From an impartial perspective (Kirk, put your general ITB hat on), how is it that the Golf and Jetta are at that weight?
[/b]

zracre

02-23-2006, 08:46 AM

Dave,

Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?

Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow
[/b]

if your cage is 1.5X.095 it needs to come out anyways...unless it weighs less than 2200#if its over 2200# it should have 1.5X.120...

Dave Zaslow

02-23-2006, 10:10 AM

zracre,

The GCR weight for the cage is 2170. .095 is legal; add 100 pounds and it is not. You are right, it would not need to go to 1 3/4", just replace the whole thing with .120 tubing :)

C. Minimum tubing sizes for (all Showroom Stock, Touring
and Improved Touring Category auto-mobiles registered
after June 1, 1994) for all required roll cage elements (All
dimensions in inches):
Up to 1500 lbs. 1.375 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1501-2200 lbs. 1.500 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
2201-3000 lbs. 1.500 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.625 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.750 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy

D. For purposes of determining tubing sizes, the vehicle weight
is as raced without fuel and driver. The minus tolerance
for wall thickness should not be less than .010” below the
nominal thickness. Improved Touring roll cage tubing sizes
are to be calculated based on the published vehicle weight
minus 180 lbs.
Volkswagen
Golf III
(93-97))
4 Cyl
SOHC
82.5 x 92.8 /
1984
10 97.3 14 3.45, 1.94, 1.29,
0.97, 0.80 or 3.45,
1.94, 1.37, 1.03,
0.85
(F)257 Disc
®227 Disc
2350

if your cage is 1.5X.095 it needs to come out anyways...unless it weighs less than 2200#if its over 2200# it should have 1.5X.120...
[/b]

RacerBowie

02-23-2006, 10:11 AM

if your cage is 1.5X.095 it needs to come out anyways...unless it weighs less than 2200#if its over 2200# it should have 1.5X.120...
[/b]

Spec Weight 2350 = Dry weight 2170 = 1.5 x .095

Spec Weight 2450 = Dry weight 2270 = 1.5 x .120

Dave posted while I was typing.

mustanghammer

02-23-2006, 10:46 AM

In regards to the passenger side driver restraint system recommendation, do we now need to request a change in the rules to allow us to cut holes in the dash to access the dash bar as a means of securing the front portion of the restraining net? Since many dash bars are now behind the dash I think we would need allowances to get to it.
[/b]

I installed two of these nets (one for my head and one for my sholders) in my car last year and I ran a mount through one of the AC register holes in the factory dash pad. Actually the location of the dash bar in my car required the removal of these AC registers and their duct work anyway.

Seems to me that since you can clearance the dash for the cage the installation of such a mount to the cage is a given. But I have been wrong before. You DON'T want to put a mount like this on the factory dash board.

I'll post some pic's next week.

R2 Racing

02-23-2006, 10:59 AM

gran racing

02-23-2006, 11:45 AM

Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow[/b]

I'd be more than happy to get some use out of my sawzall tool with your car!

As nicely as Dave put it, he's got a valid point and it makes sense that the 100 lbs can't easily be added.

Bill Miller

02-23-2006, 12:28 PM

Dave,

Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?

Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow
[/b]

Dave,

The fact that it was mentioned by an ITAC member or two, that 2350# was ~100# under the process weight for the Golf III in ITB, it was a gamble for anyone to build a new car w/ 1.5" x 0.095" tubing, especially in light of the fact that we were told by the ITAC that all the currently classified cars were being run through the new classification process.

I know this issue has come up w.r.t. the talks of moving the 1st gen. RX7 and the AW11 MR2 from ITA to ITB. I suspect that it may come up again in the future (although, I hope the classes should be pretty stable after the recent 'process application'. I understand both sides of the issue. I'm also not really in favor of making 'grandfathering' type exceptions (especially if it has to do w/ standards that were supposedly defined for safety reasons. The lawsuit implications of that are HUGE!).

In cases like these, I see a couple of options.

1) Use an SIR to reduce the hp so that it fits the performance envelope for a weight that would not require a new cage.

2) Raise the weight, and require a new cage

3) Move it to a higher class (or don't move it down), and subsequently reduce the weight to fit a lower lb/hp ratio

4) Do nothing and say "Oh well, you guys get a weight break".

5) Raise the weight, but 'grandfather' the cage (see earlier law suit comment).

I agree that worrying about 50# is probably not worth the effort, but 100# is significant (IMHO). Given the lb/hp ratio, that 100# is going to have a greater impact, the larger the ratio.

Geo

02-23-2006, 04:31 PM

By the way what if you have a Hans or other brand that is now certified but was made before the certification procees. would the approval be retroactive or do you need to buy a current model.
[/b]

Retroactive certification for the HANS is available for $75 IIRC. Basically the price of the sticker.

turboICE

02-24-2006, 03:56 PM

HANS SFI Retro-Certification (http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.-102/it.A/id.1422/.f)

Maybe less says $15 there. Start off with one less than three years old from date of manufacture.

Knestis

02-24-2006, 05:07 PM

Geo

02-27-2006, 12:23 AM

HANS SFI Retro-Certification (http://hansdevice.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.-102/it.A/id.1422/.f)

Maybe less says $15 there. Start off with one less than three years old from date of manufacture.
[/b]

Hey thanks! I thought I was told $75 last year. Mine will be shipping out to them soon!

Bill Miller

02-27-2006, 09:11 AM

{EDIT}

I was a whole page late to the tube size conversation. It's been covered but I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't actually thought of that issue re: the +/-100# for the MkIII Golf.

Bigger question - why do I not remember anything from the ITAC'ers about the math saying that it should be higher, anyway? Am I getting completely senile or is my selective hearing (aka spousal deafness) working on the boards, too?

K
[/b]

Kirk,

I think that may be because it was moved prior to the formal process being put in place. If you go back through the New Beetle thread (I'm pretty sure it came up there), you can probably find it.

924Guy

02-27-2006, 11:22 AM

A couple of pretty interesting little tid-bits in there.

-I'm cool with the new padding; I've been needing to do that anyways.

-I don't quite understand "the right side net", but it's only recommended so I won't worry about it.

-Again, I'm going to have to continue to wait to buy a H&N restraint system (stupid, I know). I want an Isaac, but I don't want to spend that much money on something for it to be found illegal less than a year later. So I guess I'll continue to wait.

-"The window net shall be equipped with a quick-release device and when released it shall fall down, thus not having to be flipped up on the roof." That'll bite some people, but it's the proper way of doing it.

- The classification of the 1995-2001 Acura Integra LS as limited prep FP. Interesting. Is the 1990-1993 Integra classed in LP FP too? I'll have to look at that.

- Can we lock the spherical bushing thread now? Good to see an answer, whether agreed with or not.
[/b]

Oh, this is great! Now, thanks to the confusion evident about our rules direction, we now can add a whole 'nuther group in the H+N debate: the guys who really want to do something safer, and can afford to improve their safety, but can't afford to throw away nearly a grand (who can?) on the wrong piece of equipment, and so will consequently be running around without ANY safety improvement (for H+N restraint).

:018: That's gotta be one of the worst unintended rules-making consequences I've ever seen (though, admittedly, I'm still relatively new to the joy of the rulebook).

As for me, of course I've got an ISAAC, and seems like I'll have to expect to have a compliant H+N device for next year - whether it's a HANS or my 38.1 "performance-meeting" ISAAC remains to be seen - but the idea that SCCA would expect me to take off a proven safety device and run without it makes me incredibly steamed!!! Idiots@!!!

turboICE

02-27-2006, 11:27 AM

but the idea that SCCA would expect me to take off a proven safety device and run without it makes me incredibly steamed[/b]crb {at} scca {dot} com works even better than ITforum reply. ;)

gsbaker

02-27-2006, 07:30 PM

Just to put the H&N thing in perspective, some of you may recall that since the Charlotte Observer newpaper began keeping records in the early '90s about 20 drivers per year, on average, die in racing accidents. A couple of weeks ago the Observer published the 2005 count: 22. No improvement post Earnhardt. (About half of all racing fatalities are head and neck injuries.)

The problem the amateur sanctioning bodies are seeing is home-made designs showing up at the track. Yeah, we're talkin' duct tape and clothes line here--and the word is that it's happening in the SCCA.

"Don't try this at home," as the saying goes. It sends the legal department into a panic.

turboICE

02-27-2006, 07:34 PM

lateapex911

02-27-2006, 07:38 PM

Gregg, I have held off writing a letter......as calling them all bozos probably wouldn't help.

But, what ARE we going to do about this??
My quiet behind the scenes questions have met pretty firm responses.

Dave Zaslow

02-28-2006, 08:01 AM

gsbaker

02-28-2006, 08:12 AM

They theorectically could cover that with saying products that have performed and passed the SFI sled testing requirements, without getting into all the other garbage that came along with it courtesy of "consultants" tied to HANS.
[/b]
That's the obvious solution.

Gregg, I have held off writing a letter......as calling them all bozos probably wouldn't help.

But, what ARE we going to do about this??
My quiet behind the scenes questions have met pretty firm responses.
[/b]
A thoughtful and polite letter for the record might help. I wouldn't get too excited however. All that has happened so far is that the CRB has floated a bad idea past the BoD.

AntonioGG

02-28-2006, 08:35 AM

Greg, do you have a link to this article? I can't seem to find it. I only see references to it. Even then, I am reading some numbers that sort of show what I suspected. I just wanted to investigate what you're implying by your post. This is not to say one device is better than the other, but my curiousity was stimulated to find out just where deaths occur in racing.

In 2002, out of 260 killed since 1990 (they don't count "youth karts", mud racing, racing schools), 19 were killed in NASCAR events. 17 of those were at small tracks where they sanction races but leave safety to the small track operators.

In 2002, out of 33 deaths found by the Observer, 29 were at small tracks (do they mean small Friday and Saturday night oval tracks?)

Out of the average of 22 a year, 14 die in crashes (this was in 2002, I believe the averages are still the same). 3 die from medical problems on the track. It doesn't talk about the other 5.

Out of the 2002 total of 260 deaths since 1990, 204 were drivers, 29 were spectators, 24 were workers or crew, and 3 were journalists.

Are enough people including those Friday and Saturday night racers wearing ANY head restraint device for the statistics to start changing yet? I wish we could see those stats separated by sanctioning bodies which require a head restraint. Then we could get a view as to the type of injuries that are most common. Do you have any of those numbers Greg? (especially curious about side impacts and rotational injuries)

itracer

02-28-2006, 09:52 AM

Can someone tell me what this is about?

Improved Touring

Item 1. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section k to 17.1.4.D.10 to read as follows:

k. If so equipped, the rolling door lock mechanism may be deactivated by unplugging the components.

Thanks,

Dave Z
[/b]

Some cars have auto locks that lock the car when it reaches a certain speed. Like 15 MPH. It is a safety hazard in a race car.

dj10

02-28-2006, 10:26 AM

-Again, I'm going to have to continue to wait to buy a H&N restraint system (stupid, I know). I want an Isaac, but I don't want to spend that much money on something for it to be found illegal less than a year later. So I guess I'll continue to wait.
[/b]

Kevin, do I think your stupid? I think NOT. In WW2 the chances of being killed or wounded was 16:1 in Korea & Vietnam it went up to 17:1 the 1st Gulf it went to 500:1 and the 2nd is 750:1. Unless you drive GT World Challange or up, I wouldn't worry my little head off about it. IMO.
dj

JLawton

02-28-2006, 10:27 AM

Are enough people including those Friday and Saturday night racers wearing ANY head restraint device for the statistics to start changing yet? [/b]

I did a season on a small circle track. Not once did they inspect any of the safety equipment. And it wasn't like I was in the mini stock class. Never checked my helmet, belts or inspected the cage. It was crazy!! Even after major crashes there was no inspections or documentation.

gsbaker

02-28-2006, 12:24 PM

Antonio,

The summary article, written in 2000 or 2001 IIRC, is archived at the newspaper's web site. You must purchase access to it. We have a hardcopy somewhere, but the numbers you mention sound about right.

The most recent article is here (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/motorsports/13912408.htm), but only mentions the 2005 data in passing. Someone, somewhere has assembled a database of the Observer's data and posted it online. Unfortunately, the bookmark has been lost on our end and the search engines aren't being very helpful. Perhaps the site is down.

Road racers are less than 10% of racers by headcount, and most of the injuries are found on oval tracks where safety does not rank high on the priority list.

The SCCA's issue is that the problem doesn't go away in road racing, and the numbers stay fairly consistent: ~20 deaths per year X half of fatal injuries are H&N injuries = 10 H&N fatalities/year. The statistics imply that a road racer is going to suffer one of these injuries every year (I can think of two in the past four months), and I'm sure the Club is not eager to go to court every year and tell a jury that H&N restraints are unproven and too expensive.

And that gets to the practical problem. In order to protect from frontal and side impacts to the level seen in pro racing a driver is going to need to drop ~$1K on a H&N restraint and ~$1-$2K on a seat if an "SFI certified" H&N restraint is mandated. If you tell budget racers they must spend $2-$3K on safety gear so one life can be saved you will start a stampede out the door. This isn't a simple decision for the club.

On the other hand, if we get the thumbs up from Topeka to demonstrate performance and skip the SFI sticker, we'll test the $295 Link model at Delphi. If it works--and we are 90% confident it will--the driver will then have a choice: $3,000 or $300.

dj10

02-28-2006, 12:27 PM

I did a season on a small circle track. Not once did they inspect any of the safety equipment. And it wasn't like I was in the mini stock class. Never checked my helmet, belts or inspected the cage. It was crazy!! Even after major crashes there was no inspections or documentation.
[/b]

Why does this surprise you Jeff? Go race Pro, for inspection they walk by the car and put a tech sticker on it and walk away without looking at anything. This is the way it should be. If your stupid enought to go out on the track without proper safe car or equipment, do it. That's why you sign a waiver and they make rules. If you die maybe it GODS way of shrugging his/ or Hers shoulders and saying "natural selection". The choise is ours to make. I just suggest you choose wisely.

Bill Miller

02-28-2006, 01:17 PM

Having crewed for a friend who ran an asphalt short-track car, I'm amazed at the lack of safety equipment. I saw more than one guy running in single-layer suits w/ nothing but a Hanes T-shirt and a pair of skivies underneath. I've seen guys running in 2-piece pro-ban cotton drag racing suits. I've seen guys wearing sneakers when they drive. Hell, I've even seen guys running moto-cross helmets! Tech inspection? Yeah, right! There were no tech stickers, no log book, no nothing! The top-5 got run across the scales after the race. Another friend ran a dirt Modified. Again, same deal, safety equipment was all over the map, and tech was non-existent. They would check your car before you went out on the track to make sure you had at least 8# of air in your Right Rear tire. Other than that, it was across the scales at the end of the race. End of story.

The whole SFI mandate smacks of colusion w/ certain mfgs.

turboICE

02-28-2006, 01:25 PM

I came across an article once that mentioned there is no requirement to even wear a helmet in the NASCAR rules, which flows down to the Friday night dirts so it isn't all that surprising what you see there. The only reason they care at all in Craftsman, Busch and Nextel is because the drivers are like wrestlers they are part of the product and to be protected.

The only reason NASCAR cared about having 38.1 issued was because they wanted everyone wearing HANS but had no way to force it on drivers who couldn't stand HANS without the existence of the standard.

If the SCCA cared about more than a day in court they would have been more proactive in the development of 38.1 originally and consideration in adopting it now.

dj10

02-28-2006, 07:07 PM

If the SCCA cared about more than a day in court they would have been more proactive in the development of 38.1 originally and consideration in adopting it now.
[/b]

Ed, nascar goes 180 to 200 mph, running into each other like a demolition derby with cement barriers around the track. How fast do you go in your ITA car? If you want to wear a hans or a girdle for that matter, do it. Just don't tell me what I have to wear around my neck.

lateapex911

02-28-2006, 07:26 PM

NASCAR is pretty funny. They blow their horns loudly about "safety" and yet they looked the other way dozens of times when Mr Earnhardt told them he would hook up and wear his straps HIS way...okie dokie Dale, can't piss off the major gate attraction...

And just this year a headline touted "New NASCAR safety standards"....and the article went on to detail the forward thinking sanctioning bodies unheard of concept of actually inspecting harnesses for proper dating and installation.

What will they think of next???

Does SCCA care? Not really....well, not about me at least, but they do care about defending legal attacks. It is hard to understand how anyone can defend the words that some grid worker may have to utter: "If you want to race, you must take off that well tested and designed device that could save your life or limit injury"

Sorry, but this is a case of less being ......less.

Knestis

02-28-2006, 10:45 PM

... If you want to wear a hans or a girdle for that matter, do it. Just don't tell me what I have to wear around my neck.[/b]
If I thought that your demise wouldn't affect my sport at all, I'd totally support your Darwinizing yourself.

No helmet on a motorcycle? Cool - as long as I'm not subsidizing the longterm care made necessary by that pesky vegatative state. Problem is, we racers get invited to indemnification festival rules-making situations precisely because those of us willing to take advantage of technology that physics says will protect us, get risk-pooled with people who stopped thinking critically about their mortality at age 16.

It's not fair and it pisses me off that 38.1 gets jammed down my throat because of this kind of attitude.

K

Geo

02-28-2006, 11:27 PM

And that gets to the practical problem. In order to protect from frontal and side impacts to the level seen in pro racing a driver is going to need to drop ~$1K on a H&N restraint and ~$1-$2K on a seat if an "SFI certified" H&N restraint is mandated. If you tell budget racers they must spend $2-$3K on safety gear so one life can be saved you will start a stampede out the door. This isn't a simple decision for the club.

On the other hand, if we get the thumbs up from Topeka to demonstrate performance and skip the SFI sticker, we'll test the $295 Link model at Delphi. If it works--and we are 90% confident it will--the driver will then have a choice: $3,000 or $300.
[/b]

I don't get how 38.1 translates into a $1-2k seat.

gran racing

03-01-2006, 09:21 AM

I do not believe that within SCCA club racing (or NASA for that matter) it should be a requirement to wear a head and neck restraint. If I choose not to wear one, that's my choice. Currently I do not. Will I in the future? Probably. Do I believe people should at least look into it? Most certainly yes.

Racing injury and death statistics can be manipulated to prove each viewpoint. (I've done a lot of research lately on this topic.) Take for instance a person that dies on a track while racing. What the stastic doesn't tell you is that person died of a heart attach before any on-track incident. But from the multiple sources I've spoken to, that would count towards the death rate. There are many other similar examples of this.

There is a lot of interesting stuff out there; some of the info. really surprised me as to other sports that are considered to be more dangerous than W2W racing by the National Safety Council. Hey Jake G. - do any swimming lately? :unsure:

Gregg, if the time comes that you feel we need to speak up a bit more about this new proposed rule, let us know. It is just stupid that someone using one of these proven products would not be allowed to while someone who elects to wear nothing can. It just doesn't make sense. The positive news is that I'm sure your product will get a lot of publicty out of this whole thing. :D

924Guy

03-01-2006, 09:23 AM

Agreed - sorry, Gregg, but I thought it's been well-established that what's actually the most cost-effective is the center net, not the badash seat. The seat (a heavily buttressed one like the Butler designs) has a very limited scope of effectiveness, like the HANS, and in fact pretty much requires the use of a center net to not be a hazard to the driver in other than pure lateral hits.

That's why I put in a center net (2 years ago, IIRC) and stopped sweating about my seat selection.

gsbaker

03-01-2006, 02:52 PM

We suspect this issue of the driver sliding out from under the belts in a lateral impact will get much more attention as time goes on. The nets are good as far as they go, but I can't see them limiting upper body motion sufficiently to keep the belts in place, absent shoulder support.

Please don't interpret my comments to suggest that we believe our designs are a complete substitute for a net combined with a buffed up Butler-style seat, but when we nearly eliminate lateral head torque and keep the belts on the dummy on the bench seat at Delphi, ya gotta wonder if all this other stuff is even necessary.

AntonioGG

03-01-2006, 03:39 PM

We suspect this issue of the driver sliding out from under the belts in a lateral impact...
[/b]
On a bench seat!!! :dead_horse:

AntonioGG

03-01-2006, 03:53 PM

What the stastic doesn't tell you is that person died of a heart attach before any on-track incident. But from the multiple sources I've spoken to, that would count towards the death rate. There are many other similar examples of this.

[/b]

The Observer article I read (by the way, it's from 2002 Gregg) does break it down. Out of 22 average 14 are from on-track. 3 are from health issues. On track incidents include spectators, workers, etc. I suppose the other 5 are from pit accidents etc. (mentions example of youg girl getting hit in the head by a tire, etc.).

gsbaker

03-01-2006, 04:14 PM

On a bench seat!!! :dead_horse:
[/b]
No. We're talking real drivers in real race cars.

AntonioGG

03-01-2006, 04:23 PM

No. We're talking real drivers in real race cars.
[/b]

details please.

I've only seen you talking about the SFI test. Sorry about the confusion.

gsbaker

03-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Antonio,

My fault. I was not making the distinction.

Just from memory, there have been two cases recently of road racers either dying of a head injury or having suffered a broken neck. Both were in race cars, both had a lateral component to the impact, and both were using an SFI 38.1 certified H&N restraint that did not capture the belts. Both had racing seats, but probably not the full containment style often round in oval racing.

So, the field experience suggests that classic H&N restraints work well in frontal impacts, but substantial lateral support of the upper body is necessary for lateral impacts where the restraint does very little. This explains why they have been successful in professional series where they are used in conjunctoin with serious racing seats--by "serious" I mean the full containment style ala NASCAR. Unfortunately, these seats are seldom found in amateur racing.

It's easy to see how this might unfold: 1) Sanctioning bodies mandate 38.1, 2) injuries are reduced, but still occur in lateral impacts, 3) sanctioning bodies mandate seat upgrades and drivers are out $2K+.

The point we are trying to make is that if you ignore this archaic single point release rule you can actually retain the belts and reduce head loads in side impacts without any additional safety components. Would a $295 Isaac Link work as well as a custom-built, big bucks NASCAR style package? Probably not, but it will go a long way toward that goal with zero extra dollars, so why not give the driver that option?

(The studies we have seen of right side nets also used pretty serious containment seats so we can't comment on the net-only set up, but, as Vaughn mentions, it makes sense.)

924Guy

03-02-2006, 09:43 AM

Actually, Gregg, from the other half of the restraint proposal (which I do very much like seeing), I think that SCCA is actually taking a step to head off the need for those $2k seats. By stepping right to the right-side nets for closed cars (recommended to become a recommendation, not a requirement), that should severly cut down on severe injuries from lateral impacts.

This direction comes from Tom Gideon, noting that it was by far the most significant thing to do for lateral impact (and, thankfully, the least expensive and easiest to implement, even at $80).

By contrast, I compare my last impact, which was largely lateral, with ISAAC Intermediate, Kirkey seat (no meaningful side protection), and no center net... while I didn't quite pop out of the belts, my motion to the side was pretty inconstrained. Sure, having the ISAAC meant that I didn't suffer any neck injury, I was still not at all properly positioned in the seat. As a result of this and poor cage design (I had a Petty bar), I bonked my head and scrapped my helmet. A center net would have definitely fixed all of this, keeping my upper body where it was supposed to be. I have been running a center net pretty much since that incident.

gsbaker

03-02-2006, 11:40 AM

Vaugh,

I agree that the side net is a great safety value. I'm just not familiar with any studies that show a net-only approach. Gramling presented some testing in WRC cars at the 2004 SAE, but I believe there was shoulder support involved.

sgallimo

03-09-2006, 06:18 PM

Ok, don't throw anything at me but what keeps my Isaac from meeting SFI 38.1?? I'm assuming the concern is the "implied" single point of release in Section 2.5. If that's it, then my Isaac passes. That section indicates that "... no additional motion is required, other than the release of the seat belts, to disengage the Head and Neck Restraint System...." The only thing that is needed to disengage my Isaac is the release of the seat belts "from the Isaac". Section 2.5 doesn't define the method needed to "release the seat belts". In my case I have to remove a ring and a shaft from each shock to remove the shock from the shoulder belt. Nor does Secton 2.5 define what we are "releasing the belts from". I think we've all been assuming that it means releasing the belts from the driver but it doesn't state that. Therefore I feel free to assume that it means releasing the belts from the Head and Neck Restraint System. I think we've been reading too much into SFI 38.1. Any thoughts??