More creep...

[erlrich]

Ok, not really creep, but...

Can some of you old timers (SCCA old timers that is) please explain the rationale behind allowing only those IT cars with NASCAR-style door bars to gut the doors? I understand why those guys need to do so, but what I'm having a hard time with is why if we allow some to do it we don't allow all cars to do it. Is this considered a reward for using what is considered a better cage design? If so, shouldn't we just be requiring everyone to install NASCAR bars? If not, IMO the rules are punishing those who choose to use an alternative design. I understand the whole resistance to creep philosophy, but I don't see this as creep; we are already allowing some to do it so why aren't we allow everyone to do it.

Am I the only one who thinks the door gutting rule is inequitable?

[Joe Harlan]

Ok, not really creep, but...

Can some of you old timers (SCCA old timers that is) please explain the rationale behind allowing only those IT cars with NASCAR-style door bars to gut the doors? I understand why those guys need to do so, but what I'm having a hard time with is why if we allow some to do it we don't allow all cars to do it. Is this considered a reward for using what is considered a better cage design? If so, shouldn't we just be requiring everyone to install NASCAR bars? If not, IMO the rules are punishing those who choose to use an alternative design. I understand the whole resistance to creep philosophy, but I don't see this as creep; we are already allowing some to do it so why aren't we allow everyone to do it.

Am I the only one who thinks the door gutting rule is inequitable?
[/b]


My WAG! Weight. The door bars would offer more protection at about the same weight as the window rigs on most cars.

[zracre]

Yea its pretty much a wash...i didnt bother on the pass side of my teg, it would weigh the same...not worth the effort and i like having a window there for when the car sits in the rain and at night at races. If the window ever gets smashed and I need a new door then maybe. If someone has not installed nascar style bars and guts the door... :018:

[Knestis]

When "NASCAR style" door bars first emerged, it was very simply necessary to allow them to protrude into the door to make it possible to implement them in IT. They were perceived as safer, so it was decided to allow door gutting.

How that got applied to the passenger side, where a straight-bar structure would be stiffer and there exist no intrusion issues, I dunno but one strategy might be to make the door bars protrude JUST FAR ENOUGH into the doors, that it is necessary to cut out the inner panel. Less cage bar weight than "real" NASCAR bars, and no door panels or inside sheetmetal.

It also seems to be generally accepted - based on the number of cars out there, and the lack of protests/actions - to pretty much hog out the door regardless of how much actual interference there would be with the cage.

K

[Bill Miller]

When "NASCAR style" door bars first emerged, it was very simply necessary to allow them to protrude into the door to make it possible to implement them in IT. They were perceived as safer, so it was decided to allow door gutting.

How that got applied to the passenger side, where a straight-bar structure would be stiffer and there exist no intrusion issues, I dunno but one strategy might be to make the door bars protrude JUST FAR ENOUGH into the doors, that it is necessary to cut out the inner panel. Less cage bar weight than "real" NASCAR bars, and no door panels or inside sheetmetal.

It also seems to be generally accepted - based on the number of cars out there, and the lack of protests/actions - to pretty much hog out the door regardless of how much actual interference there would be with the cage.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

That's because that's the way the rule is written. It says you can gut the door, in you use NASCAR-style door bars. Says nothing about only removing as much material as necessary to fit the bars, just that you can gut the door. Right now, the way the rule is written, all those bars have to do is 'break the plane' of the door panel to give you license to fully gut the door.

[zracre]

that seems kinda iffy. My pass door bars are straight back from front main to main hoop. I had to cut the moulded arm rests so the bars fit. I took the rule that because they were not "nascar style" (2 equal length horizontal beams with vertical braces protruding into the door panel space) the panel had to be modified and kept. They have a spec cage for nascar and if the bars aint nascar style, then the door panel and guts must stay. I did not see the wording of "breaking the plane of the door panel"...I saw "Nascar style door bars"...JMHO

[Bill Miller]

NASCAR-Style Door Bars - If installed, shall consist of one or more
sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to
the front hoop[/b]

From the 2006 GCR Glossary.

I don't see anywhere where it says 2 equal-length horizontal bars w/ vertical braces that protrude into the door panel space. NASCAR may have a spec cage, but the GCR says "NASCAR-Style Door Bars", and then goes on to define them in the Glossary. That pretty much makes anybody else's definition of "NASCAR-Style Door Bars" irrelevant. And unless I'm mistaken, if it 'breaks the plane' of the door cavity, it 'intrudes' into it.

Take a stroll through the paddock sometime and look at how many cars have one door bar and gutted doors.

[Catch22]

The first batch is done. Its a hoppy blonde ale and its pretty damned good if I do say so myself.

I'll have some with me at VIR in 3 weeks.

Scott, who says "I honestly dont care if someone's passenger side door bars protrude 1 inch into to passenger side door or 3 inches."

[R2 Racing]

My pass door bars are straight back from front main to main hoop. I had to cut the moulded arm rests so the bars fit. I took the rule that because they were not "nascar style" (2 equal length horizontal beams with vertical braces protruding into the door panel space) the panel had to be modified and kept.[/b]

If you haven't installed those "Nascar door bars", from ITCS-13:
"Door interior trim panels may be replaced with .060" aluminum securely attached to the door."

That's what I do on the passenger side. Creates a much cleaner look and a little lighter than the stock panel. You also don't have to go hacking up a perfectly good door panel you can then sell.


From ITCS-13 & 14:
"The door window glass, window operating mechanism, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed. The stock side impact beam, if equipped, and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified. This gutting of the door shall only be made if roll cage incorporates NASCAR-style side protection extending into the door."

As that is written, all a person would have to do in order to legally "hog out" either door is to only have one bar "extend into the door". Wether that be 1/2" or 5", doesn't matter. Didn't that rule actually use to say that only as much of the inner door structural panel could be removed that was required to fit the bars through? I'm almost positive it use to say it since that's how I designed mine. Apparently that's not true anymore and maybe I should get the sawsall out.

[erlrich]

"The door window glass, window operating mechanism, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed. The stock side impact beam, if equipped, and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified. This gutting of the door shall only be made if roll cage incorporates NASCAR-style side protection extending into the door."

As that is written, all a person would have to do in order to legally "hog out" either door is to only have one bar "extend into the door". Wether that be 1/2" or 5", doesn't matter. Didn't that rule actually use to say that only as much of the inner door structural panel could be removed that was required to fit the bars through? I'm almost positive it use to say it since that's how I designed mine. Apparently that's not true anymore and maybe I should get the sawsall out.
[/b]

I seem to remember some discussion here in the past regarding that very question. If I recall correctly, there were those who took the part about modifying, but not removing, the inner door panel to mean that you could only remove enough material to fit the bars. In light of recent discussions about other rules issues, I am now of the opinion that "modified" means anything short of removal.

My original question was born from a search for ways to shed some weight, and at the time my thinking was that if I had to install NASCAR door bars before I could gut the door it would be a wash, and not really worth the effort (safety concerns aside). But, I was also thinking more along the lines of Evan's definition of NASCAR bars. If all I need is for one of the door bars to break the plane of the door panel, well that's different; my straight door bars now are only about 1" from the door panels so it wouldn't take much of an offset to get into the door.

Looking at it in this new light, I'm even more convinced we should just let everyone gut their doors.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you completely gut the skin of your door with just one bar breaking the plane of the door, I submit you have broken the rule.

passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

If you didn't thihnk it was an advantage, you wouldn't do it.

</div>
</span></span></span>

[zracre]

[quote]
If you haven&#39;t installed those "Nascar door bars", from ITCS-13:
"Door interior trim panels may be replaced with .060" aluminum securely attached to the door."

I was going to do that but now I have a pass seat, belts lead and a spare tire. I think the .060" aluminum panel would weigh less anyways :wacko: I am real close on weight...2606 with more than half a tank...scary to go across the scales this past weekend! but i made it!! I will add more bars soon and spend $$$ on springs and shock revalving as it was like driving a school bus! a very fast school bus! I run my set ups way soft compared to others and this weight put me out of my acceptable range.

[Bill Miller]

If you completely gut the skin of your door with just one bar breaking the plane of the door, I submit you have broken the rule.

passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

If you didn&#39;t thihnk it was an advantage, you wouldn&#39;t do it.


</span></span></span>
[/b][/quote]

The problem w/ this one Andy, is that they got sideways w/ NASCAR-Style Door Bars, when they operationalized their own definition, by way of a Glossary entry. And while I understand where you&#39;re comming from, the way the rule is currently written, you can have one bar, breaking the plane of the door panel by 1mm, and you&#39;re allowed to gut the whole thing (w/ the exception of the lock mechanism and the impact beam. It states that the inner door panel can be modified but not removed. The way I read that, is as long as I leave some of it, I have not removed it, and have only modified it.

"The door window glass, window operating mechanism, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed."

That sentence stands on its own. There&#39;s nothing in there that speaks to the degree that things can be removed, nor limitations on removal only if there is interference w/ the cage (NASCAR-Style Door Bars). It then goes on to say:

"This gutting of the door shall only be made if roll cage incorporates NASCAR-style side protection extending into the door."

So, as long as you incorporate NASCAR-Style Door Bars (w/ an operationalized definition per the GCR Glossary), you can gut your door up to the point that you don&#39;t completely remove the inner door structural panel.

This may not what was meant or intended, but that&#39;s the way the rule is written. It&#39;s told you what you can do, and under what condition you&#39;re allowed to do it. There&#39;s nothing in there at all as to what degree you&#39;re allowed to remove the authorized components.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"The door window glass, window operating mechanism, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed."

That sentence stands on its own. There&#39;s nothing in there that speaks to the degree that things can be removed, nor limitations on removal only if there is interference w/ the cage (NASCAR-Style Door Bars).
[/b]

I submit THIS does.

"...provide for the installation of required safety passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

To me, this means you can gut the door for clearance of your bars. No more.

Just another rule people take way over the edge, they know it, they do it for a perceived benefit - and one I would NEVER protest. Typical of the SCCA, people on this board and ME.

[lateapex911]

The rule WAS written loosely, and I remeber reading it that it was a gift. Trade lots of weight for safety.

I think that I have seen doors with NOTHING left of the inner panel, and thats too far, but many doors are swiss cheeses affairs, and cutting long slots in them leaves jagged peices of metal that look like torture devices that I would prefer not auger or slice and dice me in an incident. I left an inch or so at the perimeter, and the rest is gone. Gluing a slit tube, or other edging material to the raw edge makes it safer too.

Yes, I COULD have left more, but when I did the initial cut that left more, it scared me, so that was that.

Protest away.

I think the letter of the rule has been met.

And Andy, I don&#39;t think that the second item you listed has any bearing on this, as the specifics to the situation and the definition are spelled out right there in the rule. It says you can, so you can.

[turboICE]

If you didn&#39;t thihnk it was an advantage, you wouldn&#39;t do it.
[/b]
If you aren&#39;t careful, hopefully after many more decades of use that may become your epitaph. (Not that you would ever die, unless it was an advantage.)

I disagree with it as being the blanket statement - there are a lot of things we do in building our cars that can be something besides a competitive advantage.

Much of it goes to what you believe is a competitive advantage.

For instance, I strongly do not believe that making weight is a competitive advantage - every car has a weight that they can make. That weight was determined by a long, well fought and what looks to be a successful process. Making weight is a necissity of realizing competitive potential through preparation - not a competitive advantage. If the rules prevent someone from making weight and making weight is deemed to be a competitive advantage then the process was a pointless waste. The rules and their interpretation should be in complete alignment with the process and enable making weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what the rules actually says is that the door panel may be &#39;modified&#39;. In context, it says you can modify the door panel if you incorporate NASCAR-style door bars. One would make a connection that said you could modify to facilitate that allowance - and no more.

If you think &#39;modify&#39; gives you free reign outside the context in which it is used - then we will have to disagree on most interpretations.

I am out of this one. I am starting to get frustrated with the torturing of the rules. Kirk - where do I send my NERD card too?

[b]cover all possible situations.</div>
</span></span>

[Bill Miller]

I submit THIS does.

"...provide for the installation of required safety passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

To me, this means you can gut the door for clearance of your bars. No more.

Just another rule people take way over the edge, they know it, they do it for a perceived benefit - and one I would NEVER protest. Typical of the SCCA, people on this board and ME.
[/b]


There it is in black and white Andy, no other driver / passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted. Then it goes on to say what can be taken out of the door, and under what conditions you can take it out (the installation of NASCAR-Style Door Bars). There&#39;s no explicit restriction in there on what the door bars have to do, other than extend into the door cavity. This is really a case of once they say you can, you can go as far as you want, unless there are other restrictions placed on it. In this case, some portion of the inner structural door panel must remain, the side impact beam must remain, and the external door handle mechanism must remain.

Let me give you another example.

17.1.4.D.1.l


Manifold and cylinder head port matching is permitted. No
material may be removed further than one (1) inch in from
the manifold to cylinder head mounting face(s).[/b]

Starts off by saying that you can port match the manifold and the cylinder head. The next sentence restricts to what extent you can do that.

Here&#39;s another one

17.1.4.D.9.c

Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed.
They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location
using a mounting plate(s), or any other location using a secure
method of attachment. Other than modifications made to
mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the
remainder of the dash “board” or panel shall remain intact.[/b]

The language there is different than the interior language. And I don&#39;t think I&#39;m torturing the rules at all. The rules say I can remove those things from the door IF I incorporate NASCAR-Style Door Bars. It doesn&#39;t say that I can only remove those things that would &#39;be in the way&#39; of the NASCAR-Style Door Bars.

We can agree to disagree on this one Andy. :023:

[erlrich]

And Andy, I don&#39;t think that the second item you listed has any bearing on this, as the specifics to the situation and the definition are spelled out right there in the rule. It says you can, so you can.
[/b]

I agree with Jake on this point. The first sentence says "other than... or other authorized modifications". The gutting of the door for NASCAR bars is and authorized modification, so that whole sentence becomes irrelevant.

I can see where there would be disagreement about how much you can modify the door panel, but I think the way the rule is written you could make a reasonable argument either way. And Andy, I have to respectfully disagree, I don&#39;t think this even comes close to a tortured interpretation, it&#39;s just a different interpretation.

Oh, and one last observation - you&#39;re 100% correct, if I didn&#39;t think it was an advantage I wouldn&#39;t even consider it. I&#39;m just confused about where it says we can&#39;t try to legally gain an advantage.

[Knestis]

I am out of this one. I am starting to get frustrated with the torturing of the rules. Kirk - where do I send my NERD card too?[/b]
NERDS Anonymous did an intervention and took mine away. I think it ultimately went to the same place as did my childhood blanky, my sense of indestructability, my youthful idealism, and the porn that I got rid of when I got married. :P

K

[lateapex911]

......as did my childhood blanky, ......, and the porn that I got rid of when I got married. :P

K
[/b]

Now THAT&#39;s an interesting combo in the "Rites of passage" book....

The rule allows "modification", but not "removal" of....but makes no reference to what the modification should be based on.

I would think that the rulesmakers know FULL well that we all are going to look at a rule and see what we can do with it. (If you give the keys to your new Ferrari to a pal, you KNOW you have to say "Keep it to posted limits" or whatever, if you don&#39;t want him whomping on it, right?) If they had intention of limiting the modification to something less than "up to Removal of..." they really missed the chance to write it in.

(And I&#39;m not playing the "intent" card, LOL)

In the words of the great IT philosopher, "If it says you can, you bloody well can"...LOL.

Now lets see if he pops up and tells me this aint one of those times... ;)

[Geo]

In the words of the great IT philosopher, "If it says you can, you bloody well can"...LOL.

Now lets see if he pops up and tells me this aint one of those times... ;)
[/b]

Since my buddy Jake is calling me out.....

I cannot argue with your logic Jake. There is certainly plenty of fuzziness there. Andy makes a good point about the limitation for installation of safety equipment, but I agree with you that this rule specifically allows modification without limiting the extent and IMHO this trumps the more general rule Andy references. The question as I see it is when the modification turns into removal of the inner door panel. Folks have to decide for themselves where that line is and realize that if a tech inspector disagrees, you may be SOL.

Just as an aside, I am bothered by the fact the rule allows for removal of the inside door latch. I can see some poor bastard groggy after a nasty hit with the car on fire trying to figure out where the door latch he removed went to.

As for me, I don&#39;t have NASCAR bars. Don&#39;t want them. I&#39;m perfectly happy with my 0.060" aluminum door skins I fabbed up.

I don&#39;t know how I earned the titile of "philosopher" (#$%^head usually is mentioned first :) ), but I do believe if a rule says you can do something and places no limitation on how you accomplish it, it&#39;s the wild west baby. You and I are involved in the rules writing process and it behooves us to to remember this so when we have to craft rules we are as clear as possible about what we want to allow and place limits beyond that.

[lateapex911]

............
Just as an aside, I am bothered by the fact the rule allows for removal of the inside door latch. I can see some poor bastard groggy after a nasty hit with the car on fire trying to figure out where the door latch he removed went to.[/b]

That&#39;s why I have a release latch where the old one was, and have it marked with a graphic arrow.


...... You and I are involved in the rules writing process and it behooves us to to remember this so when we have to craft rules we are as clear as possible about what we want to allow and place limits beyond that.[/b]

Exactamoondo!

[Joe Harlan]

NERDS Anonymous did an intervention and took mine away. I think it ultimately went to the same place as did my childhood blanky, my sense of indestructability, my youthful idealism, and the porn that I got rid of when I got married. :P
K
[/b]

There is the problem Kirk....Maybe your just wound to tight from giving this up....:)

[ddewhurst]

Joe, I&#39;ll give ya some information that has me all wound up. :wacko:

I read the friken rules for roll cage side hoops for ITA Miata/Spec Miata & then remember what said cars with implemented roll cage side hoops look like I say to myself WHAT THE HELL IS THE VALUE OF THE WRITTEN RULES. With my understanding of the roll cage side hoop rules & knowing what the whole deal looks like behind the instrument panel (mine is apart at this time) anyone with the roll cage side hoop path going THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar is NOT IMHU of the rules LEGAL to the written rules.

I would appreciate anyone who owns one of these Miata&#39;s to enlighten me on the legal implementation of the side hoops THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar.


EDIT: Sorry, I for got no one protests anyone in IT so do what the hell ya care to do. (just like Production :o )

Or, wait untill someone protests the roll cage side hoop implementation. (Then the CRB will change the rule to match the illegal roll cage side hoop installations just like they do in Production :wacko: )

[JamesB]

That&#39;s why I have a release latch where the old one was, and have it marked with a graphic arrow.
[/b]


I dont have an arrow, but I do have a pull handle in the area of the stock one.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I&#39;ll give ya some information that has me all wound up. :wacko:

I read the friken rules for roll cage side hoops for ITA Miata/Spec Miata & then remember what said cars with implemented roll cage side hoops look like I say to myself WHAT THE HELL IS THE VALUE OF THE WRITTEN RULES. With my understanding of the roll cage side hoop rules & knowing what the whole deal looks like behind the instrument panel (mine is apart at this time) anyone with the roll cage side hoop path going THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar is NOT IMHU of the rules LEGAL to the written rules.

I would appreciate anyone who owns one of these Miata&#39;s to enlighten me on the legal implementation of the side hoops THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar.
EDIT: Sorry, I for got no one protests anyone in IT so do what the hell ya care to do. (just like Production :o )

Or, wait untill someone protests the roll cage side hoop implementation. (Then the CRB will change the rule to match the illegal roll cage side hoop installations just like they do in Production :wacko: )
[/b]
David, In plain engrish......I can&#39;t tell ya. It is not the responsibilty of the competitor to protest safety gear...simple as that. How the hell do some of these cages get stamped? Maybe it was legal when looked at but changed after the fact? Annual Tech should catch those changes? I many times gone to th safety steward and pointed out a cage that was not compliant. You should not have to protest a none compliant safety stuff. the stews can deal with it in their own. The cage deal makes no sense. In my opinion the requirements should be the same all the way up. From IT/Touring all the way to GT. If I build a touring car this year the cage should be good all the way to GT. Spec them correctly so the added weight of a heavey cage does not prevent a car from being competitive.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

It also amazes me how some of this stuff gets through. I&#39;ve seen logbooked cars where the welds where the top tubes attach to the main hoop weren&#39;t 360* welds (guess they couldn&#39;t get between the roof and the cage). Weld covered ~320*. How the hell does something like that get stamped????

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

It also amazes me how some of this stuff gets through. I&#39;ve seen logbooked cars where the welds where the top tubes attach to the main hoop weren&#39;t 360* welds (guess they couldn&#39;t get between the roof and the cage). Weld covered ~320*. How the hell does something like that get stamped????
[/b]
Well because nobody looks.....

I have actually gone as far as taking photos of cars on track that when the driver steps on the brake his head pops up above the cage..........cracks me up....That Hans device will work real well with his helmet dragging the pavement..

[turboICE]

I have what I think may be a better question. Assuming that the allowance for NASCAR style door bar is for safety, why is the SCCA&#39;s requirement to be a NASCAR style door bar so weak?


NASCAR-Style Door Bars - If installed, shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to the front hoop[/b]

One bar intruding into the door cavity and done.

Even when most people talk about them elsewhere, maybe they think of it as two bars with trusses that intrude in the door.

What I think the rule and most nonNASCAR people completely miss is that observationally there is a much more significant design requirement in NASCAR (I say observationally because the rules themselves are proprietary.)

What I am talking about is that every current NASCAR cage I see are designed in a way to move intrusion forces on the door bar out of shear and into compression. This should be the real focus of the NASCAR door bar rule - reducing shear forces that would be exerted on the door bar joints with the main and front hoops.

Unless you move some of the force distribution out of shear and into compression - they aren&#39;t any safer than straight door tubes and some of the examples I have seen on track are definitely less safe.

Example:

http://www.scienceofspeed.com/revolutionized/ScienceofSpeed/S2000/ScienceofSpeed_Race_S2000/images/paintingcage.jpg

Now this is very problematic for many of us with main hoops far behind the B pillar (myself included). Tube frame cars can manage this but when the best place for the main hoop is 6-9" behind the B pillar actually making "safer" NASCAR door bars is problematic.