2007 door bar rule change?

[rabbidmk1]

Ok, I will admit I haven't kept up with every Issue of fastrack and I am in the middle of building my 1994 VW Golf ITB car, the cage is almost done. Can someone please point me to the posting of the rule change? I hate to finish my car and paint the cage only to find it needs to be redone. Currently I have two bars on the pass side configured in an X with two gussets in the middle.

Thanks in advance, Aaron Stehly

[tom_sprecher]

Nov-05 FasTrack (http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/05-11-fastrack.pdf)

[Speed Raycer]

Take a pic of the doorbars and post it here. You'll get all kinds of advice on whether its legal or not ;)

As far as the X's go... I've yet to see anything "official" regarding the classic 3 bar X being legal. Everything in the wording of the GCR tells me that it's not. If it's wrapped in a taco style gussets to form one solid, reinforced X and undetectable whether its 2 bent bars, or 3 straight bars... your guess is as good as mine :wacko:

[ddewhurst]

Now yer cooken Scott. Yer written responses like the rules are written. ;)


What's your take on the Miata pictures I sent ya ? :018:

[Knestis]

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/cage07.jpg

I dont' have as much faith in my fellow man (or in tech inspectors or stewards) so I've documented in pictures that our answer meets the letter of the "two bars" requirement. For what it's worth, I don't believe that the traditional X does but that's neither here nor there.

Where you at, Aaron? We're always interested in new MkIII Golfs...

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti

K

[Mike Guenther]

It looks like you're making it harder to get in and out.

[Speed Raycer]

It looks like you're making it harder to get in and out.
[/b]
Nah... he's making it easier to get out should the car roll and come down hard on the top of the windshield ;)

[rabbidmk1]

I am located in Minneapolis MN. My pass. side doors are just like Knestis' car. My driver side goes into the door to give my large 140lb self a little working room! :D .


Thanks for the info. guys. I will post some pics after I install the suspension next week. (Bilstein PSS9 coilovers.)

Aaron

[x-ring]

...My driver side goes into the door to give my large 140lb self a little working room! :D .
[/b]

I haven't been 140 lbs since I was 15. :119:

[rabbidmk1]

I haven't been 140 lbs since I was 15. 119.gif[/b]


Hehe, well I am only 22 so dont feel too bad... :D

Ok I feel stupid... I already knew what the rule was I guess as it is already in the 06' GCR. I just did not put two and two together to realize that was an update in this years book :D


There is a tiny bit of discrepency in the wording of the "two bar" description. Unlike the diagonal brace in a main hoop, the GCR does not say "two continuous" bars. Not that it really matters though because I am changing the design.



Thanks, Aaron

[anrkii]

i just noticed item #8 on there, it says that the cage shall be welded to the car, and all mandatory tubes to use welded joint construction.

im not racing yet, and my car has a bolt in, bolt together cage, but i still have an old logbook... am i screwed? should I weld all of the tubes together? safer that way, or required?

also, its an itb crx, and the floors are ultra thin contoured, and weak, how will welding the cage to this make it any stronger than using bolts and plates ?

[Gary L]

I believe you'll find that 18.3.1.A applies to Touring class vehicles, not IT.

[msogren]

The bolted in bottom legs into the Honda are much safer bolted in. with the plates on both sides.. The welding of this cage to the thin floor will make it much more likly to push thru the floor. I had some research on a patent to prevent this from happening.(patent rights still for sale, and clear)
To update a floor mounted cage , weld up the rocker as far as you can go and stay under the 100sqin or what ever the rule is today. In addition, you can run the seat mount across the floor(but not welded) to spread the load out .
RE; the door bars look OK in the pits, but I'd feel a lot better sitting sideways , over a blind crest, with three solid door bars. with gussets, and a dash bar...
MM

[dyoungre]

I like the idea of what you are doing, but as for getting in/out, I'd probably do it in reverse. I'm sure the idea is to protect the driver profile, so I like your for thought. One thing I found, though, as my cage went together: bent bars bend - straight don't. Sounds simple, but looking at your picture, I have to ask: why not just do a diagonal from your shoulder point to the floor, and then do a door intruding bar ("nascar bar") AROUND your diagonal to do a continuous 2nd bar? You've put a heck of a lot more thought into what you showed here than I have, but ...

BTW - what I love about your design is the straight support to the roll hoop. I wish I'd done that ...

[Off Camber]

OK I am in the somewhat strange position of having a 4 door race car. ITB Prizm.
Any ideas on how this what I need to do for the 2 rear doors. I understand I need to add double bars to the front doors infact I intend to make them go into the door so I can gut the doors.
But I was hoping to just leave the bolt in cage as is in the rear. Do you think because the rule says two bars per door they will make me put bars in the rear as well???

Cheers SteveP

[lateapex911]

No...I've seen plenty of 4 door BMWs that basically have a coupe style cage, modded of course.

[Racerlinn]

So the Fastrack says:

Item 35. Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05: Change section 18.2.7 to read as follows:
7. Side Protection
Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05 two (2) <strike>A</strike> side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both <strike>the driver&#39;s</strike> door openings are <strike>is</strike> mandatory <strike>and across the passenger&#39;s door opening is allowed (recommended). The telescope section should be at least four (4) inches
in length. Minimum bolt diameter 3/8 inches. The driver&#39;s window safety net may be mounted to this side tube and the top cage tube. Driver&#39;s d</strike> Door side tubes may extend into the door.

Here&#39;s an example of a typical "X". Does this conform to the required two tubes?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Racerlinn/CageCross.jpg

[Knestis]

It depends who you ask.

IANATI - Kirk

[seckerich]

It depends who you ask.

IANATI - Kirk
[/b]
And they did not insert the word "continious" as in the main hoop description. we have to run the bar across behind the driver in the main hoop and it can be 2 pieces. The down tubes for the main hoop can not have bends. Restrictions are clearly spelled out when they are intended. Not the best way, but legal by todays rule.

[dickita15]

I believe it is legal and unless directed otherwise will give annuals to cars with this design, however there are those that have argued that it is not and this will need to be resolved. Someone needs to get an opinion from Jeremy and the national headquarters. As I see it that is the only way to end the debate.

[seckerich]

I believe it is legal and unless directed otherwise will give annuals to cars with this design, however there are those that have argued that it is not and this will need to be resolved. Someone needs to get an opinion from Jeremy and the national headquarters. As I see it that is the only way to end the debate.
[/b]
I agree Dick. I asked this question about prod cars and the only thing that made it illegal was the lack of the horizontal bar. I give them annuals until I see otherwise.

[MKessler]

I thought we weren&#39;t supposed to read more into the rule than what it says.....

Bolt-in cages are legal, yes? I&#39;ve never seen less than three tubes (usually five total) on every door bar on a bolt-in cage. Could be the reason behind the "continuous" main hoop description. Assume the word continuous in the door bar rule and every bolt-in cage is now illegal even if you weld the sleeves.

As long as no assumptions are made, I think the rule is fine as written. I sure hope it&#39;s not clarified as continuous.......

I wonder if Autopower has geared up for two bolt-in door bars? Anyone know?

Matt

[JimLill]

I wonder if Autopower has geared up for two bolt-in door bars? Anyone know?

Matt
[/b]

I asked them........... no planned kits or upgrades. I wonder how many of us run A-P Bolt-in cages... I intend to do more than doorbars on mine once the welder is aimed at it.......

[charrbq]

You might try Kirk. They built my cage and my headers.

[Bill Miller]

And they did not insert the word "continious" as in the main hoop description. we have to run the bar across behind the driver in the main hoop and it can be 2 pieces. The down tubes for the main hoop can not have bends. Restrictions are clearly spelled out when they are intended. Not the best way, but legal by todays rule.
[/b]

Steve,

I understand where you and Dick are comming from, but the rule say "2 side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops..."

The design in the picture does not meet that. It has one tube connecting the front and rear hoops, and it also has a tube from the front hoop to the connecting tube, and one from the rear hoop to the connecting tube. If the design in the picture is considered legal, under the new rule, you could attach the short tubes anywhere on the continuous tube.

I agree that the pictured design should be fine, but it doesn&#39;t fit w/ the rule, the way it&#39;s written.

[Greg Amy]

I believe it is legal and unless directed otherwise will give annuals to cars with this design...[/b]

Ditto.

[seckerich]

Steve,

I understand where you and Dick are comming from, but the rule say "2 side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops..."

The design in the picture does not meet that. It has one tube connecting the front and rear hoops, and it also has a tube from the front hoop to the connecting tube, and one from the rear hoop to the connecting tube. If the design in the picture is considered legal, under the new rule, you could attach the short tubes anywhere on the continuous tube.

I agree that the pictured design should be fine, but it doesn&#39;t fit w/ the rule, the way it&#39;s written.
[/b]
Good point

[Ron Earp]

Just to clairfy - the X that is in my JH passenger side cage is now illegal?

R

[Greg Amy]

Bill, you&#39;re caught up on the fact that the second tube is bisected by the first. Note there is no requirement for 2 "continuous" tubes in the rule.

Given that continuous tubes are not required, does your opinion change?

[ggnagy]

I thought we weren&#39;t supposed to read more into the rule than what it says.....

Bolt-in cages are legal, yes? I&#39;ve never seen less than three tubes (usually five total) on every door bar on a bolt-in cage. Could be the reason behind the "continuous" main hoop description. Assume the word continuous in the door bar rule and every bolt-in cage is now illegal even if you weld the sleeves.

As long as no assumptions are made, I think the rule is fine as written. I sure hope it&#39;s not clarified as continuous.......

I wonder if Autopower has geared up for two bolt-in door bars? Anyone know?

Matt
[/b]

It was mentioned to them at some point after labor day, and they were not aware of the rule change at the time. I think they are going to make a kit for the 1G rx7, since the MARRS srx7 ruleset specs the AP bolt in cage. I did not speak to them personally, though. F1 Al, you reading this?

That having been said, it should not be that difficult to weld on the stubs and bolt a flipped copy of the 2nd drivers side bar for most AP cages.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you&#39;re caught up on the fact that the second tube is bisected by the first. Note there is no requirement for 2 "continuous" tubes in the rule.

Given that continuous tubes are not required, does your opinion change?
[/b]


Not at all Greg. As I said, if that design pictured is legal under the new rule, what&#39;s to say that you couldn&#39;t attach those short tubes anywhere on the continuous tube. The short tubes don&#39;t connect the front hoop to the main hoop. They connect the front hoop to another tube, and the rear hoop to another tube.

I don&#39;t think you explicitly need &#39;continuous&#39; here, to require that they be continuous. The rule says that you have to have two tubes connecting the main hoop (point A) to the front hoop (point B). That means the tubes go from A to B. It says nothing about being able to go from A to C (in this case, the other connecting tube) and then to B. IIDSYCYC :D

[Greg Amy]

Ok, so for the sake of argument, let&#39;s accept your line of reasoning. Now, compare the two photos in this thread, one being Kirk&#39;s bars which are two distinct and separate tubes welded together at the same point as Steve&#39;s.

I&#39;ll surmise you believe that Kirk&#39;s cage is "legal". Therefore:

- You think Kirk&#39;s cage (post #5) meets the letter of the rules, and
- You think Steve&#39;s cage (post #17) does not,

...despite the fact that they both functionally do the exact same thing. Therefore, I can only conclude your problem is with the words (letter) of the rule versus the function (spirit). Yes?

Not a commentary, I&#39;m simply trying to understand your position.

If true, then we have an "agree to disagree" situation. If, however, you want to argue there&#39;s a functional difference between the two designs in terms of safety, then we still gots a significant difference in opinion. Absent the plate fillets that I know Kirk added to his cage, I can illustrate how Kirk&#39;s cage can fail much easier than Steve&#39;s... - GA

[Knestis]

...Absent the plate fillets that I know Kirk added to his cage, I can illustrate how Kirk&#39;s cage can fail much easier than Steve&#39;s... - GA[/b]

Hey, there - no fair. The fillets ARE there so don&#39;t be dragging Chris&#39; cage into your high-brow, fancy-pants, Rules-NERD, techie-inspectorish conversations.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/cage08.jpg

K

[Greg Amy]

So touchy...!

:)

[Bill Miller]

I agree that the pictured design should be fine, but it doesn&#39;t fit w/ the rule, the way it&#39;s written.

[/b]

Like I said Greg, I think the &#39;X&#39; in the picture is fine, from a safety and functionality standpoint, I just don&#39;t think it meets the letter of the rules. That&#39;s all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Clarification forthcoming.

[Racerlinn]

Clarification forthcoming.
[/b]

Thanks Andy.
I assume this means I don&#39;t have to start shooting emails to everyone in Topeka (not that they would be particularly responsive this week).
The pic I posted is not my car, but my bars are nearly the same. The car is going for additional passenger side bars as well as a few other&#39;s in the near future and I want to make sure I have everything done all at the same time (unless Amy wants to just trade straight up for his egg... :D ). Thanks for everyone&#39;s thoughts and opinions. I do think this rule will affect quite a few people that simply have not thought about it yet.

[mom'sZ]

I called autoower last night and ordered a cage for a zcar. I asked about the rule change concerning door bars for 07. I was told that some designs had been updated and some had not. The zcar had not. They (autopower) agreed to send me two extra door bars (no extra charge) to add myself.

[Racerlinn]

Well, it&#39;s been a couple weeks. Anything new to report? Andy, any clarification? Or should I start my own request for clarification with the folks in Kansas?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, it&#39;s been a couple weeks. Anything new to report? Andy, any clarification? Or should I start my own request for clarification with the folks in Kansas? [/b]

Unfortunately, I think this is something that needs to be from Topeka and printed in Fast Track. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s smart for inter-regional travellers if we leave it up to local tech-teams. Still working on it.

[Racerlinn]

Jeremy T. confirmed that the CRB was going to have to review it.

[DoubleXL240Z]

Photos of x bars that got a log book last week too big, wont load?!?!

[ddewhurst]

I would guess that if the rule required three tubes that people would claim there "x" was three tubes instead of two tubes as many now claim.

There are many National Production race cars that have the same good ol "x" in the passenger side for side protection & the "x" without a horizontal bar above the "x" is NOT LEGAL. I pointed the fact out to a shop where there are five National cars & three of the owners shruged it of as they don&#39;t care. I suggested they would be pi$$ed like little kids if someone protested them after a Runoffs podium finish. Then they started the little game of calling it a pi$$ant protests.

Have Fun ;)
David

[Greg Amy]

...the "x" without a horizontal bar above the "x" is NOT LEGAL.[/b]

WELL! That settles it, then! Someone should get the word to all those folks in Topeka discussing it (and all the other SCCA members that disagree) that there&#39;s absolutely no use in bothering to discuss it any further! It&#39;s been decided!!!

Right.

[seckerich]

In production you would be correct because it states that the top bar must be horizontal and the second bar below that. An "X" is definitely not going to pass that test. IT rules have no such provision. Can&#39;t wait to see how this shakes out.

[DoubleXL240Z]

Check out the FIA/ALMS/SCCA yadda yadda yadda appoved cages in the Porsche GT3 cup car...
Standard 3 dimensional(my definition) x bar across both doors. These are run everywhere... yet not
legal in IT??

[lateapex911]

Chris, get yourself a little ap called IRfanview. It&#39;s a fast little photo viewer/modifier that can resize your pics and do some other typical stuff, and it&#39;s free. It&#39;s stable, takes little space, and it&#39;s easy to use. Perfect for resizing pics for the net. Save Photochop for the times when you want to get intense.


www.irfanview.com

On the X vs horixontal thing, (yea , yea, yea, .... you&#39;re going to say I&#39;m being unreasonable, but...), but can anyone show me what is considered/defined "horizontal" in the GCR???

Really, if they are demanding horizontal, then it needs to be defined. I guaran-dam-tee that if 4 people respond, there will be four different opinions. Same for log book issuers.

As it stands, it would be reasonable to say that since they refer to horizontal, and the sister to that term is vertical, that it would be anything less than halfway to vertical. There is no other mention of anything in between in the GCR, so I would say that anything less than 45 degree would be in the acceptable range.

Now, before you tell me I&#39;m full of goose turds, tell me what the accepted angle IS, and how it is measured, and referenced to WHAT. And please cite the GCR passage or passages that led you to that conclusion.

If you can&#39;t do that, then you can&#39;t possibly tell me I&#39;m wrong.

[ddewhurst]

***There are many National Production race cars that have the same good ol "x" in the passenger side for side protection & the "x" without a horizontal bar above the "x" is NOT LEGAL.***

Greg, you start riding the same horse as Jake ? You know what they say about measure twice, cut once. The same applies to reading before you go on a rant. PLEASE re-read what I posted. ;) (Here is some HELP for you, I said Production race cars.) Nothing to argue about PLEASE read the Production race car roll cage rules.

For the record IMHJ as I have stated in the past & I will state again the friken closed Production car roll cage rules & the closed IT roll cage rules should be the same. I beleive the three tube "x" is not legal because it&#39;s not two tubes.

Posted by an ALL important ITAC member Jake.

***but can anyone show me what is considered/defined "horizontal" in the GCR???***

Jake, do you understand what the word horizontal means within the rules for a Showroom Stock roll cage which is the same roll cage rules we use for our IT cars ? Mr. ITAC member who is FULL OF GOOSE TURDS :wacko: please us the same definition & tolerances as you would installing your IT roll cage main hoop horizontal.

Have Fun ;)
David

[lateapex911]

LOL!!

I KNEW I should have started a pool as to who the first responder would be...I&#39;d have won.

Seriously David, skip the "All important" sarcastic stuff, can you answer the the question, and tell me how you will judge what is, and what it not horizontal in these cases? And, while you&#39;re at it, tell me how John Techhead in California will make that judgement, and how Bob Techknowman in Boston will make the same judgement.

For those who are missing the point, it aint clear, it aint defined, and if it aint neither of those, it aint going to be easily defined as legal or illegal.

Now, as you point out, the Prod side protection rules require two "horizontal" bars, OR one horizontal bar, and a diagonal bar bisecting the opening under the horizontal bar.

So, we can actually have some pretty interesting configurations in Prod, even with that wording.

Now, I know is a stretch, but using blue sky thinking, there could be a case made for the X bar to be legal under the two horizontal bar scenario. As there is no definition or tolerance for what is or is not horizontal, and because they don&#39;t require contiguous/continuous tubing, it could be argued that those are two horizontal bars. yea, it&#39;s a stretch, but with no tolerances listed, I can see it being made.

IT rules are of course, less defining, so the same arguement could be made.


(And yes, I agree that I find the whole cage ruleset to be a bit of clusterf*ck, and that there are probably better designs that are being mandated out due to it)

[ddewhurst]

Jake, please use the same definition of horizontal & the same tolerance you would use when you install your IT main hoop horizontal. If you think that others will have an issue with the word horizontal please write a letter requesting a rule change.

Try using my first name when your addressing me even when your being sarcastic & I&#39;ll skip the sarcastic stuff towards you.

Have Fun ;)
David

[lateapex911]

Jake, please use the same definition of horizontal & the same tolerance you would use when you install your IT main hoop horizontal. If you think that others will have an issue with the word horizontal please write a letter requesting a rule change.

Try using my first name when your addressing me even when your being sarcastic & I&#39;ll skip the sarcastic stuff towards you.

Have Fun ;)
David
[/b]


But David, the SS rule merely says "horizontal"....there is no definition, no tolerance, no nothing further to limit the builder. In the main hoop horizontal, it&#39;s most peoples choice to have the bar be roughly parallel to the floor and/or roof, or perpendicular to the driver, who is generally plumb when viewed longitudinaly.

Yet, time after time I see door bars at all angles in cars that have logbooks....clearly tech is not applying the same standards in those cars, as the relative angle to the earth is significantly different. I&#39;ve seen two horizontal door bars that look like this: l>l . The ">" is the top and bottom horizontal. Odd, I know. My point is that the rule you have thought of as clear in your mind, is probably the same rule that someone else thinks is clear in their mind, but their version is different. That&#39;s fine, if the club is cool with the variants, but we can&#39;t go saying "X" is clearly illegal when the tech guys say it is legal without having better definitions.

[ddewhurst]

Jake, have you ever viewed an IT or SS car that had a REQUIRED horizontal tube in the main hoop that was not horizontal to a normal persons vision ? A pinch of common sense used with the rules works pretty well. :023:

Side note:

During reading with reference to the horizontal tube in the main hoop I noticed that the Production rules no longer recomend the horizontal tube in the main hoop.


Tech folks:

A quick comment about tech folks & in this case an SCCA full time salaried tech person. FACT, when he inspected two same model cars at th 2006 Runoffs one cars suspension pick up point was not to the OEM dimension by 1 1/2 inch & the driver was told he was illegal & would loose his Q times for that Q session. The other driver who was not to OEM dimension by 1/2 inch was told he was legal. Missing pinch of common sense. :wacko:

Have Fun ;)
David

[shwah]

OK, this is silly. Horizontal means horizontal, not angled some % between horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is 0 degrees different than level.

I don&#39;t have a problem with Xs within the rule because the tubes are not required to be continuous. I have 2 horizontal bars on the driver side tied together with vertical bars out in the door, and 2 horizontal bars on the passenger side with a single diagonal, so I don&#39;t really have a dog in this fight.

[Greg Amy]

Horizontal is 0 degrees different than level.[/b]

Relative to what; the ground? The rocker panel? Perpendicular to the direction of gravity?

Any tolerances on that? What happens when you change the rake of the car; do you have to move the horizontal door bar? If you say "that&#39;s stupid" then you imply there&#39;s tolerances to that zero degrees (90 degrees to gravity); what are those tolerances, plus and minus? Do those tolerances apply to static ride height only? Should tech inspectors carry around bubble levels and make sure the "horizontal" door bars are within this specific tolerance?

Shall I go on?

See what happens when you try to parse the rules to their idiotic conclusions?

[lateapex911]

OK, this is silly. Horizontal means horizontal, not angled some % between horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is 0 degrees different than level.

I don&#39;t have a problem with Xs within the rule because the tubes are not required to be continuous. I have 2 horizontal bars on the driver side tied together with vertical bars out in the door, and 2 horizontal bars on the passenger side with a single diagonal, so I don&#39;t really have a dog in this fight.
[/b]


Actaully Chris, you do have a dog in this.......if we use your standard of measurement. It might be silly, but your resaponse illustrates the problem EXACTLY.

0 degrees? I will bet you my car against yours that you will be deemed illegal if you want 0 degrees to be the standard, and that&#39;s an easy bet for me to win, as statistically 99% of the cars I measure with my digital level will fail. Is that the intent??

I don&#39;t think so.

[CCARVER]

I love this thread.
And if you protest me off the podium, I was still in front of you when we came off track.
3 bar X in my door did not help with that.

I am very intersted in what National has to say.
Carver

[shwah]

Relative to what; the ground? The rocker panel? Perpendicular to the direction of gravity?

Any tolerances on that? What happens when you change the rake of the car; do you have to move the horizontal door bar? If you say "that&#39;s stupid" then you imply there&#39;s tolerances to that zero degrees (90 degrees to gravity); what are those tolerances, plus and minus? Do those tolerances apply to static ride height only? Should tech inspectors carry around bubble levels and make sure the "horizontal" door bars are within this specific tolerance?

Shall I go on?

See what happens when you try to parse the rules to their idiotic conclusions?
[/b]
I said it was silly, not stupid. There is a HUGE difference between a measuring tolerance and being closer to horizontal than vertical, and calling that horizontal. I don&#39;t care enough about this argument about nothing (IMO) to get sucked into it.

Go get em guys :cavallo: . A clarification will probably make some folks feel better.

[ddewhurst]

***3 bar X in my door did not help with that.***

Carver, if it didn&#39;t help make the chassis more ridged which is HELP it must be that you wanted more weight in your car. :)

Continue the Fun ;)
David


ps: As I&#39;m enjoying the posts & responses I&#39;m thinking to myself I already sent in a letter request after the new 2007 door bar/side protection rule came out. Topeka response, the usual bla, bla, bla..........

Continue on please :cavallo:

[DoubleXL240Z]

[attachmentid=662Would you consider this legal???

[Spinnetti]

[attachmentid=662Would you consider this legal???
[/b]

I&#39;d say no; theres a big enough gap to drive a mini through there...

Why not just say horizontal within 10 degrees of ground plane?

One of the things I don&#39;t like about the SCCA, is that everything seems to be a clean slate idea for every class/rule... x bars have been used for at least 40 years in racing.. why is something good enough for pro series not good enough for IT?

I don&#39;t really care how the rules shake out, but I&#39;m sick and tired of having to rebuild my cage every couple years. (at least 3 times since I&#39;ve been racing this one car)

Overall, insurance and safety parnoia back up by little evidence from SCCA activity seems to be driving a lot of unnecessary change.

[Drew Aldred]

You want to see the home office scramble a bit ?? Ask them to see the engineering study that was done on their mandated roll cage. All this talk about safety etc., but there is no proof to show that their idea of a cage is better or even as good as cages that have been tested and improved on over 40 plus years................

Give me a waiver to sign, no form of racing is 100% safe.

[Spinnetti]

You want to see the home office scramble a bit ?? Ask them to see the engineering study that was done on their mandated roll cage. All this talk about safety etc., but there is no proof to show that their idea of a cage is better or even as good as cages that have been tested and improved on over 40 plus years................

Give me a waiver to sign, no form of racing is 100% safe.
[/b]


First sensible words I&#39;ve heard in a long time.
Pick a standard already widely used, and stick with it.
Let me be responsible for my own safety within broad limits.

Before you know it we will all be cacooned in $100k safety cells like F1 drivers with gear we have to throw out every year just to noodle around in our $10k IT cars that we are lucky to hit 100mph in.

[CCARVER]

***3 bar X in my door did not help with that.***

Carver, if it didn&#39;t help make the chassis more ridged which is HELP it must be that you wanted more weight in your car. :) [/b]
Car would be ridged with any door bar configuration. And as far as the weight, We all have mins to meet anyway.


I signed the wavior everytime. LETS RACE!

[lateapex911]

[attachmentid=662Would you consider this legal???
[/b]To my eye, (and I am no Tech dude), I&#39;d think the drivers door is fine, but I don&#39;t see two bars on the pass side. So, as of now, it&#39;s legal, as of jan 01 07, you need a second.

[DoubleXL240Z]

Ya, that cage was built last May or so. Don&#39;t know where he is going to race it, 72 911 I believe. My point was totally non-horizontal door bars, but they are NASCAR style though.
Not much of the cage rules are at all logical. My 240Z needs 1.5x.120 tubing in it as an IT car and as of Jan07 NASCAR bars on both sides, as well as 6+2 attaching points. As a Prod car it needs 1.5x.095 or 1.375x .095 if its Alloy,minimum tubing, a million attaching points and a "360 degree" main hoop, with trashcar bars. As a GT same tubing no mention of a horizontal bar within the mainhoop, trashcar bars etc.
No consistancy. The Porsche 996 GT3 cup car x bars across both doors, but it gets a waiver because thats the way Porsche built it. FIA legal though! It (SCCA) also waives the rule for 360 degree welds around every joint, just look at a Porsche built cage around the roof line welds... can&#39;t reach it, don&#39;t weld it!!
Rant Over!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.

[latebrake]

fOR WHAT ITS WORTH. THE BUILDING TRADES/PLUMBING/HVAC/BUILDING/PIPE FITTING AND THE LIKE USE MODEL BUILDING CODES ADDOPTED BY STATES AND LOCL BUILDING OFFICIALS AND HAS THE BACKING OR STATE AND FEDERAL POWERS USE 45 DEGREES AS THE BREAKING POINT FOR THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL BASE LINE. ANYTHING ABOVE OR BELOW THAT IS JUST WHAT IT IS.
LAWRENCE

[gpeluso]

The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.
[/b]

Forgive me for being slow,but does this mean the 3 bar X is now illegal. Is it also true you have to have a dash bar also.

Greg

[shwah]

I read that as the 3 bar X is being approved as an accepted 2 bar door member.

[Gary L]

Forgive me for being slow,but does this mean the 3 bar X is now illegal. Is it also true you have to have a dash bar also.

Greg [/b] 1 - Quite the contrary... the "3 bar X" is apparently going to okay WRT the new "2 bar" side protection rule.

2 - AFAIK, the dash bar is still an option within the SS/IT cage guidelines...

<span style="color:#231f20"><div align="left"><div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>"E. One (1) bar is recommended in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area."[/b][/quote]</div>
<div align="left">Recommended, not required.</div>
</span>

[Andy Bettencourt]

I read that as the 3 bar X is being approved as an accepted 2 bar door member. [/b]

Correct. :happy204:

[Spinnetti]

The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.
[/b]



Nice... This a few days after I start cutting out my "X" bars to put in the NASCRAP bars in <sigh>.
Oh well. I may as well finish it now anyway.



The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.
[/b]



Nice... This a few days after I start cutting out my "X" bars to put in the NASCRAP bars in <sigh>.
Oh well. I may as well finish it now anyway.



The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.
[/b]



Nice... This a few days after I start cutting out my "X" bars to put in the NASCRAP bars in <sigh>.
Oh well. I may as well finish it now anyway. :dead_horse:

[ddewhurst]

Which all means that previous to the latest change that is taking place the three (3) tube was not a legal two(2) tube side protection. ;)

Which also gets ME back to the letter I sent to Topeka when the two(2) tube side protection originally came out. I asked for simplicity reasons & for crossover reasons why are the IT & Production side protection rules not the same. I received the standard bla, bla, bla Fastrack response. But now that some more sensible heads have gathered that is exactly what they will be doing. I just hate it when I&#39;m that dumb up front. ;)

Now maybe one of these days THEY (Tech inspectors/Saftey inspectors) will start using the rule GCR 18.1.2. & get the drivers out from under the main hoop in the Production cars. & please don&#39;t anyone from the North East Division who attends National races ask me which cars I&#39;m talking about. I don&#39;t beleive I have seen a production car that originated outside the North East that the driver sits under the main hoop. (Maybe a couple of the cars by one builder originated from the CenDiv area 4 & raced in the North East.)

Have Fun ;)
David

ps: Thanks Andy............

[Racerlinn]

The CRB met last night and our issue was brought up. The Showroom stock (and therfore SM and IT) cage rules will be clarified to ALLOW an "X" bar as an approved &#39;2 bar&#39; set-up. The Prod and Touring rules will have to be changed and teh Bod will have to approve - but for us, an "X" will be good.
[/b]

Thanks Andy. The costs of my door bar work for this winter just went down. :)

[mattbatson]

Does anyone know of a cage builder in Western NC? I&#39;m also open to Western SC...
I know I can get it done at Sports Car Authority in Charlotte, but that is a two and a half hour tow for me.

Also, as an aside...
Does anyone know of a toyo supplier that can shave on the east coast? Hate to pay the extra shipping from AIM in calif., although I have done it before and got a good shave.

[Knestis]

He&#39;s not all that far west but Chris Schimmel (Competition Cages) in Hillsborough, NC is worth the drive. Hall Tire in Greensboro - of all places - will shave Toyos. They aren&#39;t a "race tire" place but their service rocks and Joseph the Tire Sculptor will take of exactly as much as you want.

Kirk

EDIT - I should clarify that I bought my Toyos from http://www.PhilsTireService.com and then took them to Hall&#39;s. Even with shipping, they were cheaper from Phil than anywhere else I could find and they need to be mounted to shave them anyway.

[mattbatson]

Yeah, that is about a 4 hour drive...so I have other options in charlotte I can deal with, which is closer.

Phils tire service doesnt shave?
I like AIM and tire rack, as they come shaved to your specified depth. AIM is far away, and tire rack doesnt sell toyo&#39;s

I figure there has to be plenty of circle track racing shops around...right? They build cages...so I imagine they must be somewhat qualified.

[Speed Raycer]

I figure there has to be plenty of circle track racing shops around...right? They build cages...so I imagine they must be somewhat qualified.
[/b]

DANGER WILL ROBINSON Be very careful about assuming Circle Track builders know what their doing with a road racing cage. See examples in person. Make sure they build custom to the car and not just ordering a kit and installing it. Make sure they are willing to build it how you, and the RULES, require. There are some TOP NOTCH circle track builders out there, but just like in the SCCA circles, there are some builders to stay away from.

[mattbatson]

I was kinda afraid of that.
I was told to look up Steve Ekerich, as he may be able to help me.
If he cant, I heard about a Hap Waldrop in Greenville, with the Acme Speed shop. That is only about an hour or so for me.

[Dave Zaslow]

Phil does shave tires. He even likes to do it ;-)

He knows roadracing, knows the cars, and knows what the tires will do.

His profiles and surface finishes are as good as any I got from Vilven.

Dave Z

[Knestis]

I&#39;m sorry - I completely forgot that Phil got a shaving machine. That happened after I switched to buying Hoosiers from him, rather than Toyos.

K

[mattbatson]

I ordered a set of shaved toyo&#39;s from phil today. Saved money on the price and also on the shipping. Nice people to deal with.
I&#39;m not quite at the hoosier level yet B) , so toyo&#39;s and the longevity they are known for is more important at this point in my racing career then outright speed :rolleyes:
Maybe next year...

The kumho 710&#39;s are cheaper then the hoosiers...and I thought they were as fast?

[erlrich]

The kumho 710&#39;s are cheaper then the hoosiers...and I thought they were as fast? [/b] Not sure if they&#39;re as fast, but definitely faster than the Toyos. The problem with the Kumhos is that if you don&#39;t set your car up exactly right, with very little camber (like 1 degree or thereabouts), and lower starting pressures than every other tire out there, they will come apart on you. There is at least one old thread on this board, and I&#39;ve seen a couple of discussions on other boards about this, and it just happened to me this past weekend on a tire with six heat cycles on it. My next set of tires will be either Hoosiers or Goodyears.

Oh, can you tell I&#39;m still a little pissed? :D

[mattbatson]

thanks for the heads up.
I was just thinking of ordering the 710&#39;s as a "faster" tire for my other set of wheels.
Guess not...