Roll Cage and the Heater

[Rabbit07]

My question for opinions is this;

If you are installing a roll cage in an IT car and the cage has made it all but impossible to reinstall anything that resembles the original heater box, what do you do? The rules say you can't remove the heater core. The rules also don't say you can just remove the HVAC unit and leave the heater core just hanging there. Do you trim the box and just zip tie it in place? I usually try to trim things nice and neat and leave no room for error in case of a protest, but what do you think?

[JoshS]

IMO, you built a bad cage, and you'll need to re-engineer it in order to be legal. You should have ensured that any part that can't be removed or altered would fit. It probably should have been in the car when you built the cage.

[Rabbit07]

IMO, you built a bad cage, and you'll need to re-engineer it in order to be legal. You should have ensured that any part that can't be removed or altered would fit. It probably should have been in the car when you built the cage.
[/b]

The GCR states that it can be altered inorder to add safety items such as a cage. The case in point is the allowable foot protection, that in this car would go right through the blower motor.

[joeg]

Eh...no problem. Just hack up that heater box until your cage fits. You may want to make certain the core is not used to flow coolant if it too needs some hacking.

[lateapex911]

I'm with Josh on this one. Of course without seeing it it's tough to say. When I did my car, I had the heater box in place, and I wanted it to function. I think it's foolish to get silly trying to remove 3 pounds of water in the pipes to save weight. Leave the water in, go on a diet, and enjoy the defrost function in the rain, and the extra engine cooling on the hot days. (I can say that that decision is probably responsible for my underdog winning it's only ITA race)

So, I routed my cross car tube snug up against the box, but didn't hack it up.
I did however, find it unavoidable to miss some ducting, so I ran the tube right through the ducting and resealed the duct where the tube enters and exits.

it's one of those rules that requires judgement, and I decided to respect the intent, and also to respect my competitors, who won't have to begrudge me a hack.

[Knestis]

I'll echo exactly what Jake has said - on all points. We lost tubes to the outboard vents but the rest of the package is still there, although slightly trimmed to fit.

K

[bldn10]

"The GCR states that it can be altered inorder to add safety items such as a cage."

Where does it say that? Not doubting you - just don't see it.

[Rabbit07]

"The GCR states that it can be altered inorder to add safety items such as a cage."

Where does it say that? Not doubting you - just don't see it.
[/b]

9 f

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

[lateapex911]

I "Needed" to run a cage bar through my XXXX, so I just removed it..... In the interest of safety, of course.........

The cage rule DOES mention an allownance to run the downtubes through the dash...

And we've seen door panels cut for door tubes to fit, but in the end, it's all about where you draw the line, and the respect for the book and your competitor.

[tom_sprecher]

Jake,

Yesterday I spent more hours than I cared to fitting a tube from the door hoop forward to the firewall right where the "frame horn" is spot welded on the passenger side. Even though the night before I realized I should check if it would interfere with the blower I charged forward the next day without doing so (too much drinking and not enough thinking the night before I suspect). Of course it runs right through where the blower motor is located. For that matter I can't even get the blower back in.

After finding this thread and reading your posts I would like to take the approach you did out of respect for the intent and others but due to the location of the blower I do not see how it is possible. As you well know the blower is up against the passenger foot well side panel. I could drop the tube down the door hoop but then it would be at the bottom of that tube and not the best design possible due to lack of triangulation.

What did you do?

[lateapex911]

If I follow you Tom, I'd do this:

The black.is the chassis and the door opeining and the blower motor, the blue is the existing cage members, and the red the front tubes. Maybe a gusset, shown in green if you feel up to it?

[tom_sprecher]

Cool and I appreciate the drawing! I'll take a look at it today. I have NASCAR bars on both sides and they are mounted up pretty high so I think the upper red tube is still going to be a problem but we'll see.

It's real tempting to just leave out the blower per the "additional gutting" rule and move on with all the other things I have to do to the the car back on the track for the required two races before my novice permit expires.

But then again, we'll see. Thanks for your help.

[lateapex911]

Tom just add a little diagonal in the NASCAR setup to continue the load path up to the main horizontal.

If you can leave the motor, i would, it REALLY comes in handy in the rain!

[ddewhurst]

Tom, I would like to provide my understanding of the roll cage to car interior stuff rules BUT the moment I do the intellectual type lurkers will poke their heads up out of their holes.

Intellectual lurkers what is your understanding of the issue Tom has brought forward ?

[shwah]

Tom - I believe you would be legal to remove it in this case. However, as said above - it is nice to have. I do not run a cooling fan on my car, so I routinely run the defrost on HOT during cooldown and paddock driving after a session. It also comes in handy in the rain.

[tom_sprecher]

If I can come up with another way that will not be too time consuming I'll try to get the blower back in. Otherwise, since I plan to run a cool helmet and have to add a blower for that I will probably have the hose setup where I can defog the window or cool down my head depending on what the output of the blower is connected to.

There probably will not be that great of a need for a defogger since most of my racing is done during the hot summer months down here in Dixie. What would really come in handy is the AC on max... :D

[kbailey]

Tom, remember the Roebling school......I would have hated that without my defroster. I agree that it is worth a lot of effort (and a few pounds) to keep it. I also use mine on hot days on the grid and in the paddock...it really does help.

And on the topic of what you can and can not remove- I had my dash bar run very low so I could position the gauges near the stock location. I goofed though and could not reinstall the cluster switch. My solution was to strap the cluster switch up under the dash out of the way. I think the same logic extends to heater controls, wire harnesses etc. That seems to be a middle ground between "I had to remove it to install the cage", and the "you can't modify it if there is another way". I'm no rules expert...that was just my solution.

[Bill Miller]

Where's George w/ his "If it says you can, you damn well can" comment?

This is just one more example of why the whole book needs to be gone through. 9.1.3.D.3.g says:


Engine coolant fluid, coolant/heater hoses and clamps may be substituted. Heater hoses may be plugged. Heater water control valve(s) may be added or substituted. Heater core and hoses shall not be removed.[/b]

You can substitute the heater hoses, but you can't remove them? Ok, I guess that means that I can substitute them w/ ones that are 1mm long. :blink:

...3.e says:


Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.[/b]

That means I can remove the blower and controls, which are part of the AC system.

I think that to meet the letter of the rule on this one, you can remove the heater core to facilitate the installation of your cage, but that you have to mount it somewhere else in the car.

That being said, I agree w/ those who opt to keep it for the defrost function. I know I did.

[lateapex911]

Where's George w/ his "If it says you can, you damn well can" comment?




That means I can remove the blower and controls, which are part of the AC system.

I. [/b]

I disagree. IF the blower motor was used exclusively by the AC system, then yes, it goes, but in most cases it is used by the heater system, and AC is a secondary function.

It is easy in cars where the AC is optional, you just remove the optional bits, but I think that in any case, the blower motor remains.

[Bill Miller]

I disagree. IF the blower motor was used exclusively by the AC system, then yes, it goes, but in most cases it is used by the heater system, and AC is a secondary function.

It is easy in cars where the AC is optional, you just remove the optional bits, but I think that in any case, the blower motor remains.
[/b]


Sorry Jake, don't think it has to be exclusive to the AC system. Tell me where it says that the blower must stay. And tell me how the blower and the controls are not part of the AC system, which it expressly states can be removed completely.

[JohnRW]

Other than being argumentative, Bill...is there really a point to this ? You're attempting to parse down to a level of sillyness. Any SOM Court would agree: You must have the heater & fan in place. Yes, maybe there is language in the GCR that a grammarian could have issue with, but issues like the heater core & fan have a known and adjudicated history.

If you are just going to lecture us about how screwed up the Club is, consider it done and leave us in peace. You've already announced that you are no longer a member. You weren't involved in working SCCA events in any official capacity when you were a member (correct me if I'm wrong, please), and your own racing history & experience is very limited (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Other than hectoring people who are actively involved in racing, either 'working a race specialty' or 'driving a race car' or 'making some contribution to the club', what is your goal here ? Most of us don't need the lecture...save it for Basil on the Prod boards...but you don't have any traction there, either.

[ddewhurst]

***...3.e says:

QUOTE
Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.

That means I can remove the blower and controls, which are part of the AC system.***


Bill, Billl, Bill, please use the GCR glossary to look up the word "system".

System - An assembly of components with an identifiable primary function.

***I think that to meet the letter of the rule on this one, you can remove the heater core to facilitate the installation of your cage, but that you have to mount it somewhere else in the car.****

Bill, is this ^ bait to see who you can hook?

& to the intellectual type lurkers, I am aware that Bill has advanced degrees.

[Chris Wire]

I disagree. IF the blower motor was used exclusively by the AC system, then yes, it goes, but in most cases it is used by the heater system, and AC is a secondary function.
[/b]

Not in Florida, baby! Down here AC is king and heaters are SECONDARY! B) :P

[tom_sprecher]

I have to agree with Chris on this one. Even here in Atlanta heaters are used for about 2 months out of the year. The rest of the time the AC is the primary system. For that matter I used the AC yesterday due to the car heating up from the direct sun.

With that in mind and since it does not say otherwise, Bill has a valid point as well with the blower being removed with the AC system. <_< Who is to say which is the primary system since the GCR does not? On my car the cage now goes through where the blower motor would be completely interfering with the installation of the same. From the factory the blower blows through the AC heat exchanger into the air handler that contains the heater core. If I remove the AC heat exchanger and the box it is mounted in there would be about 12" of open space between the blower and the air handler. How does that setup make the blower an integral part of the heater system?

Both Rabbit07 and I asked for advice here. I can not speak for Rabbit07 but I for one am not interested in any personality conflicts that exist between, or opinions about, members of this forum.

Also, any degree is only as good as the use it is put to.

[ddewhurst]

***If I remove the AC heat exchanger and the box it is mounted in there would be about 12" of open space between the blower and the air handler. How does that setup make the blower an integral part of the heater system?***

Will the heater function as it did when it came from the factory after you remove the heat exchanger box?

Will the heater function as it did when it came from the factory after you remove blower?

The rules very specifically say one may modify the dash to fit the roll cage.

If the rules are intent to allow one to butcher everthing within the car when installing a roll cage why are the rules so fussy about the dash & about the side windows/stuffe being removed?

Tom, just trying to understand your thoughts. :023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don&#39;t think &#39;primary function&#39; has to do with the amount of time you use the system. The heater core and components are the BASE system with A/C as an add on. Some would consider the heater core INTEGRAL to the system while the A/C stuff hangs on the outside. What cars in the ITCS came with A/C and no heat? What cars cames with heat and no A/C? What do you think is the PRIMARY system? It&#39;s obviously the heater system.

To say you can remove the heater core as part of the A/C system is rediculous IMHO.

Build a good cage and try and keep your blower motor etc because when it rains, you will wish you had it.

Read the GCR 3 times, measure twice, cut once. Common sense - it&#39;s a lost art.

[Zephyr]

So making metal brackets that will allow me to lower the blower box to clear my cage is the correct and legal thing to do?

[Joe Harlan]

So making metal brackets that will allow me to lower the blower box to clear my cage is the correct and legal thing to do?
[/b]
No the correct and legal thing to do is design a cage that meets the written rules nd allows the components to be bolted into there stock location.

[tom_sprecher]

To be honest I am just trying to make the best of my screw up. To put the blower assembly back in would require destroying several hours of work and add another day to get a group of tubes like Jake has shown to work within the space given. Therefore, given that the GCR specifically states by default that I can perform additional gutting to allow for the installation of safety equipment I will do just that.

No claim was ever made that the heater core was a part of the A/C system and the plan was, and still is, that it shall remain. I quess I should have used the term evaporator instead heat exchanger when referring to the A/C system. When I remove the part of the A/C system that is the evaporator the heater would not work as there is no way for the air from the blower to reach the air handler that contains the heater core. The air simply blows into the footwell.

I plan to use the blower associated with my cool helmet to supply air to the air handler (contains the heater core and several damper flaps) so I can still defog my windshield when needed. It turns out the weight of each is a wash but the cooler full of ice definitely is not.

With all due respect since the early &#39;80&#39;s many Jap cars came with A/C as standand and you could not buy the car without it. My new &#39;84 Prelude was one of them. In that case who is to say which is the primary system. Now, in my RX-7 I could remove the heater core and the AC would still function. However, if I remove the evaporator the air suppling the heater core blows into the foot well. Which is the primary function in this case? Interesting and worth the discussion over a beer or two for sure. :birra:

[Joe Harlan]

The real issue is that there is not a single car I can think of that cannot have a basic,safe cage installed with the full interior still in the car. The only reason people go further is for a competitive avantage of stiffing the chassis. When some body goes well beyond intent and written rules it does not make a bit of difference to me that the labor is wasted. If i see it I hang paper on it. If your not capable of engineering a cage inside the liberal rules we have for then in the book them maybe you should consider paying a professional to do the job. Don&#39;t act like it was somebig ass mistake and then expect the rules to be changed for you benefit. And please the AC argument won&#39;t fly in the court of public opinion let alone the COA.

[tom_sprecher]

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some feel the need to get up on their soap box and make feeble comments about either what they think, what someone else&#39;s intent is or criticizing people for making statements they did not make. Let me clarify a couple of points brought to my attention.

I am not going well beyond any written rules (quite the opposite) and intent is extremely subjective and wide open to interpretation. The rule that allows me to do what I am going to do has already been given and explained but apparently it may be beyond the comprehension of some on this forum. In addition, until the GCR gives a definitive explanation of intent I can not be concerned with it.

As a degreed electrical engineer with a minor in mechanical engineering and having designed, fabricated and sold industrial machinery all of my adult life I might be capable of the task at hand. However, due to an overcrowded business and social calendar I do not have the time or desire to redo my "somebig ass mistake" as it has been referred to by others and can not be concerned with it. Plus, a good portion of the work I’ve seen done by “professionals” sucks in general.

And finally, I can not find where I asked for any rule to be changed so the court of public opinion and the “COA” I could not care less about. As has happened so many times in the past on this forum an interesting exercise in intellectual discussion on a given topic is ruined those of narrow minds.

[Joe Harlan]

It cracks me up how following the rules as intended can be considered closed minded.....If you have to rub on the rule book so hard that you use the words SAFETY or DRIVER COMFORT to cover your ass it is likely not a good read on your part. Expecting others to look the other way because "it ws a mistake" is also complete BS. Sorry Tom this has nothing to do with you personally but it has eveything to do with not having this become the normal reading rules.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

I hear you but also remember that some comments made here aren&#39;t neccessarily responses to your posts.

[tom_sprecher]

This indeed may be the case and I am guilty of not looking back to see if any comments may have applied to others. It just felt too close for my comfort level and in hindsight I too may have been too quick to rear up and strike. It&#39;s somethng I need to keep in control more often.

I hope everyone has a great weekend and I&#39;ll check back in after a week of getting hammered and chasing skirts down in Daytona and the Keys during Bike Week with eight of my bros. :023:

Just don&#39;t tell my wife about the chasing skirts part. ;)

[Rabbit07]

Wow, I started with a simple question and it has turned into debate! I love this board :D

[Joe Harlan]

Chris and Tom regardless of all the other stuff we can agree on this.


Just don&#39;t tell my wife about the chasing skirts part. [/b]

What happens at the track stays at the track..... :birra:

[Tak]

Tom -- When I built my cage, I had the same dillema--and chose to move the bar because relocating the fan looked more difficult than putting the bar in a different place. If I were to do it again, I would modify (move) the fan so that I could attach the roll cage tube to the front frame horn.
This is clearly a gray area of the rules--intentionally so I believe. I&#39;ve always been of the philosophy that it is better to &#39;modify&#39; than &#39;remove&#39; when in doubt.
And yes, I agree with the rest of the group that the defroster is a serious competitive advantage when it rains--making it well worth the effort to relocate the fan. Or for Rabit to modify the heater box however necessary to accomadate the cage and keep the defroster functional.


Tak
#29 ITA Rx-7
SFR SCCA

[ddewhurst]

Being thet this thread can&#39;t die a normal fashion I&#39;ll lay out my last post.

IMHJ, what many people forget is that: IF THERE IS NO RULE THAT SAYS YOU CAN MODIFY OR REMOVE SOMETHING THEN YOU CAN&#39;T MODIFY OR REMOVE SOMETHING. This reading between the lines that so many people do is getting real OLD.

Maybe we need some protests so that everyone is on the legal line.

EDIT: Yes I am aware of two sentences in two seperat paragraphs that many of you use to butcher anything you want when installing your roll cage. IMHJ those two sentences don&#39;t allow free butchering of the interior of the car.

[leggwork]

my $0.02, the under dash crossbar is not a "required" part of the cage, so you can&#39;t use the broad rule about hacking up the interior to install required safety items.
cheers,
bruce

[Speed Raycer]

my $0.02, the under dash crossbar is not a "required" part of the cage, so you can&#39;t use the broad rule about hacking up the interior to install required safety items.
cheers,
bruce
[/b]
ohhhhh good read!!!!!!

[tom_sprecher]

2007 GCR page 304 section f

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

2007 GCR Page 90 9.4.2.E.3

"In addition, if the two optional braces referred to in item 2 are utiliized they shall be mounted, one on either side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall or front fender wells (see section 9.4.2 section 8)

That&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about. I don&#39;t feel I am bending any rules and I am for damn sure done bending anymore tubing.


2007 GCR Page 91 E.5

"One (1) bar is recommended in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area"

That&#39;s not what I&#39;m talking about and I&#39;m not talking about this anymore.

[Joe Harlan]

2007 GCR page 304 section f

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

2007 GCR Page 90 9.4.2.E.3

"In addition, if the two optional braces referred to in item 2 are utiliized they shall be mounted, one on either side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall or front fender wells (see section 9.4.2 section 8)

That&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about. I don&#39;t feel I am bending any rules and I am for damn sure done bending anymore tubing.
2007 GCR Page 91 E.5

"One (1) bar is recommended in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area"

That&#39;s not what I&#39;m talking about and I&#39;m not talking about this anymore.
[/b]

[seckerich]

While it is not an item that most people will protest it is illegal to remove/move the blower system. I have seen more than one logbook marked up to have it fixed by the next event. The extra tubes to the firewall or inner fender are optional and can be done in a legal way. Same for the bar across the dash. Not aimed at anybody but if protested you will probably lose.

[ddewhurst]

Thank you Steve Eckerich along with the others who follow the rules as written without the torture factor.

I bought a bent/notched roll cage for a Spec Miata which had really nice install instructions including pictures showing where the torch needed to be used to cut metal box members that supported the "A" pillar to the front cowel. I identified the metal parts that need to be cut out, took pictures, sent the pictures to Topeak, received a nice letter saying that the butchering is not consistant with the rules for Spec Miata, IT or Showroom Stock.

That friends is my last word to those who declare butchering the interior of the car is legal using the famous two sentences. :023:

[Speed Raycer]

Speaking of which ^^^^^, Dave can you send me JT&#39;s response that we talked about? I had an email melt down and lost it.

[Bill Miller]

Thank you Steve Eckerich along with the others who follow the rules as written without the torture factor.

I bought a bent/notched roll cage for a Spec Miata which had really nice install instructions including pictures showing where the torch needed to be used to cut metal box members that supported the "A" pillar to the front cowel. I identified the metal parts that need to be cut out, took pictures, sent the pictures to Topeak, received a nice letter saying that the butchering is not consistant with the rules for Spec Miata, IT or Showroom Stock.

That friends is my last word to those who declare butchering the interior of the car is legal using the famous two sentences. :023:
[/b]

Not for nothing David, but your letter, unless it&#39;s an official COA rule interpretation, is nothing more than the opinion of one person, and not binding.

Steve,

While I don&#39;t doubt that you&#39;ve seen logbooks w/ those notations in them, they don&#39;t mean that the steward in question correctly interpreted the rule. I had a steward tell me I wasn&#39;t allow to run more than one tube to a mounting plate because it constituted an additional attachment point. Just because they&#39;re stewards and make notes in logbooks doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;ve correctly interpreted the rules.

[ddewhurst]

Scott, pm sent......

Bill, when it comes to rules I&#39;ll go with the non tortured version. I understand the SCCA process & who counts & who don&#39;t. Your thought process of pushing the rules IMHJ overboard is just the ticket to get IT cars slipped to the same plane as Production cars. Didn&#39;t you folks in the NorthEast have a miata cage builder that got his nuts busted maybe 2 years ago for illegal Miata cages. Nuff said. :D

[tom_sprecher]

Well, I stand corrected.

I thought I was done with this thread but I was wrong.

One man&#39;s optional is another man&#39;s authorized modification.

[Chris Wire]

One man&#39;s optional is another man&#39;s authorized modification.
[/b]

I agree 100%. :)

[Bill Miller]

Scott, pm sent......

Bill, when it comes to rules I&#39;ll go with the non tortured version. I understand the SCCA process & who counts & who don&#39;t. Your thought process of pushing the rules IMHJ overboard is just the ticket to get IT cars slipped to the same plane as Production cars. Didn&#39;t you folks in the NorthEast have a miata cage builder that got his nuts busted maybe 2 years ago for illegal Miata cages. Nuff said. :D
[/b]

David,

I don&#39;t know about the NE Miata cage deal, but I&#39;m sure if I ask John he can fill me in. And this isn&#39;t about my belief in what conforms to the spirit of the rules, it&#39;s about what the rules say you&#39;re allowed to do.

[Joe Harlan]

Well, I stand corrected.

I thought I was done with this thread but I was wrong.

One man&#39;s optional is another man&#39;s authorized modification.
[/b]


D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.

Why is this so hard? A safe cage is not hard to build without breaking the rules as written. The only reason there is an interest in doing it different is a perceived advantage in chassis stiffness by attaching to different locations of the chassis.

[Matt Rowe]

To add to Joe&#39;s point reference the section of the GCR shown below.

9.4.1. BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the car turns over, runs into an obstacle such as a guardrail or catch fence, or is struck by another car. It shall be designed to withstand compression forces from the weight of the car coming down on the rollover structure and to take fore/aft and lateral loads resulting from the car skidding along on its rollover structure.


Working within the rules to use the cage to stiffen your chassis is smart. Torturing the rules in order to provide additional chassis stiffening beyond what is needed for the basic purpose of the roll cage crosses the line. Now tortured interpretation is hard to define but if you find yourself trying to figure out how to justify cutting up the a pillar structure or the blower motor on the passenger side I would say you are flirting with torturing the rule. Remember there is nothing to say the roll cage must be symetrical to protect the driver.

[Bill Miller]

D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.

Why is this so hard? A safe cage is not hard to build without breaking the rules as written. The only reason there is an interest in doing it different is a perceived advantage in chassis stiffness by attaching to different locations of the chassis.
[/b]


Joe,

What prohibited function does it perform?

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

What prohibited function does it perform?
[/b]

Don&#39;t waste my time Bill. Splitting hairs is not something I am gonna do with you, read my statement. It is f&#39;in simple build a legal cage and you don&#39;t have to screw around with the rules. The cage will be safe and legal and nobody else will end up having to cheat to keep up. Have a nice day cause I won&#39;t respond any further to you on this.

[ddewhurst]

Folks, why not read the changed in 2006 GCR Glossary definition of "Instrument Panel - A panel, the associated bracket(s), and HVAC ducting components," bla, bla, bla. If it will help please look up the definition of "ducting". Ducting ain&#39;t heater radiators, ducting ain&#39;t blower motors, & their must be other items that ducting ain&#39;t. Using some commone sense don&#39;t you think the rule writters were with this rewrite attending to the issue of many of you people butchering OTHER HVAC componets. If they wanted you people to butcher the $hit out of everything associated with the HVAC don&#39;t ya think they would have added a few more words.

[Bill Miller]

Don&#39;t waste my time Bill. Splitting hairs is not something I am gonna do with you, read my statement. It is f&#39;in simple build a legal cage and you don&#39;t have to screw around with the rules. The cage will be safe and legal and nobody else will end up having to cheat to keep up. Have a nice day cause I won&#39;t respond any further to you on this.
[/b]

I&#39;m sorry that you won&#39;t defend your position Joe. I&#39;m not trying to split hairs w/ you. I&#39;m trying to point out that the rule is poorly written (especially given the intent that a lot of people feel that it has). Can you build a cage where you don&#39;t have to dork w/ any of that? Sure. Point is, the rule dorked it up by saying that you could remove stuff to install your safety equipment (i.e. cage). As George (where is he btw?) used to say, if it says you can, you bloody well can.

[JohnRW]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915

[dickita15]

John, you are a bad bad man. :D

[seckerich]

Not for nothing David, but your letter, unless it&#39;s an official COA rule interpretation, is nothing more than the opinion of one person, and not binding.

Steve,

While I don&#39;t doubt that you&#39;ve seen logbooks w/ those notations in them, they don&#39;t mean that the steward in question correctly interpreted the rule. I had a steward tell me I wasn&#39;t allow to run more than one tube to a mounting plate because it constituted an additional attachment point. Just because they&#39;re stewards and make notes in logbooks doesn&#39;t mean that they&#39;ve correctly interpreted the rules.
[/b]
I understand your point about opinions as well Bill. I just ask the scrutineer to show me where in the rules what I did was illegal and expect to do the same when I tell someone they are illegal. I have been a national scrutineer for some time and have seen this protested, appealed, and upheld. Times change and so does the opinion at national but I gave an informed opinion--not a guess. It was illegal to modify then and still is unless you have further information I am not aware of. Confirmed with Jeremy last week when I called about another matter. Have fun.

[Bill Miller]

I understand your point about opinions as well Bill. I just ask the scrutineer to show me where in the rules what I did was illegal and expect to do the same when I tell someone they are illegal. I have been a national scrutineer for some time and have seen this protested, appealed, and upheld. Times change and so does the opinion at national but I gave an informed opinion--not a guess. It was illegal to modify then and still is unless you have further information I am not aware of. Confirmed with Jeremy last week when I called about another matter. Have fun.
[/b]

If that&#39;s the case Steve, that&#39;s good enough for me. Thanks.

[Wreckerboy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915
[/b]

Mr. Impaler sums it up succinctly, as always. Bravo.

[tom_sprecher]

Can you build a cage where you don&#39;t have to dork w/ any of that? Sure. Point is, the rule dorked it up by saying that you could remove stuff to install your safety equipment (i.e. cage). As George (where is he btw?) used to say, if it says you can, you bloody well can.
[/b]

It does not matter if anyone thinks I am screwing around with the rules, rubbing the book too hard, freakin&#39; with the intent or whatever. At this point I am not concerned with if anyone can build a cage that twists around the blower somehow. The rules do not tell you how to build the cage exactly, only what you can and can&#39;t do in general. The fact is that in order to install my cage, unquestionably a piece of required safety equipment, the rule specifically states that other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted.

It says I can and I did. It&#39;s that freakin&#39; simple.

[Chris Wire]

It says I can and I did. It&#39;s that freakin&#39; simple.
[/b]

:happy204: