May Fastrack Posted

[Greg Amy]

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-f...ck-may-full.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-fastrack-may-full.pdf)

"Now that's interesting!"

[JamesB]

Thanks Greg, I was going to wait till lunch to read it, now im slacking off on my morning tasks to fine out what your talking about.

[its66]

I would love to know the reason to NOT allow a jacking point which does not perform any otherwise speicfied illegal function. I could understand not allowing them to be designed in a way as to increase the chassis' stiffness.

Would any IT racer object to a competitor adding a jack point? I would like to see this put out for member input. If it already was, I must have missed it... Yet another reason to put Fastrack back in the checker

[tnord]

what's interesting?

the allowance for automatics and wagons?
the E36 318 in A?
the Celica in A?
SM min flywheel weights?

[lateapex911]

Regarding the jacking points:

Andy can chime in and correct me if I remember this incorrectly, but the ITAC felt that there are many ways to put jacking points in a car now, and legally as well. As such it was felt that writing a rule that allowed more could get tricky and could open up things and allow some unintended consequences.

I would guess that if there was a real problem with the situation as it exists now, the ITAC might have been more willing to take that chance, but it seems like the benefit wouldn't pay for the risk.

I think it's a reasonable point, though I do see the requestors points as well.


(I might add that i have been under cars and seem lots of things I wished I hadn't. Like 3 foot long 3" x 2" U channels welded from the the front to the back....for "jacking")

[Chris Wire]

(I might add that i have been under cars and seem lots of things I wished I hadn't. Like 3 foot long 3" x 2" U channels welded from the the front to the back....for "jacking")
[/b]

I think this issue is of greater importance to a class that is based on an OE chassis vs. a tube frame or more unlimited class.

The damage caused by repeatedly jacking the OE chassis points does significant damage over time. Whether or not it degrades overall chassis integrity is debateable, but the damage is pretty obvious. I think limited jacking points are needed. The rules can be written to limited what can be done, similar to how the 100 sq. in. rule is written for roll cages.

I think the ability of IT cars to run enduros adds to the frequency of our cars being jacked up, sometimes right on pit lane, where time/speed become more critical than in the pits.

I'm disappointed with the decision.

[R2 Racing]

what's interesting?

the allowance for automatics and wagons?
the E36 318 in A?
the Celica in A?
SM min flywheel weights?
[/b]
I read through all of this stuff yesterday and I had no objection at this time to the new ITA classifications. The automatics and wagons thing getting crossed out was odd though. I don't get it I guess.

One thing I saw that I did personally find quite interesting though was the "EG" Civic Si hatchback getting classed in limited prep FProd at 1950lbs with 12.0:1 compression and a .450" lift. "Now that's interesting!"

[Speed Raycer]

I think limited jacking points are needed. The rules can be written to limited what can be done, similar to how the 120 sq. in. rule is written for roll cages.

I'm disappointed with the decision.
[/b]

I'm with Chris (and it's 100 not 120 ;) ). It wouldn't be that hard to specify a max. sq. inch rule, min & max thickness. Make 2 different allowances for points tying into the cage vs points in the middle of the rocker.

[Chris Wire]

I'm with Chris (and it's 100 not 120 ;) ). It wouldn't be that hard to specify a max. sq. inch rule, min & max thickness. Make 2 different allowances for points tying into the cage vs points in the middle of the rocker.
[/b]

Whaddyamean? That's what I wrote! ;)

I say leave the middle of the rocker out, since it's generally perceived to be a weaker point. Require it to be within say 6" of a cage mounting point, then specify maximum size and thickness.

I know I can lift both wheels off the ground by jacking either cage point. It just mangles the chassis when I do.

[its66]

Perhaps I am dense. The only legal way I can think of to add a jacking point is something welded to the roll cage. The only way to access that would be through the door. Yes, if you were building a car from scratch, you might be able to design the mounting pads for the front down tubes in such a manner that they provided some sort of jacking pad by reinforcing the floor from inside the car. ON an existing car, that isnt' really an option.

You have already seen a 3 foot long U channel underneath a car, without the provision to add a jacking point. An addition which permits a jacking point would do nothing for this vehicle.

I wouldn't propose such wording which would permit that much steel, or that would permiting tieing two suspension mounting points. I would recommend a one piece basically rectangular pad with allowances made to allow trimming to fit the factory shape of the floor. No more than 80 square inches. No more than 12 inches in length or width. Maybe 3/16th thick maximum (Scott R..may have some input here->) I would permit it to be welded(connected) to either the pinch weld OR the frame rail, but not both. The jacking point would not be permitted to perform any otherwise illegal function. (chassis stiffening, etc)

Tear it apart. I realize it may not be perfect, but I think everyone will see the direction of this. Who objects? Chris W., Wouldn't you love to have a car whose floor, rockers, and pinch welds don't look like mine. The last time I took an RX7 to get straightened, the frame guy looked at it and scratched his head for an hour, trying to figure how he was going to hook it up and tell if it was square, because the pinchwelds were so destroyed.

feedback??

[lateapex911]

Well, I know of a few methods of accomplishing the end result, and I think they are currently legal. here's one off the top of my head.

Add a tube from the lower door bar (at the balance point of the car) to the floor, and weld a pad to that...if it's close to a drain plug, all the better, because you can now fab up a pad for the jack with a registration pin that fits a hole in the floor pad. As long as the pad isn't attached to the floor, you're good to go.

As in all matters of the rules, I appreciate there are two sides to the coin. And these things are the results of votes...there are 9 members of the ITAC...get to know a couple guys, make your case, and resubmit it...maybe you can tilt the balance. (I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to offer options)

[its66]

Well, I know of a few methods of accomplishing the end result, and I think they are currently legal. here's one off the top of my head.

Add a tube from the lower door bar (at the balance point of the car) to the floor, and weld a pad to that...if it's close to a drain plug, all the better, because you can now fab up a pad for the jack with a registration pin that fits a hole in the floor pad. As long as the pad isn't attached to the floor, you're good to go.

As in all matters of the rules, I appreciate there are two sides to the coin. And these things are the results of votes...there are 9 members of the ITAC...get to know a couple guys, make your case, and resubmit it...maybe you can tilt the balance. (I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to offer options)
[/b]

Hmm.. That reminds me too much of the current ecu rule, or the old no threaded body shocks. I can have a jacking pad that sits on the floor, but it can't be welded to the floor. Can I have my dash bar "sit" against the firewall? It seems almost like torturing one rule to prevent the torture of another. Seems like an awfully difficult way to add a jacking point just because someone, somewhere might break the rule. (which, we both know they already are)

I also understand the other side of the coin, I just don't agree with shooting down a reasonable jacking point allowance. If it is reasonable, and the rule is well defined, where is the problem.

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but not having an allowance within the rules because someone might break it, or challenge it doesn't make any sense.

I'll stop now. :D

[RacerBill]

Reading this thread, I get the impression that there are more pros than cons to allowing jacking points. And I whole heartly agree. I have to jack my car at least twice a weekend - the race tires do not fit on the trailer and I have to mount narrower tires. The stock jacking points are mangled to the point where if I don't repair them, they will be a safety issue.

I, too, see absolutely no reason why reasonable sized jacking plates cannot be allowed. I have more steel welded to my frame to provide towing eyes than I would have for one jacking plate on each side of the car.

[tom_sprecher]

Since we can not add jacking plates to the bottom of the car that are the same contour as the "frame" I plan to make a jack saddle that is. Not as fast as a big plate welded to the botttom but it should work.

[RSTPerformance]

While I do like the idea of having a jacking point to keep newbie crew from jacking up on the floor and making a big dent, and or to protect my rockerpanel from the damages that jacking has caused... I do think that some people could use it to ones advantage.

I am not someone whom thinks that weight makes a huge difference, (but then again when your car weighs 2,500lbs, 10 - 20 lbs isn't anything)... Some (many on this website) think that weight and weight placement makes a HUGE difference. I envision some lead jacking points on my car :)


Raymond "Lets think this one all the way through" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Can I have my dash bar "sit" against the firewall? [/b]

Of course you can..and many do. Same for the A pillar and the B pillar.... It's just good cage building....



Seems like an awfully difficult way to add a jacking point just because someone, somewhere might break the rule. (which, we both know they already are)[/b]

First, I'm not so sure it's all that hard, and second, the reason wasn't because of someone breaking the rule, it was because of the risk reward ratio and the word "torture"....

Remember, I'm playing devils advocate in a sense here...

[ed325its]

So what is the deal with the change to no longer exclude automatic transmissions and station wagons?

Why would that be good for IT?

Where was the member input on this?

[JoshS]

So what is the deal with the change to no longer exclude automatic transmissions and station wagons?

Why would that be good for IT?

Where was the member input on this?
[/b]
The ITAC discussed the station wagon allowance in response to a letter, and we agreed to do it to be more inclusive. There doesn't seem to be any real risk and it allows more cars to compete.

I'm not sure about the automatic transmission thing.

[MMiskoe]

I was the author of the request for jack points.

I had seen it shot down a few years back, but had no idea what had been proposed or why it was rejected. So I hung back a while, but wrote up and mulled over a proposal that I thought would cover a large portion of the rule writing process, thus making the decision for the ITAC & the CRB easier. I was quite disappointed when I heard that it had been shot down again.

The proposal was listed here back in February at the time I was submitting it in an effort to get some other people to either read it & chime in on necessary changes and to send letters to the CRB supporting it. Its still on the Rules & Regs page, scroll down a bit, so rather than reprint it here go take a look.

Its interesting that the comments made here are very close to what I had written in my proposal for size & thickness of materials.

What I find most irritating is that no one has shown exactly how 'the rule is adequate as written'. Yeah yeah yeah, you can add a down tube from the cage to sit near the floor & all which is great for the passengers side. On the drivers side, this proposed bar needs to come down just about under my left hip, not an optimal spot if you ask me. Call me a wuss, but I want the roll cage as far from me as possible and I'm moderately sure that a lot of other cars would need the jack point in a similar location relative to the driver.

I agree that any rule change is a new potential creep item and possible route to something unintended. But cripe, how much chassi stiffening can you really do w/ 64 square inches of material (I carried 64sqin in mine).

So although I'm frustrated that it didn't go through, I am very happy to see the response here. Perhaps another round of letters to the CRB would make them take another look? I don't know the process for that.

Thanks
Matt

[RacerBill]

Hypothetical question: what if my 24 year old stock jack points on the frame were weak, and I was to repair them by welding a 3" x 4" plate to the frame. Would that be considered a repair, as opposed to 'reinforcing'?

[ddewhurst]

***Would that be considered a repair, as opposed to 'reinforcing'?***

Bill, rule 9.1.3.d.8.h................... :018:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

I would say that unless your FSM calls it out as a specific authorized repair, then no.

[Knestis]

So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K

[lateapex911]

Was your patch made with 1/4" plate???

;)

Re; THe automatic transmission, I have no memory of that being discussed and meant to bring that up last night on the con call. We had a change in operations and I was kinda busy and forgot to ask. I'll see whats up with it.
The station wagon thing was deemed to be a rule from a bygone era that existed for reasons that now have seperate rules. There are lots of cars out there that are technically station wagons but we don't think of as such, and it could be cool to class them in the future.

[RacerBill]

Yeah, that's what I suspected, but not the answer I would have liked. I actually had read 9.1.3.d.8.h and I can see where the rule came from. Seems funny that I had to spend $1500-$1700 for a roll cage to make the car safe, but I can't repair the jack points on the frame to make them safe unless my FSM contains a specific procedure for doing so.

Well, that's the rule, and we have to live by it. But, it can be changed (we can race automatics and station wagons, now, right?). I appeal to all racers who legitimately need jacking plates (no 3/4" thick gussets, please) to write well written, logical letters to the ITAC, and the CRB requesting this change.

What is the maximum size you would allow before saying a jacking plate performed a secondary function (like reinforcing the frame) 4"x4", 6"x6", 16 sq in., 36 sq in? Would it have to be flat, or could it follow the shape of the frame? Limited to one or two bends? What thickness should be allowed?

OK, I'll be the first to jump in. Jacking Plate Rule, draft 1:

Two total jacking plates,......no, no, no!!!!!!

A total of two jacking plates may be welded to the body of the car, maximum one per side. Each plate shall be no larger than 36 sq. in., 1/4" thick, and not longer than 8" on any one side. Each plate shall have a maximum of two bends to conform to the shape of the part of the car it is welded to.

Matt: how did you word your proposal (just so we can all be on the same page or at least close to it)?

I intend to send in pictures of my jacking points, showing how deformed they are, and why they need to be repaired.

I agree that the statement 'the rule is adequate as written' without stating what rule or why they believe that it is 'adequate' does the members, especially those who write requests, a disservice.

Anyway, I will definitely write to the ITAC and CRB supporting this change or any other proposal.

Just an afterthought, but since they have prohibited jacking plates except as they can be added within the rules as written, can the club be found negligent if a car slips of a jack due to frame collapse and injures a driver or crew?

BTW, if you want to see the ultimate in rules simplicity, look up No Problem Raceway Park and the Grand Bayou Circuit Racing Rules - TWO PAGES, Total!!!!!!






So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K
[/b]

That makes two of us!!!!

BTW, 9.1.3.d.8.h makes no mention of the thickness of the material added or if it even is restricted to metal. Adding a sheet of rubber to the underside to keep out the water could be 'material addition'. Jake, are you saying that there is some gray area in that rule? (just kidding!)

[JoshS]

Deleting post, it's a duplicate.

[its66]

So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K
[/b]


Maybe I never really looked for it, but I don't remember any FSM I have owned having a section on rust repair, crash damage or basic body repair(other than some which have measurements to aid in having the "frame" pulled). Does that mean my 14 lbs of bondo are illegal? :P

I'll have to look at mine tonight when I get home.

[MMiskoe]

Below is a link to the previous thread, and the opening post for that thread which includes my stab at the rule text:

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10539 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10539)



Plain & simple, I would like to see the CRB make a change to allow jack points. I’ve gone far enough to write up a proposal & send it to both the ITAC and CRB which included a proposed wording for the GCR.

In an effort to help move this along I’d like some feedback. Read it, pick it apart, tell everyone what you would do with it should it get adopted. Write up complaints on why it’s not a good idea or how it might get implemented in a fashion that wasn’t intended. This will help those deciding what to do have some insight as to how this change might affect things on a day to day level.

Also, if you are in favor of it, send a note to the CRB and tell them why it’s a good idea for them to spend some time considering this change. Here’s the link

CRB Letter form
http://www.scca.com/Club/crb/crbletter.html

Thanks for your opinions both for and against.
Matt


Here’s the proposed text:

Jack points may be added to the car provided they fall within the following requirements:

- Two locations only per car may be added, one on each side or one on each end of the car.
- Added jack points may not be used to create any additional roll cage attachment point, ballast location or chassis stiffness, intentional or otherwise.
- Each jack point may be fabricated out of no more than 64 square inches of material welded to the chassis, with no edge dimension longer than 10”. Material to be used may not be thicker than 3/16”.
- Reinforcing of existing chassis seams/intersections may be used, provided that the materials used are in accordance with the above statement and length of reinforcement is no grater than 10”.
- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.[/b]

The reasoning for the various sizes is to keep it from adding any significant balast or stiffening. From what I was told, there was concern about suspension pick up points being strengthened.

Matt

[GKR_17]

we can race automatics and station wagons, now, right?[/b]

No automatics (yet?), unless they were available with the same number of gears and ratios listed on the spec line.

[MMiskoe]

I thought the station wagon thing was so the Dodge Magnum can run in a couple of years when it gets old enough.....

[dickita15]

GCR 9.3.7 prohibits automatics except for the hand control situation in all classes so I believe that removing the redundant provision in the IT section changes nothing.
I thought there was a station wagon reference in the GCR as well but I can’t find it right now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

GCR 9.3.7 prohibits automatics except for the hand control situation in all classes so I believe that removing the redundant provision in the IT section changes nothing.[/b] :023:

[JeffYoung]

Then this works just fine. Station wagons (i.e. manual tranny non turbo Subarus) in, automatics out. Fine by me, and seems like a good idea.

[RacerBill]

My letter to CRB requesting that they reconsider jacking plates has been submitted. Substantially the same as Matt's form with the addition that the plates could have a maximum of two bends to conform with the part of the car it is attached to.

If you think this is a good idea, send a letter from the form Matt posted.

[cherokee]

Then this works just fine. Station wagons (i.e. manual tranny non turbo Subarus) in, automatics out. Fine by me, and seems like a good idea.
[/b]

That is the first thing that popped into my mind, but then did Subaru make anything that was not AWD, I was thinking just about everything made by Subie was AWD execpt perhaps the Justy...or whatever that CVT tiny car was called.

I have worked (in my youth) for VW, Mazda, Chevy, Isuzu, Subaru, Jag, Caddy, MB, Porsche......
Dealers. I went through college under a GM training program, part time in school part time at a dealer. I have never seen a FSM talk about rust repair, or repair to jack points, I still have a zillion Olds FSM books in my shed somewhere.

[JeffYoung]

I thought they did. Weren't the 2.5RS cars available front wheel drive only?

[Ron Earp]

Personally I think it'll be a sad day in the paddock if you get protested for a jack point. And by jack point I mean a jack point that any of us level headed people would call a jack point.

Now if you get protested for a 4 ft C section of steel you've welded to the bottom of your car and call a "jack point" that is a different matter entirely.

Subjective I know, but little in life isn't.

R

[charrbq]

I hope they get this station wagon/automatic tranny stuff straightened out. I have a buddy that's selling his wife's old Accord wagon with an automatic that would be the perfect sleeper for ITA. (lol) People already think my Civic is a wagon!

[shwah]

Jetta VR6 wagons in ITS might be a fun sight.

If they would just work out that awd and turbo thing I could use my Passat wagon for a future build.

I kid.

However, the Protege5 and a few other small wagons may make good IT cars...

[mattbatson]

Personally I think it'll be a sad day in the paddock if you get protested for a jack point. And by jack point I mean a jack point that any of us level headed people would call a jack point.

Now if you get protested for a 4 ft C section of steel you've welded to the bottom of your car and call a "jack point" that is a different matter entirely.

Subjective I know, but little in life isn't.

R
[/b]

I completely agree. Protesting a jack point is just plain silly. Sorry, but here's a little info for you mister...the guy didnt beat you because of his jack point...he plain outdrove you!

It is only a little less silly that we are not allowed to do this mod to our car's. Especially in a class where we can change final drives (to the tune of a grand or two), install LSD's, alter ECU's, coilover's....etc...
Yet we cant remove washer bottles or weld in a little 4" square piece of steel to our jack points... :bash_1_:

All your really doing is adding weight anyways...right?

[ed325its]

So what is the deal with the change to no longer exclude automatic transmissions and station wagons?

Why would that be good for IT?

Where was the member input on this?
[/b]

So does no one care that the CRB is not following their defined process flow requesting member input before making any recommendations to the BOD?

[JoshS]

Ed, is your concern with the process, or with this specific decision?

[ed325its]

Fortunately, the decision is not yet made.

Yes, I am extremely concerned about the consistent deviations from the process!

[mom'sZ]

Maybe I never really looked for it, but I don't remember any FSM I have owned having a section on rust repair, crash damage or basic body repair(other than some which have measurements to aid in having the "frame" pulled).[/b]


I have worked (in my youth) for VW, Mazda, Chevy, Isuzu, Subaru, Jag, Caddy, MB, Porsche......
Dealers. I went through college under a GM training program, part time in school part time at a dealer. I have never seen a FSM talk about rust repair, or repair to jack points, I still have a zillion Olds FSM books in my shed somewhere.
[/b]
Isn't there something somewhere in the good book that speaks about industry standard repair procedures? (specifically in reference to the chassis structure?)
As a former factory employed bodyman (Chrysler) I remember all kinds of factory issued info on proper unibody repair, including a manual with the weld locations (illustrations) for all the major structural elements of all the current models. Standard procedure for repairing mangled unibody structures (such as your jack points) involves panel replacement. If new is not available LKQ (like kind quality - in otherwords used) is used.

[JoshS]

Fortunately, the decision is not yet made.

Yes, I am extremely concerned about the consistent deviations from the process!
[/b]
I remain confused. The first line makes it sound like you are concerned about the decision (are you worried that allowing station wagons is going to upset equality in the classes?)

Your second line makes it sound like the concern is about the process (no one asked you), rather than about the specific decision. If someone had asked you, what would you have said?

Which is your concern?

[mlytle]

I hope they get this station wagon/automatic tranny stuff straightened out. I have a buddy that's selling his wife's old Accord wagon with an automatic that would be the perfect sleeper for ITA. (lol) People already think my Civic is a wagon!
[/b]

nothing to work out...wagons will be in...automatics will be still out, that did not change.

time to go find a 325it for ITR!!!!! :)

[Knestis]

http://www.bildon.com/racing/racecars/GAC_GTI/images/Golf5_web.jpg

Station wagon, available with a really cool automatic

K

[ddewhurst]

***Station wagon, available with a really cool automatic***

Thats a COOL name for a grocery getter.............. :o



Now, back under the rock ;)

[gran racing]

The question of SCCA not allowing automatics unless under special circumstances came up over on Honda Tech. So why are automatics not allowed in general?

[joeg]

Possibly some ancient concerns about ATF spills and leaks morphing into a rule that has simply survived forever.

Either that or there was some real hot car ( a Vette with a 2 speed?) that only had an auto ages ago that would have demolished all competition...

[Knestis]

Back before the national IT ruleset came out, we were debating this - it was part of the CA rules from which all of IT evolved - and the primary argument was, "Real racing cars don't have automatic transmissions. Drivers should learn to shift."

That same rationale is at the heart of a lot of the allowances that have since been made, I think.

K

[lateapex911]

Or lack of allowances, as it were. Such as "Real race cars don't have ABS, Drivers should learn to brake"