Floor Pan... Part of Structure???

[toddgreene]

Can I mount my seat, a Kirkey Itermediate, directly to the floor?

I plan to use carriage bolts through the seat bottom and large fender washers or plates underneath the car.
The seat back will be bolted to welded tabs on the cage.

I am 6'2' in a CRX and need all the room I can get.

Thanks,

Todd

[Doc Bro]

Shouldn't you use some sort of large washer/plate in the seat too?

R

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm pretty sure that monting the seat to the floor is legal as long as it's not mounted to the cage also. Otherwise it'll be considered another cage mounting point. That being said you might get more room if you angle the seat bottom up a couple of degrees to get a decent bend in your knees. Our Z3's definetly have more leg room than some of the more popular cars out there. The removal of the power seat does give us lots more room, in my street car I sit with the top of my head above the windshield; where as in the racer I'm not so exposed even with the extra couple of inches added by my helmet. Anyway only caviot, is not to mount the seat to both the cage and the floor.

James

[Eric Parham]

For safety, I'd mount it to the cage as well. I have seen many seats mounted to both body and cage, and never heard of one losing a protest. The floor may be too flexible to rely on. The only thing I've seen that seemed to cross the line was a base structure welded to both the floor and to the cage, which seemed to add an extra cage mounting point. The seat itself seems to be immune to protest on such grounds, AFAIK.

[toddgreene]

Thanks for the info.

I am mounting the headrest part of the seat to the cross bar on the main hoop as required by the rules.
It is not intended to stiffen the chasis.
I am mounting the seat to the floor due to my height. If I were to use some type of bracket, I would still plan to rest the bottom of the seat pan on the floor.

Thanks again,

Todd

[Andy Bettencourt]

For safety, I'd mount it to the cage as well. I have seen many seats mounted to both body and cage, and never heard of one losing a protest. [/b]

Maybe what you meant to say was that you have never heard of anyone protesting such a mod. IMHO, it is clearly illegal and would get bounced immediately. It would constitute an extra mounting point. Allowing it would result in some creative seat designs that DID do more than intended. Have some nice side mounts welded to the floor so you sit on the pan but have some durability.

[Eric Parham]

Well, I guess we disagree on this one. Isn't the headrest and requisite rollcage support usually connected to the same seat that's mounted to the body? If anything, welding your side supports to the floor could result in comparable or more stiffening than any tortured seat to cage mounting interpretation, IMHO.

[bhudson]

I would advise against using carriage bolts for any application in a racecar. Carriage bolts are designed for very light duty applications like lawn furniture or wooden hobby projects.

Bob Hudson
Atlanta Region

[toddgreene]

Bob,

You made a good point on the bolts.

I do agree with Eric about the mounting. I think if the seat does stiffen the chassis, it appears to be an allowable modification. The rules require the seat be firmly mounted to the structure of the car and require the headrest to be mounted to the cage or rear bulkhead of the car.

Todd

[shwah]

Maybe what you meant to say was that you have never heard of anyone protesting such a mod. IMHO, it is clearly illegal and would get bounced immediately. It would constitute an extra mounting point. Allowing it would result in some creative seat designs that DID do more than intended. Have some nice side mounts welded to the floor so you sit on the pan but have some durability.
[/b]

I completely disagree. For an allowed modification to perform a disallowed function - it actually has to perform said function. Bolting the left side of a lightweight race seat to a bracket on the cage, and the right side to a bracket on the tunnel is hardly adding stiffness to either of these very beefy subjects. If someone secures their fire bottle to the cage, and then runs the actuator cable to a bracket on the tunnel, your argument suggests that this is also an additional attachment point.

Now fabricating a 'bracket' that ties the left side tubing to the floor or rocker is obviously outside the rules, as is fabricating a 'bracket' that bridges between the left side cage and the tunnel. These approaches do in fact serve as additional reinforcement to the chassis structure.

[JoshS]

At the Runoffs in 2005, an SSC car was found illegal for an added cage mounting point. The additional location? The glove box was hanging from the cage, because the original mount was removed to make room for the cage.

I'm not saying I agree with this interpretation, but there you have it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like has been said, it may not perform that illegal function, but as soon as allow this type of thing, people take advantage of it. 6 point cage with 2 optional front tubes...max. Mounting to the cage HAS been bounced. Find another way.

[tom_sprecher]

I plan to use carriage bolts through the seat bottom and large fender washers or plates underneath the car.
The seat back will be bolted to welded tabs on the cage.
[/b]

So he plans to bolt the seat bottom to the floor and the seat back to the cage. Why is this illegal and if so how can you disregard item J on page 92 of the 2007 GCR?

I'd like to know as I too have a Kirkey that will be mounted in a similar way albeit w/o the carrage bolts. That crap's for lawn furniture and fence gates.

[ddewhurst]

I will not argue about this with anyone while at the same time I'll tell ya all that my second car is being built as we speek & the Ultra Shield road race seat WILL be bolted with two bolts/washers/Nylock nuts to the FLOOR & the intergral headrest will be through a flex bracket be bolted to the horizontal member of the roll cage.

IMHJ someone who has suggested this mounting of the seat within this thread is illegal he needs to re-read the rules.

The first person who has the SACK to write a protest I'll write paper on every illegal roll cage in ITA Miata & Spec Miata cars. If I hear of someone prostesting a seat as mentioned (bolting to the floor & bolting to the roll cage) in this thread I may need to travel some to to get me an illegal Miata roll cage.

If I miss understand those that are saying this type ^ of seat mounting is ILLEGAL PLEASE show me the RULES that make it ILLEGAL. I can show you the rules that make it LEGAL. :o

[shwah]

Like has been said, it may not perform that illegal function, but as soon as allow this type of thing, people take advantage of it. 6 point cage with 2 optional front tubes...max. Mounting to the cage HAS been bounced. Find another way.
[/b]
Well with a black and white view like this we all better plan on making lots of changes to our cars:
Any fire system mounted to the cage with a trigger mounted elswhere is now an illegal attachement point.
Any window net that uses the cage and body as mounting points is now an illegal attachement point.
Any kill switch that is mounted to the cage is now an illegal attachment point.
Any radio system that includes wires tied to the cage and any other part of the car is now an illegal attachment point.
Any driver cooling duct that is tied to the cage at any point is now an illegal attachment point.
I guess we need to revisit 'tight fit' cages. I can argue in engineering terms that an interference fit main hoop is using an accepted method of attaching two items.
Where would you like to draw the line of reinforcing/attaching or not?

Of course those are retarded examples, but so is saying that a peice of fiberglass or aluminum that is manfactured to a specific standard (if FIA certified) for a specific purpose of supporting and restraining the driver is a cage attachement point.

The potential illegal function is providing a roll cage attaching point, or reinforcing the chassis. Attaching a seat to a cage does not consititue a roll cage mounting point by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore the only available illegal function is chassis reinforcement. Sometimes we do have to rely on common sense, and subjective interpretation. Our process is set up this way, and our tech inspectors/ SOMs are capable of making a decision like this. However, sending mixed signals like this thread does is a sure way to promote conflicting rulings on the matter. Hence this having been bounced. Cars have been bounced for other legal modifications in the past as well...

[tom_sprecher]

Whoa there, Tonto, no need to argue. I think my post defined it was not only legal, but required as well.

Case closed. Mount away itcsirocco, but use at least some grade 5 hardware, please.

[shwah]

Sorry about that - just trying to use some hyperbole to illustrate the other viewpoint. No abrasiveness intended.

[ddewhurst]

***Maybe what you meant to say was that you have never heard of anyone protesting such a mod. IMHO, it is clearly illegal and would get bounced immediately. It would constitute an extra mounting point. ***

Tonto, the lone ranger is clearly aiming at this ^ post.

I'm still waiting for a rule from the poster that makes mounting the seat to the roll cage & mounting the seat to the floor ILLEGAL.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe we just aren't talking about the same thing. Nobody is saying that you can't mount things to your cage. Maybe I am using a rediculous example I saw on an ITE car 2 years ago. This guy had the drivers side of his seat mounted a lower cross bar and then created a 'box frame' that incorporated stub legs on the right front and right rear of the seat - that were welded to the floor. More attachment points...CAGE attachement points. That is what I am trying to say...poorly obviously.

- Edit - On re-read, I must have missed the 'seat-back' in the original post. The way I read it made me think immediately of the example I saw above. My bad...

[Matt Rowe]

Ahh, that explains it Andy, for a second there I thought someone had awakened the slumbering rules nerd in you. :D

Seriously, the GCR specifically requires the seat to be mounted to the "structure of the car" and the seat back to be firmly mounted to the rol bar or cross bracing. See section 9.4.2.J so it's hard to get around the GCR requiring you to use both the car body and the cage. Now going beyond that is obviously possible but open to protest. The installation Andy describes sounds like it crossed the line and kept going. Keep in mind that just because it might make your installation easier that doesn't give someone the right to twist the rules.

[tom_sprecher]

So he plans to bolt the seat bottom to the floor and the seat back to the cage. Why is this illegal and if so how can you disregard item J on page 92 of the 2007 GCR?

I'd like to know as I too have a Kirkey that will be mounted in a similar way albeit w/o the carrage bolts. That crap's for lawn furniture and fence gates.
[/b]

So do we all agree, that as described, the above is legal and required. Otherwise, like that Meatloaf song said "I need right now, before we go any further", can iscsirocco and I mount our seats as planned or not?

[shwah]

yes.

[lateapex911]

I think you're fine.

I've seen ITA cars with square tubes welded to the lower drivers door bar, crossing the car, and then welded to plates that were attached/welded to the floor/semi tunnel (FWD) part of the car. The seat was then mounted to those cross bars. As the seat was properly rated, it did not need to be fastened to the roll bar.

The builder claimed it was safer, but to my eye, the roll structure had 7th and 8th attachments, and would fail a protest. I remember seeing it at the ARRCs.

There are some, (like this builder) who feel the rules should allow such structure. But at this point, they don't.

[ddewhurst]

Hi Ho, lets ride away into the sunset on our legally mounted seat.

Andy, you loose your card for a day or two because of your non clarity within your post. ;)

[shwah]

I think you're fine.

I've seen ITA cars with square tubes welded to the lower drivers door bar, crossing the car, and then welded to plates that were attached/welded to the floor/semi tunnel (FWD) part of the car. The seat was then mounted to those cross bars. As the seat was properly rated, it did not need to be fastened to the roll bar.

The builder claimed it was safer, but to my eye, the roll structure had 7th and 8th attachments, and would fail a protest. I remember seeing it at the ARRCs.

There are some, (like this builder) who feel the rules should allow such structure. But at this point, they don't.
[/b]

I agree with your assesment of that particular case. This can be done just as wrong as it can be right. IMO what you described creates both additioanl attaching points, and illegal reinforcement.