Door Glass Removal Rescind?

[grjones1]

Please someone confirm that Item 8 of the new ITCS recommendations by deleting permission to remove door glass does not intend to rescind door glass removal!?!!

GRJ

[Speed Raycer]

My technical wording's probably off, but the ITCS trumps the GCR. By removing the wording in the ITCS, the GCR would provide the rule... which according to the new Fastrack, it will ( and by the looks of it, might not even require the bar to enter into the door??? I'll have to read through it again)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not sure where this came from but I do know the CRB is trying to consolodate cage rules to facilitate crossover. If NASCAR bars are permitted elsewhere in the ITCS, then I would think that the removal of the glass would be allowed under:

equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted.</div>
<div align="left"></span></span>[/b][/quote]</div>
<div align="left">Bold mine. NASCAR bars may be an authorized mod elsewhere in the ITCS. Not in front of my GCR right now.</span></div>
</span>

[RSTPerformance]

As posted in the other thread... you can only remove the glass if you have to to install the door bars.

In Improved Touring if it doesn&#39;t say you can then you can&#39;t... The entire section that allowed you to remove door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism was deleted from the ITCS thus you cant remove any of it... Unless however it is to facilitate the instalation of side protection bars as stated in the "new" rules:

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Thats how I read it however... if you were to end the sentance before the "and" then you do get...

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Raymond "what is the actual intent..." Blethen

[JoshS]

Raymond "what is the actual intent..." Blethen
[/b]
Don&#39;t try to overanalyze. I&#39;m sure the intent is to consolidate the roll cage rules to more easily facilitate moving a car from one category to another.

In IT, you had to use Nascar bars that extend into the doors to gut the door before, and you still do.

[Speed Raycer]

I&#39;ll bite....

Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted.
Ok... I&#39;ve got an X on the pass. side

Door side tubes may extend into the door.
My X Bars don&#39;t enter into the door structure, but since MAY is a key word, they don&#39;t HAVE to.

In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, ..yada yada .. may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.
Which side protection? The X? Ok... I&#39;ve got one of those.

I&#39;m with you Ray though... but I can see how it can be interpreted a different way. Back before the X bar part of the rule was inserted it was fairly black and white. Only gut when you&#39;ve got a NASCAR style bar.

[JoshS]

I&#39;m with you Ray though... but I can see how it can be interpreted a different way. Back before the X bar part of the rule was inserted it was fairly black and white. Only gut when you&#39;ve got a NASCAR style bar.
[/b]
That&#39;s the point. This confusion, if there is any, was introduced when the X-bar clarification was added several Fastracks ago ... not in this latest Fastrack. The latest Fastrack doesn&#39;t change anything.

[RSTPerformance]

Josh-

I agree the rules have not changed... Someone might try and play some word play to justify the change though... I don&#39;t think that is the intent. It could have been written better, not that I have any right to say something could be written better or more clear!!! :blink: lol

Raymond

[grjones1]

I&#39;ll assume according to your remarks and the GCR cage rules that in any case as long as we conformed to the old rules for door glass removal, we can leave the glass out. Thanks for your quick response and "clarification."

GRJ

[Greg Amy]

...It could have been written better...[/b]
Seems we&#39;re getting a lot of that lately...

[ddewhurst]

***I am not sure where this came from but I do know the CRB is trying to consolodate cage rules to facilitate crossover.****

Gee, to bad the ITAC/CRB can&#39;t stroke a guy when he writes a letter suggesting equal side protection for Production & IT for making a simpler transition. I will not bother digging out their bullshit Fatsrack response they gave when the Fastrack came out.

[dickita15]

Yes David, they should of answered with a “we are working on it” instead of a “rules are adequate as written”, by why not look on the bright side, maybe your input was part of the reason this had been addressed. If so, thank you.

[lateapex911]

I&#39;m actually surprised to see this cage stuff. First bravo. But I can tell you it&#39;s been going on for a long time...years actually, and there was a lot of groundwork that needed to happen. I&#39;ts not as simple as it appears, and it&#39;was a multi headed snake to tackle. Good for them.

[Mike Guenther]

Some X bars also extend into the door and thus require the removal of the panel and glass. But if your X style design does not "require the removal" then it is questionable if it is within the rule.

Trivial details in my humble opinion.

[lateapex911]

Right, an X bar configuration can meet the "nascar" definition, and thus you may remove door glass etc, if the X bars are done right.

[charrbq]

Here&#39;s what I&#39;m doing. My new bars came from the same company that built my roll cage. They extend into the door panel. Since the door panel and glass had been removed from the driver&#39;s side as allowed by the potrusion of the original door bar, the only thing I had to do was a firm application of a "Ford Tool" to some inner sheet metal. However, even though the passenger door will still shut, it barely will latch and protrudes at the bottom where the new door bar presses against the door liner. I&#39;m not really worried about the door glass as much as the integrity of the latch, which could fail due to the stress placed on it. (think large person, small pants, zipper)
As allowed by the rules, I&#39;m removing the inner panel from the door, hammering back the attachment points for clearance, and taking advantage of the window glass removal option.

[johnny yanez]

it is very simple,, if the door bars extend into the door (nascar bars, 2 bars horizontal meeting the rear part of the cage) the door may be gutted, if you have the X bars, and the do not extend into the door then the door must remain with the glass and mechanism. most Xbars that i have seen do not extend into the doors.

[Knestis]

Sooo, we are saying that the glass can be removed if the door bars protrude into the door, look like what you&#39;d see in a Cup car, or both? Even if the bars don&#39;t actually protrude into the space occupied by the window...?

I&#39;m just askin&#39;.

K

[Bill Miller]

Sooo, we are saying that the glass can be removed if the door bars protrude into the door, look like what you&#39;d see in a Cup car, or both? Even if the bars don&#39;t actually protrude into the space occupied by the window...?

I&#39;m just askin&#39;.

K
[/b]


That&#39;s the way I would read it Kirk. Essentially, once your bars break the plane of the door panel, you&#39;re allowed to remove whatever you&#39;re allowed to remove.

[lateapex911]

Kirk, I know you know the answer....LOL

If we all read the GCR...the NASCAR door bars are defined as one or more horizontal bars attaching the frot and rear hoops and entering the door cavity.

"Horizontal" is not defined in the GCR, and there are no tolerances for what is, and what is not horizontal either. And....the rules allow X bars specifically as meeting the two horizontal bars rule, so....

Seems to me that an X bar configuration that enters the door cavity qualifies for the NASCAR door bar door guts removal allowance.

[Ron Earp]

Sounds like to me if you want to remove the passenger door internals all you need to do is make a bar break that plane. So, one could take a proper size tube, have it bent into a very shallow U, and weld perpendicular onto an existing X brace and then gut the door.

R

[Knestis]

"...to facilitate this type of side protection."

So, even if I can close my doors with the windows in place with my door bars, I can remove the glass now?

And we all agree on that, right?

K

[lateapex911]

Sounds like to me if you want to remove the passenger door internals all you need to do is make a bar break that plane. So, one could take a proper size tube, have it bent into a very shallow U, and weld perpendicular onto an existing X brace and then gut the door.

R [/b]

Nope, LOL. The definition in yhe GCR mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars and that they are the ones entering the door cavity. The definition doesn&#39;t say how much they need to enter the cavity, nor does it call out any involvement with the door glass or mechanisms, it merely states that they must "enter the door cavity".

As the famous IT.com philosopher from texas reminds us, "If it says you can do it, you bloody well can do it".

[raffaelli]

What are the boundaries of the door cavity? Inner most face of the interior finished door panel or anything mounted to it (arm rest?)

[ddewhurst]

***The definition in yhe GCR mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars and that they are the ones entering the door cavity. ***

When I get involved in a rules discussion most times I read the GCR/ITAC before I start typing. Please have a :birra: & then show the rule that mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars. :D

[erlrich]

What are the boundaries of the door cavity? Inner most face of the interior finished door panel or anything mounted to it (arm rest?) [/b] Man...and I swore I wasn&#39;t going to jump into this one :rolleyes: .

You make an excellent point raffaelli; but first let&#39;s clear up one misquote - the rules don&#39;t say anything about the "door cavity", the rule says "Door side tubes may extend into the door". Period. Nothing about them having to be NASCAR bars (although they may by default fall under that definition), nothing about what comprises the door, nothing about them being the horizontal bars, nothing about a cavity.

So, that said, where exactly does the door begin?

[raffaelli]

What I was getting at is that if my X bars or something similar touch any plastic or vinyl part of the interior face of the door, I can clean out the door?

[Ron Earp]

What I was getting at is that if my X bars or something similar touch any plastic or vinyl part of the interior face of the door, I can clean out the door?


[/b]

That is kind of the way I read it. I didn&#39;t read it as a "NASCAR bar only" clause. I think something as silly as welding an extra bar between the A and B pillar bars that protrudes into the door cavity would do the deed and allow you to gut.

R

[lateapex911]

OK guys, the rules grant you an allowance to gut the door mechanisms IF you install "NASCAR style" door protection...........

The rules refer, in several places I think, to the allowance of removing parts of trim and panels to facilitate the installment of the cage. So, if your armest is in the way of a door bar, you may cut the armrest.

Now, if you all refer to your 2007 GCRs, and you read the definition of "NASCAR style door bars", (Glossary section) you will find it does indeed read: "...shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity..."

So, if you want to take advantage of the NASCAR bar allowance, your bars must intrude into the door cavity.

Now it doesn&#39;t define door cavity, so we&#39;re left to common sense and a techs judgement on that. But as there is precedent for removing trim to allow for cage installation, I would say that contacting and or interfereing with the trim is NOT an allowance to gut the door. However, if your door will not close without the door panel (defined in the GCR as the panel that supports the trim) being clearanced around the doorbar(s), I&#39;d say the rule allows you to go all the way. Note that the allowance defines the limits as modification of the door panel, but not the entire removal of it.

IF the bars don&#39;t meet the definition in the GCR, you&#39;re out of luck.

[Ron Earp]

OK guys, the rules grant you an allowance to gut the door mechanisms IF you install "NASCAR style" door protection....
[/b]

That could be fairly broad it would appear. NASCAR style - what if someone made part of a NASCAR door bar setup only, sort of NASCAR style?

[erlrich]

OK guys, the rules grant you an allowance to gut the door mechanisms IF you install "NASCAR style" door protection...........[/b] Oh, my bad - I thought this discussion was about the new rules, which eliminate the ITCS language completely, and with it the "NASCAR style" restriction.

[lateapex911]

Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection
or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American
Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism,
inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed
and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock
side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless
specifically authorized in the category rules.[/b]

OK, thats the quote as it stands now. I suspect it will be cleaned up. The NASCAR definition hasn&#39;t changed. The existing rule has always mandated the NASCAR bars entering the door cavity in exchange for the right to gut the door, and I suspect this wording will get tightened up to make that clear. I can see that a shade of gray has slipped in with the inclusion of the "may" wording regarding the side tubes entering into the door.

[Bill Miller]

OK, thats the quote as it stands now. I suspect it will be cleaned up. The NASCAR definition hasn&#39;t changed. The existing rule has always mandated the NASCAR bars entering the door cavity in exchange for the right to gut the door, and I suspect this wording will get tightened up to make that clear. I can see that a shade of gray has slipped in with the inclusion of the "may" wording regarding the side tubes entering into the door.

[/b]


Jake,

There is absolutely no reason to include the first two sentences in your quote. They have no bearing on the issue at hand. The important line is:


Door tubes may extend into the door.[/b]

And all the other stuff you listed may be removed. The only thing contingent upon the &#39;facilitation&#39; of installation is the modification of the internal door structural panel.

Oh, and BTW, you don&#39;t need one horizontal tube as part of an &#39;X&#39;

Installing &#39;NASCAR-style&#39; door bars is not required to modify the door in the allowed manner.

/edit/

BTW, it doesn&#39;t say anything about &#39;cutting&#39; the armrest. It says you&#39;re allowed to removed (along w/ a bunch of other bits), but you&#39;re not allowed to modify it.

[Knestis]

Do these two clauses mean the same thing?

...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.

...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed ; and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.

K

[Eric Parham]

Do these two clauses mean the same thing?

...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.

...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed ; and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.

K
[/b]

I&#39;m going to propose that they do. Now compare with this one:

...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed, to facilitate this type of side protection.

The first (original) is vague, but the "to facilitate . . ." wording cannot fairly be said to modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.

The added semicolon in the second (Kirk&#39;s) would make it clearer that the "to facilitate . . ." wording does not modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.

The added comma in the third would make it clearer that the "to facilitate . . ." wording does modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.

It could be even clearer, though, depending on the actual intent.

As for the actual intent, NASCAR-style protection (which may add crush zone) on the driver&#39;s side is basically a no-brainer, and is encouraged by providing the desired allowance to gut the driver&#39;s door. That&#39;s all fine, and I haven&#39;t seen or thought of any good argument why it should change, so I assume that the new rule, as written, does not match the intent.

The passenger&#39;s side is less obvious, particularly since the slightly increased crush zone for NASCAR-style protection simply isn&#39;t needed to protect the driver. In fact, bending the bar so it intrudes into the door might well weaken it so as to provide LESS intrusion protection than a straight bar would have. There have also been good arguments in the past for removal of the glass for safety reasons (I myself got glass in my eye after a Meotter used my pass door as a 5th brake/turn-in point), so I would argue that such removal is not simply being offered as an incentive (as is basically true on the driver&#39;s side).

I&#39;d like to see NASCAR-style protection required on the driver&#39;s side, at least 2 "horizontal" bars required between the driver and the door on both sides, and leave it up to the competitors/builders whether to remove some or all of the front door glass from either or both sides (idea: with Lexan allowed for supplemental front door windows, such as fixed vent glass). I see no point at all in requiring or promoting NASCAR-style on the passenger&#39;s side. Sound reasonable?

[jumbojimbo]

Sorry to resurrect this thread.

I thought it was pretty clear that with nascar bars I could remove the door panel completely. And the DPO of the car did just that.

I'm getting ready for my first annual tech and in talking to the tech guy on the phone he indicated that even with nascar bars I need at least a partial door panel. His theory is that I need something to cover the door handle mechanism so I don't get tangled up in it.

Do I really need a "door panel" or do I just need something to cover the potentially sharp door handle mech?

thanks

jim

[tom91ita]

this is what i have:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom91ita/2255173620/

i have seen some doors where the inner panel was taken off to the very top of the door which some consider to be excessive and some may argue is to keep the window net clear and functional (hint??). but what is the reason for doing a passenger door that way?

i do have more off in the front section near where the one net clip is but if i remember right, it had more to do with the contour of the door and an easy path to cut with the sawzall.

[924Guy]

Furthermore, I would expect that on plenty of cars, mine included I think, once the door bars get into the door cavity enough to preclude having the window winder mechanism in there (yes, mine are still manual!), well then, the door glass is no longer properly contained anyway, even if the glass itself could still clear the door bars by a fraction of an inch. So then what would we have to do, tape it in place??? Doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, if the glass were retained in place with a gutted door, it would readily be subject to damage by the door bars in a side impact, but no longer contained by the stock sheetmetal and door inner trim panel... and the driver now gets showered with glass. This also doesn't make sense.

Of course, there's still the question of whether or not the rules clearly spell this out.

On concern I do have with the rule, given what Raymond quoted above... the wording "and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection." seems to leave some room for interpretation on just how much of the inner door panel can be cut out. Most IT cars I've seen have had only the very edge/lip of the inner panel still there... but then I recently reviewed the GM Solstice prep book, and see how they carved away just a narrow slot for the door bars. I hope there's no threat that so many existing IT cars could now be considered illegal for this reason?

I hope I'm just over-analyzing the wording?? I've little experience at this rules-nerd stuff... ;)

[mbuskuhl]

Do I really need a "door panel" or do I just need something to cover the potentially sharp door handle mech?



The cage and door below was done by the head of tech in my region. Not only did he oversee the cage construction, but it was his shop that cut the door. What you see below works here but may not work with your inspector. Post up what you got.

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/1089/pict0042mz9.jpg

[Greg Amy]

Sorry to resurrect this thread.
Do I really need a "door panel"...?
If you run a "NASCAR Bar" into the door, you're free to gut the inside as much as you want. No door panels are required. As long as you leave the outer skin and factory outer intrusion bars in place, you're good.

That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to protect yourself from the sharp edges; of course it is. But, it's not specifically required, though I can see a tech guy being concerned about it. - GA

On edit: Buskuhl's car above appears legal, and I like the way Tom used door edging to protect from the sharp edges...

[spnkzss]

I preface by, I'm still in the build stage. Here is what I have done. The thing is, my door bars go withing 1" of the door beam. I still have to do something with the door latch and I plan on doing the same thing Tom did with the cut edge. I thought the hole turned out huge, but I took just what I needed out for the door bars + padding.

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj93/spnkzss/IMG_1217.jpg

[Speed Raycer]

I think that the inspector referenced above is referring to an old IT rule circa 2002???? When I first started IT racing, due to the wording of the rules, you had to have a .06 alum skin covering the door opening even w/Nascar style bars. Seems that went away around 04/05?????

[joeg]

Very nice cage. I don't see what the issue here-- great looking job.

[lateapex911]

The rule doens't require anything that limits the amount of removal, it just says that you may modify, but not remove. In other words, it says you can do it, so you can bloody well do it.!

[jimbbski]

Regarding the covering of the hole in the inner door. I had planned on using aluminum sheet to "clean up" the inside of the door afte cutting the inner door panel for clearence for the Door bars.
Is this still legal?
'
I would hope so as I can't see why it wouldn't be alowed. I don't want my arms etc exposed to those sharp edges. Even it you just covered the cut edge with something I'd rather cover up any holes in the sheetmetal that can catch something (Me) in a rollover etc.

[tom91ita]

it may not be obvious with my photo but the door reinforcement member is right at the height of one of door bars and it just hits/touchs enough that you have to make sure you give a bit of a shove to close the door.

[joeg]

I actually retain the top half of the stock door upolstery with my bars. Why? Two reasons. The first is that I don't like jagged sheet metal and thick aluminum is not very appealing. Secondly, the top of the OEM door upolstery has a rubber window channel which seals the bottom of my Lexan transport window.

This probably costs an extra pound of weight, but I like dry transport

[jumbojimbo]

It seems clear that everyone agrees that if the door bars extend into the door (mine do) then the entire door panel cover can be removed and the door panel cut to "accomodate" the bars.

Which is exactly what my dpo has did so it seems clear I am legal.

But, the one thing I learned in elementary school is never argue with a policeman. And the one thing I know about tech inspectors is that the one thing you never say is "the car has been running like this for years and no one ever complained about it before." Which usuallys sounds to him like "you're an ahole".

So while I don't think I need a panel to make the car legal, I can see the tech's point that there shouldn't be any sharp edges in the door area which would slice my arm like a Christmas roast.

I will be fixing something up before annual tech to cover at the very least the inner door handle. You probably can't see in the pics below but the door handle does have some edges on it. And just as a data point, the prior owner cut only enough of the inner panel to accomodate the door bars, no more, no less. One plus is that the door handle has somewhere to hang without having to fabricate something.

Some of you probably know this car as Keith Hamilton's old ITC Civic.

jim

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2329263059_4648098851_o.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2330086694_5d8eeb810e.jpg

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's a cheap and easy solution. Take some rubber fuel line and clear or black silicone sealer. Split the hose with a knife and glue it on the cut door edge with the silicone and let dry. Viola, no more sharp edge and you don't need the aluminum sheet. As for the door opener, I have the stock pull rod run through a split clamp and bent at an angle to make a little pull lever with a short length of fuel hose glued on the end.

James

[JoshS]

Here's mine. This was during the initial build, I hadn't cleaned up the wires yet. Driver's side is the same.

http://www.godoggoracing.org/gallery/d/278-2/P1000302.JPG

[mustanghammer]

Here's a cheap and easy solution. Take some rubber fuel line and clear or black silicone sealer. Split the hose with a knife and glue it on the cut door edge with the silicone and let dry. Viola, no more sharp edge and you don't need the aluminum sheet. As for the door opener, I have the stock pull rod run through a split clamp and bent at an angle to make a little pull lever with a short length of fuel hose glued on the end.

James

I use the panel edging that Pegasus sells. It is made for various panel thicknesses and holds fast. Makes for a very nice looking fnish.