Cage photos in Tech Center is it legal?

[arpenn]

My brother, my dad and I are getting ready to redo some of the roll cage in our 1990 Honda Civic Si that we just bought. I have been looking at the pictures in the Tech Center of the CRX build which is very similar to our car. My question:Is everything in those pictures ITA legal as far a cage mounting/attachment points, the welded in front strut tower brace, rear pan hard bar, etc? These are great pictures and give me a lot of ideas for our car, I just want to know if they are legal before we copy.

[ddewhurst]

Aaron, many of us could answer your questions. :D The best thing you can do for yourself is get out your 2008 GCR, open the GCR to page GCR-93 Roll Cgaes For GT and Production based cars & start reading everything you need to know that's legal. & compare what's written to what you see in the pictures. :D

For the strut brace & the Panhard bar open the GCR to the ITCS on page GCR-329 and read & understand the rules. Then after you have given yourself the opportunity to learn star asking questions on this forum. For example I could tell you the answer to your Panhard question but that would be somthing someone said, not something in a rule you read & understood. For example for the strut tower brace go to page ITCS GCR-336item .d.5. The rule specifies what you may do but it don't tell you how to do it. Bolt it, glue it, weld it or do it however you like. :D

Have Fun ;)
David

[arpenn]

David,
That was clear as mud. I have read the GCR on the cage section, but from what I have been reading on this site about rules interpetation there are many times big disagreements. Can someone look at these pictures and tell me if anything is illegal?

[JoshS]

David,
That was clear as mud. I have read the GCR on the cage section, but from what I have been reading on this site about rules interpetation there are many times big disagreements. Can someone look at these pictures and tell me if anything is illegal?
[/b]
What is the tech center? Do you have a link to these photos?

[arpenn]

http://www.improvedtouring.com/Tech/

Click on Tech Photos

[Limey]

I believe the rules state 8 mounting points for the cage. Look at the bulkhead photo - is the floor mount considered as one? Or two? As it appears that there are two additional mounting points at the top of the bulkhead, that would make ten.......

[chuck baader]

Seat mount is not legal...adds another attachment point to the chassis. Strut brace in rear....therefore, cannot have one in front...one only. Chuck

[arpenn]

So in the attached photo, is this considered one attachement point or four? :unsure:

[Grumpy]

So in the attached photo, is this considered one attachement point or four? :unsure:
[/b]

If all the pipes touch one or another it is definitely one per NASA CCR.

If all the pipes touch a single plate not more that 144" sq, it is definitely one per SCCA GCR.

[arpenn]

So if these are welded together then to the car does this count as one plate?

[Grumpy]

Look at the bulkhead photo - is the floor mount considered as one? Or two? As it appears that there are two additional mounting points at the top of the bulkhead, that would make ten.......
[/b]

Each mounting plate should be no more than 144" sq. If more it is two mounting points.
See the GCR rules for more info and details.

[arpenn]

So as long as it is not bigger than 144 sq. in. then the mounting plate can be multiple pieces, like the one in the photo and still count as one? I just want to make sure I understand this before we start changing our cage. Thanks for your input.

[JimLill]

and don't forget you need door bars

[arpenn]

Yea, we are planning to do our door bars like the ones pictured below. Thanks for the reminder though!

[JimLill]

Yea, I am planning to do my door bars like the ones pictured below. Thanks for the reminder though!
[/b]

Put some foot bars in while you're there.........

http://www.vectorbd.com/am-rennsport/cage/slides/Jim%20lill%20finished%20006.jpg

[jhooten]

Aaron, many of us could answer your questions. :D The best thing you can do for yourself is get out your 2008 GCR, open the GCR to page GCR-93 Roll Cgaes For GT and Production based cars & start reading everything you need to know that's legal. & compare what's written to what you see in the pictures. :D


David
[/b]


Since when do IT cars have to meet the GT/Prod cage rules?

[dickita15]

Since when do IT cars have to meet the GT/Prod cage rules?
[/b]
in the 2008 GCR rewrite they are covered in the same section of the book.

David is right. :happy204:

[shwah]

Seat mount is not legal...adds another attachment point to the chassis. Strut brace in rear....therefore, cannot have one in front...one only. Chuck
[/b]
That car does not have a rear strut brace. It has one cage attachment point at each rear shock tower.

[Grumpy]

Put some foot bars in while you're there.........

http://www.vectorbd.com/am-rennsport/cage/slides/Jim%20lill%20finished%20006.jpg
[/b]

But only ONE on each side. See the GCR rules.

[shwah]

Jim is that picture an example of what is right, or what is wrong?

It looks right to me, an those two tubes go to a single mounting point.

[Speed Raycer]

Seat frame looks fine to me. Doesn't seem to be mounted anywhere but to the cage (it's removed in the later pics for the paint process)

Even if it is bolted to the chassis, how is that any different than mounting a non FIA seat w/the required seat brace?

[Speed Raycer]

But only ONE on each side. See the GCR rules.

It doesn't say that. It says one bar may extend from each down tube to the firewall. That doesn't mean that tubes can't attach to tubes. So, w/o seeing the attachment point to the firewall, you can't say that the setup is illegal... plus, that could be a pre '08 logbooked cage ;)

[arpenn]

Scott,
What type of tubing bender do you use to build your cages? My friend has a hydraulic tubing bender for exhaust, and he has the 1 1/2" die for it, do you think that will work on 1 1/2" DOM .120?

[JimLill]

Jim is that picture an example of what is right, or what is wrong?

It looks right to me, an those two tubes go to a single mounting point.

http://www.vectorbd.com/am-rennsport/cage/slides/Jim%20lill%20finished%20007.jpg

[Speed Raycer]

Scott,
What type of tubing bender do you use to build your cages? My friend has a hydraulic tubing bender for exhaust, and he has the 1 1/2" die for it, do you think that will work on 1 1/2" DOM .120?

Depends on if it's a crush type bender or not. Most exhaust shops that I've seen use a crush type bender (unless it's a performance/tuner shop and have a mandrel bender). Easiest way would be to chuck a piece of DOM up and see if it deforms the inside of the bend...

[arpenn]

So what type of bender do you use?

[Speed Raycer]

Hossfeld Type 2

[jhooten]

in the 2008 GCR rewrite they are covered in the same section of the book.

David is right. :happy204:

Ok, I see it is for new cars. Cars with a log book prior to 1/1/08 can continue to use the current cage.

[Grumpy]

On the two bars foward of A pillar deal.

Some can read that one bar may go forward from the A pillar.

OR

Some can say I can attach extra tubes wherever I choose.

I can argue both cases. Rules might need to say what they mean.

[Grumpy]

http://www.vectorbd.com/am-rennsport/cage/slides/Jim%20lill%20finished%20007.jpg

By definition I believe they do not go to one point since they but do not touch the plate.

My previous post is not influenced by this.

[Speed Raycer]

By definition I believe they do not go to one point since they but do not touch the plate.

My previous post is not influenced by this.

Can you clarify this? I'm a little confused since it looks like your 1st sentance is missing something.

Only one bar goes from the downbar to the firewall and any number of tubes is allowed for the cage so?????

AGAIN... this only impacts new '08 logbook builds anyway.

[shwah]

On the two bars foward of A pillar deal.

Some can read that one bar may go forward from the A pillar.

OR

Some can say I can attach extra tubes wherever I choose.

I can argue both cases. Rules might need to say what they mean.

You can argue both cases, but only one is right. What is pictured is totally legal. The rules specify cage connection points, and required tubes. The rules also allow any number of additional tubes. You don't have to be right to argue though.:p

[Grumpy]

It would count as one point but be careful that all the tubes that are supossed to touch the plate are.

[shwah]

You are completely right. I was not thinking in terms of the current (new) cage rule set. Sorry for the confusion. One tube is what it says, so one tube is what it shall be until those words are changed.

[Speed Raycer]

Here are the rules that I see applying to this situation:


Cars competing in Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring may extend one tube, from each front down tube, forward to the firewall but not penetrating the firewall.....

Any number of additional tube elements is permitted within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure.

IMO, the cage tubes pictured meet the first rule because one tube extends "from each front down tube, forward to the firewall but not penetrating the firewall."

The second tube does not touch the firewall pad and is permitted under the second rule. There is no rule that says they both have to touch the pad.

This really should be on DD's list of dumb cage rules. If they're really looking to protect the drivers foot/leg area, then let us do it. Don't handicap us with the wording just because people are finding some chassis benifits from it. If you want to get rid of the chassis benifits but keep the protection, allow a 7th point on the drivers side but no 8th point.

[shwah]

But they are not within the minimum cage structure. The front tubes are optional.

I am writing a letter on this to ask that they return to the regulation of connection points, rather than tubes.

[Grumpy]

One GCR rule says only one bar can go from A pillar to footwell, and another rule says you can add bars wherever you want. Clear as mud.

This is the first car I have seen with two bars forward.

Time to check in with SCCA National Office.

[spnkzss]

Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?

[shwah]

This is only an issue with the 2008 rule wording. Previously it was quite clear. The fact that they identifiy the number of tubes that can go forward is different than in the past.

It is quite common for IT cars to have two bars going forward to each of the allowed firewall connection points.

I would like to see that still be a legal design, as it provides greater protection from wheel intrusion.

[shwah]

Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?
I think yes.

[Speed Raycer]

But they are not within the minimum cage structure. The front tubes are optional.

(First off... I understand your point)

Is there a definition of "minimal cage structure" or any combination of those words? No. If the 7th/8th points are optional to the minimal cage structure then once the option is chosen, they become part of the cage structure... just like the option of a NASCAR bar (although once that options taken it becomes the required tube)..

[ddewhurst]

***Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?***


>>>I think yes.<<<

Please read 2008 one more time. Measure twice cut once.:D

Other than this comment ^ DD is lurking with this thread.

Have Fun;)
David

[shwah]

Geeze. Twice in one thread, on the same item, in the same friggin paragraph of the good book. I really need to pay more attention to the details than I have been lately.

It does say one tube on each side. I still don't like the resulting reduction in acheivable strength of anti wheel intrusion efforts in the new rule.

[JimLill]

Geeze. Twice in one thread, on the same item, in the same friggin paragraph of the good book. I really need to pay more attention to the details than I have been lately.

It does say one tube on each side. I still don't like the resulting reduction in acheivable strength of anti wheel intrusion efforts in the new rule.

That pix is of pre 08 car taken early last year. So OK for me, but still a less than optimal rule for new people IMO.

[arpenn]

Here is another question for you guys. This car we bought already has a logbook for scca last date 2004 I think, and a nasa logbook last dated 2006. We are going to be rebuilding part of the cage. Since this car already has a logbook wouldn't the old rules apply to it, not the 2008 changes?

[JamesB]

Nope, you still need to make the door bar changes and any other required change. I think from 04 to 08 the door bars and the window net are the only changes effecting the cage design.

[spnkzss]

My understanding is you need to meet the '07 cage rules. If your first log book is issued after Jan. 1 2008 then it must meet the '08 cage rules.

[shwah]

That pix is of pre 08 car taken early last year. So OK for me, but still a less than optimal rule for new people IMO.
Sorry. This discussion seems to be covering two topics. One is what you could do TODAY per the 08 rules. That is the part that I keep making mistakes on.

I don't see anything in the photos that is not legal per my understanding of the 07 rules.

I agree that an 07 or older log booked car needs to meet the door bar requirements, main hoop reinforcing requirements etc. to be 'current'. Other items, such as tubing type, and this new wording for the optional front cage members however are 'grandfathered', based on what was required when the log book was issued.

[arpenn]

We will be adding nascar door bars on both sides, a tube under the dash connecting both sides and some additional bracing. We will probably also add the two forward braces that attach to the firewall. I just wanted to know if we would be held to the 07 or 08 rules for the cage?

[eprodrx7]

Grumpy,
I'd bet that you are the guy that used to rat people out in school and supported the 12 men on the field call last night. Complete and total BS! Anybody that would exploit this misswording to thier advantage doesn't belong in a club sport like ours. Spend your key strokes doing something usefull instead of coming here and being a PIA. Yes I did Jim's cage and many more like it. Other then your ability to read what qualifies you to even coment on this issus? David I will look forward to seeing in Fastrack a change from the wording "one tube" to "tubing", problem solved, Grumpy go have some shrimp...

[shwah]

John,

How exactly are we supposed to correct mistakes in our rules if people don't read them and point out items like this?

We all assumed that nothing changed in this area, and my understanding was that no changes were intended. HOWEVER, a change was made in the words. All we can go by is the words in the rule book. I for one appreciate it when someone finds something like this, so that we can make it right.

[spnkzss]

Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?

2008 Cage Rules.

9.4.C.3. Cars competing in Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring may extend one tube, from each front down tube, forward to the firewall but not penetrating the firewall.

So the answer to my question is no.

[eprodrx7]

Chris,
Maybe I was a little harsh but it just erks me when I see people wringing out the rule book for the sake of argument. Would we not all have been better off if a letter to the CRB was sent instead of one guys flexing his GCR reading skills and accusing people of building cheater cars? If you see something amiss in the rules go ahead and point it out but don't tell me my car is out of spec. Especially on something like this that is increasing the safety of a car.

[Grumpy]

John,

I never ratted out anyone at school, but I do support the 12 man decision. Your personal attack on me is outrageous and uncalled for. It seems to me that you are the type of person that makes things the way you want and the rules are only a guideline to your private world.

I wonder how many other times you have done something outside the rules because you know better. ALL rules carry the same weight. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it in compliance with the rules.

The current rule says ONE bar forward and it means ONE bar forward. If YOU think the cage specifications are unsafe, then YOU need to appeal for change. Don't hide behind "it's safer this way." If and when the rule is changed it will be enforced as it is newly written.

Yes I am a rules nerd. That's my job to the interpret the rules, and it is done as it is written, not as you would like to see them. "They meant to say this" has no part in rules compliance.

Let's see, what are my qualifications?

Former SCCA National Driver License Holder.
EMRA Class Champion
SCCA Regional Champion
NARRC Class Champion
Former SCCA National Scrutineer
Former SCCA Board of Directors Regional Member
Former SCCA Starter
Former SCCA Flagger
Former SCCA Emergency Services
NASA-MA Race Director for Compliance
Chief Race Director - NASA Nationals
Grassroots Magazine's "One of the 20 Things that Rocked our Racing World." February 2008 Issue.


As long as we are sharing, what are your qualifications during your eighteen years of existence?

Oh, by the way, you can take your shrimp and..... Oh never mind.

[JimLill]

So, what prompted the change from 2007 to 2008?

-Jim Lill
Simply a Race Car Owner/Driver

[Grumpy]

So, what prompted the change from 2007 to 2008?

-Jim Lill
Simply a Race Car Owner/Driver

If you are asking me, I have absolutely no clue. :)

[shwah]

A complete re-write of the cage rules prompted the, possibly unintended, change.

[lateapex911]

I'd agree with that assessment. The cage rules had, over time, morphed into a combination of requirements that didn't always make sense, and often precluded inter category movement.

A rewrite was in order, but obviously, that was a tricky...how to go forward while respecting the past. i suspect that there were a zillion issues with concepts and wording, and this one slipped through.

[ITC Racer]

Are the pics that used to be in the tech center still available somewhere??

[eprodrx7]

Jim,
I've won a lot of races and lost more. I've pro raced and was at LRP in the womb. Worked corners and shagged cones. I've PMed you the details as it seems like bragging to list in public, but suffice to say I've been around more then 18 years.
Not only am I able to do all of the jobs you have listed but have the experience to make informed decisions and know how it will effect the drivers on the front row as well as the guys at the back. This is my biggest problem with guys like yourself. The torturing of the rules to give the impression that they "have" something on those "driver" types and making decisions and rules without having to "live" by them. It perpetuates the "us and them" feeling between workers and drivers.

I apologize to you as my remarks are not directed at you personally but more at the group of people that in my eyes you represent. I'm sure our paths will cross in the future and I welcome you to come by my pit for a beer and a chat. I'm more then happy to get involved and share the knowledge of a lifetime of racing to hopefully make things better.

[Grumpy]

I guess we both are qualified. BTW your profile says you are 18.


Additional Information Group Memberships
Date of Birth: November 4, 1989 Age: 18 Location: Rochester NY

[eprodrx7]

Additional Information Group Memberships

Date of Birth: November 4, 1989 Age: 18 Location: Rochester NY

That's just to keep "them" guessing
VIR Feb? don't even need a cooler, you in?

[Grumpy]

You talking about the NASA event??