Steering wheel lock devices SHALL be removed or disabled

[ddewhurst]

Per the April Fastrack the following item will be forwarded to the BoD for approval for Improved Touring & Spec Miata along with other classes.

"Steering wheel lock devices shall be removed or disabled."

Was this rule a crock of $hit from day one or is the rule now being turned into a crock of $hit? A disabled steering wheel lock leaves LOTS of room for personel decisions/interperatrion of what disabled means.

My thought is that the rule was in place so that if there was a steering wheel lock failure the steering wheel lock/lug would not be in place (removed) so that the steering wheel lock/lug could NEVER enter the lug receiver hole in the steering wheel shaft causing a condition where the driver could not steer/control the race car.

My letter including a picture of the ignition switch showing the steering lock before removal & a picture showing ignition switch after steering lock removal has been idle with a letter in my drafts folder. The letter has been written since the editor of SportaCar decided to print my letter to him in the April 08 SportsCar Rant & Revs with reference to his Project Miata article in the March 08 SportCar which included words & a picture of how to defeat the steering lock. It is now time to send the letter to the Sports Car editor, Jermey Thoennes & the CRB. Needless to say that I believe from day one there is a very good reason to remove the steering lock.

Please post your personal thoughts as to why the rule has been in place for a long time...........

[Greg Amy]

Actually, my personal thoughts were more along the line of "well, you've ranted about this on this (maybe others?) forum, AND got your letter on the same subject posted in SportsCar, AND you got the rule changed to address it...and you're still not happy...what in the hell is it gonna take to make you happy on this subject...?"

[ddewhurst]

***Actually, my personal thoughts were more along the line of "well, you've ranted about this on this (maybe others?) forum,***

Please find one rant on this site from me on this steering lock subject. Or from any other site.

***AND got your letter on the same subject posted in SportsCar,***

Your full of crap all the way. I was telling the editor/article writter in my letter that he needs to learn the rules before he writes articles. I NEVER requested he print the letter. I like it a lot when people write articles in SportsCar that are written abiding by the SCCA rules.

***AND you got the rule changed to address it...and you're still not happy...***

Again your full of crap. I had nothing to do with the proposed rule change. Your in with all those in the know. Check with them about who requested the change. & then print the name of the rule change requestor.

***what in the hell is it gonna take to make you happy on this subject...?"***

Greg, I'll wish you the same as I wished Jake a couple years ago when he was constantly on his soap box. Don't hurt yourself when you fall down. Have you noticed that lesss & less people are posting on this site. Ya ever wonder why.

Now that I'm done with your bull shit. Greg who knows it all, why was the rule in the ITCS to begin with? I have stated in my first post of this thread why I believe why I believe the rule existed.

***My thought is that the rule was in place so that if there was a steering wheel lock failure the steering wheel lock/lug would not be in place (removed) so that the steering wheel lock/lug could NEVER enter the lug receiver hole in the steering wheel shaft causing a condition where the driver could not steer/control the race car.***

***Needless to say that I believe from day one there is a very good reason to remove the steering lock.***

[planet6racing]

Have you noticed that lesss & less people are posting on this site. Ya ever wonder why.


I know exactly why I've stopped visiting here, David...

[RacerBowie]

I know exactly why I've stopped visiting here, David...

My thoughts exactly. Time to set it to "ignore" for David.

edit: Oh dammit, he is a Moderator/Admin and I am not allowed to ignore him! 'Doh!

[joeg]

I think fewer people are posting here because of 1. the websites new"look" and 2. can't see the text!!

Going blind here.

Lighten up.

[lateapex911]

I love when I get dragged into something I have nothing to do with...:blink:

David, not sure if you'll consider this a soapbox (feel free to though, LOL) and I'm sure you'll be distracted from hurling poo at Greg and fire some in my direction, but...

That item has nothing to do with the ITAC. It's CRB action as it affects multiple categories.

My opinion on the subject is that it's rather un-needed. The steering lock mech has been a requirement for how many years? Has ANYone even HEARD of an accident caused by the failure of one? Somehow, I think the manufacturers, who would be sued from here to Hiroshima and back if it were to fail, have done their homework on this. I see no need to disable or monkey with it in the first place.

[924Guy]

My opinion on the subject is that it's rather un-needed. The steering lock mech has been a requirement for how many years? Has ANYone even HEARD of an accident caused by the failure of one? Somehow, I think the manufacturers, who would be sued from here to Hiroshima and back if it were to fail, have done their homework on this. I see no need to disable or monkey with it in the first place.

Yes, I have, and I support the retention of the item.

Car in question was an IT7 car, and the disabled lock failed and re-locked while in motion, sending the driver off into a swamp and hard into a tree stump. Whups! :blink:

It's a problem on our cars since we can run all kinds of other wiring to start the cars without keys. There's on positive reason that the lock should still be there, IMO.

Of course, this doesn't address the threat of, as in the above stated case, the disabling failing and re-engaging. But similar arguments can be made for other required modifications, I'm sure. The lack of build quality can't be legislated out, IMO, for every last thing safety-related that can possibly be done to a racecar. At least not while still having it be a racecar! :rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Vaughn, I meant, has anyone heard of a failure of a steering lock on the highway? You know, driving along, car running, and the steering locks? My point was to not touch it at all. If you want to start the car on the button, by all means cut and splice a switch in. Heck, glue the key in, and leave it in the run mode....
The failure you speak of was because somebody monkeyed with it, and did a crappy job! If it had just been left alone, that incident would never have happened, right?

[ddewhurst]

Thanks Joe.:D

Jake, you make a point but the rule has been there for a while. If you know, why did the steering lock become a non issue (remove or disable versus remove) with the latest Fastrack?:shrug:

Scott, you make the exact point.:happy204:

Bill or Bowie, can you support the post by Greg?

[lateapex911]

David, I don't know the history of the action. It got on the CRBs list obviously, but I am not privy to the source.

[planet6racing]

Bill or Bowie, can you support the post by Greg?

Why?

This rule is straightforward. Either you remove the steering wheel lock (without removing the ignition) or you disable it. If you put a screw in it to disable it (and said screw serves no other purpose), it meets the letter of the rule in my book. I don't see why your panties are in such a large wad about it.

And, if you're going to say that it is a safety issue and that what happens if it re-engages the steering column, give me a break. What are you going to do about lug nuts and someone forgetting to torque them?

[shwah]

Seems more prudent to remove, or not touch the steering lock. As soon as Joe backyard mechanic/racer is left to determine how to disable, and subsequently wires around the stock ignition switch so he can have cool switches and buttons to start his car like NASTYCAR, and thus stops using the key/igntion (which would disable the lock reliably while driving) - this is where you will find the failure points.

[planet6racing]

So, joe backyard mechanic welding on new camber plates is less dangerous?

[shwah]

I think so. When we modify our strut mounts we are pretty conscious of the fact that it needs to be strong, and it is all right out there in the open for us to look at and feel good, or queazy about.

If someone is just drilling a small hole and threading in a screw to satisfy a 'silly' rule, and never even sees or understands the mechanism inside - there is a better chance to not quite do the job as reliably as it should be.

All I saying is why not just leave the steering lock alone like they do on SS cars?

[lateapex911]

yes, anytime we start discussing the skill set required to do the work, we are bringing the old red herring out.

Camber plates, Panhard rods, fuel cells, (there's a classic), and so on.

Now, if the rule is being discussed in the context of adding another item to a build, then it's a reasonable point.

[Knestis]

Mole Hill --> Mountain

:happy204:

Kirk (who knows his contribution is unhelpful but doesn't care very much)

PS - The backstory is that the ITAC got a request through the Club Racing office, submitted by a guy out in CA, to consider changing the rule to "removed or disabled." This happened in the wake of the SportsCar article and more or less concurrent with DD's letter. Early feeling seemed to be that since it applied to multiple categories, it was beyond the ITAC's purview; however we received guidance from the board that they would appreciate our recommendation, which we provided. Opinions differed there as well, representing pretty much the points of view echoed here. What I do not know is if the final decision was based on additional input from other ad hoc committees.

[raffaelli]

Last night I sat with some cheese cake and the new issue of Sports Car and read David's letter for the first time. Half way through I have to bounce ahead and see who wrote it...I started laughing. I really enjoy reading David's posts. Then today I get to read it again for the first time on here!:026:

Seems to me that the rule may have been installed for the ease of the workers. It has to be easier to drag a car which does not have the wheel locked. Based on this I think the rule should be to remove it. After reading the instruction on how to as posted on here, it took all of 15 minutes.
Playing advocate...removed or disabled...when the key is in, the unmodified lock is disabled. Comply?:shrug:

[7racing]

I always thought it was for more easy removal of the car after an incident.

But, I was glad the SM I rented had it disabled! My knee his the key and shut off the car coming out of a turn. The steering wheel didn't lock, thankfully, which gave me some bit of control.

Of course, not being 6'5" and folded into a SM like a protracting ruler would also eliminate the problem. :)

[xr4racer]

I think every lock I have seen only becomes enabled with the removal of the key. Just turning the car off accidentally should not lock the wheel. I removed the lock on a 99 Mustang, to do this the entire column had to be removed dissassembled and put back together. Ridiculous, if the ignition switch and key are retained you should not have to mess with it. Now with the installation of an aftermarket panel you should have to remove it. The car companies are attempting to make the cars harder to steal so the process to disable it also becomes more difficult and potentially dangerous as a result.

matt