Nascar Door Bar Installation Legality

[zchris]

OK , the Benz in the classifieds has brought up a good question on what is legal installation. In the past, if it did not say it was OK in the ruleset, it was not. Now is cutting the B-pillar legal to install nascar bars. In the case of a 4 door car, it is certainly stronger. But I cannot find wording that says that is an acceptable part of the car to cut. Only the door itself. Now if it were up to me we would be allowed to weld the cage to the unibody anywhere and everywhere. But I do not write the rules. Come on you rules nerds. Let this not be part of rules creep.
Chris

[Charlie Broring]

I know of two ITB cars with the door bar going through the B pillar. This resulted in a much stronger and safer installation then using a "zig-zag" bar with two bends in in order to go around the pillar. I question the legality however.

[TomL]

9.1.3.f includes a provision "Other than to provide for installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." To me, that says you can modify the chassis to install safety equipment (e.g., the cage).

[dickita15]

I have always read that the same way as Tom.

[Ed Funk]

Don,t think passenger compartment and chassis are the same thing. If allowed to make chassis mods to allow roll cage installation......whew, slippery slope!!

[ddewhurst]

9.1.3.f includes a provision "Other than to provide for installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." To me, that says you can modify the chassis to install safety equipment (e.g., the cage).

Playing the deviles advocate.

Using rule stated by Tom is it legal to remove the metal braces welded in place between the A pillar & the cowl when installing the front down tubes for an ITA Miata?

[joeg]

Why Not!

On the B-Pillar, as long as you do not weld rhe remaining pillar to the installed door bar, you are perfectly legal.

[Ed Funk]

Is the B pillar part of the chassis? Can I cut a hole in an inner fender to take the rear brace to a more advantageous point on the rear suspension cross member?

[Z3_GoCar]

Why not weld the door bars to a base plate that runs up the B pillar? I've seen several Miatae that don't have the door bars welded to the cage hoop, but rather the base plate that runs up the B pillar bulkhead.

[zchris]

Well I am gonna say that with the response so far and a lack off response from my favorite rules nerds, rules creep has officially happened. 6 years ago when Brian Jones was chief of tech here in the NER, he would have sent you packing. You all may remember the SM/Delgenio debacle. I have a 4 door e36 coming up on my schedule and I will now take full advantage of the new interpratation. I have done many Rally America cars in the last few years and have learned a few tricks on chassis bracing that will fall right into this relaxed interpratation of SCCA rules. Thanks for the responses.
Chris

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

I certainly don't think it's legal to the spirit of the rule - or the intent. But with such a 'grey' statement that is in the rules, I am just not sure how to respond.

Cutting the B-pillar to facilitate a 'door' bar seems like a far stretch to me. The rule says that door bars may extend into the DOOR, not anything else.

Let me ask you this because you are a cage guy...a cross bar is recommended...but what if you put it in such a place where your dash has to come out and can't be replaced? Hate rules like that....

[zchris]

Andy,
I fully agree with you that it is not in the spirit of the rules. But as Dick Patullo is a Tech Steward and he feels its OK, then it should be OK for my customer also. Do you feel the slide down the slippery slope. And if its OK to go thru the B-pillar, then if I can stretch the main hoop pad up the B-pillar I can run the tube thru the pad on the inside of the pillar before getting to the main hoop. It meets the letter of the law then. If you allow the hole in the B-pillar then you open up a can of worms with the current pad rules. I am sure this was not the intent, but. This all comes from things I have seen on Pheonix Racing SS and Touring cars I have seen over the past few years. I am just looking to see where the rules have now moved to as there seems to be a changing landscape everytime I revisit the SCCA ruleset. The above is about 4 door cars.
Chris

[tom91ita]

isn't the pertinent portion where it says "required" equipment?

i thought we needed two bars across the door way between the front and the main hoop but that they did NOT need to be "nascar" style that go into the door.

the "nascar" curve section is what makes these weaker and is not needed, iirc.

[chuck baader]

Just a comment...the rules say you can modify the door for safety. I, et al, assume they mean the front driver's door, but it does not say...therefore, you may modify both doors for installation of the bars/cage. Chuck

[tderonne]

The whole cage used to have be be contained inside the passenger compartment. With the rules rewrite, the only mention I see is that the mounting plates have to be within the passenger compartment.

With the old rules one could argue that the cage that ends up inside the B pillar was no longer inside the passenger compartment. That argument appears to be gone now.

[Chip42]

I'm going to have to go with NO on this one, here's why:

1. main hoop has to be the full width of the cockpit (9.4.B.1)
2. Front hoop must follow the A pillars (9.4.C.1.a)
3. Two side tubes connecting the front an main hoops are required. these may be nascar style or an X. they may extend into the fornt door. a long list of door parts may be removed if the door bars enter the door cavity (9.4.C)
4. Any number of additional elements may be added within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure (9.4.G.6)

the B pillar is not part of the door. the only REQUIREMENT is to connect the front and rear hoops, which by definition does not require penetration through the door or anything else (in most cars, certianly true this one). There is no allowance given to leave the cage envelope (AKA required structure, consisting of main and front hoops, door bars, rear support braces, and allowed front 7th and 8th points - see 4 above)except by "may extend into the front door" and there's a laundry list of specifically allowed and disallowed modifications to accompany that. the only allowance I can see for bulkhead penetration is for braces and the like through to the trunk etc... "through any mandatory or optional bulkhead..." and that's in a different section of the cage rules than door bars.

Do I think it's safer this way? yes - in a rollover or heavy impact, the possibly compromised B pillar is redundant to the cage. the load path is significantly better that the zig-zag or "Z" bend needed with a more stricct adhearance to the rule, assuming the door bar continues as shown in a strait line to the main hoop.

but I can't find substantiating allowance to do this - the nascar door treatment is NOT mandatory, so there is no blanket allowance. Tech guys will differ in opinion, they do about everything, anyway. even if one says OK, another might not. easier to just NOT build the cage this way and KNOW it will get signed off.

[betamotorsports]

I would also say no. I'm a Divisional Scrutineer in CalClub and that would not pass IT tech under Chuck or Dennis. IMHO, I think its a good idea but until we see a rule change allowing it it falls under the "if it doesn't say you can..." catch-all.

FYI... I've stamped three E36 4 door ITR cages and none went through the B-pillar. All just leaned the top bar(s) into a cut out door with the bottom bar running straight along the top of the rocker panel.

[dickita15]

Andy,
But as Dick Patullo is a Tech Steward and he feels its OK, then it should be OK for my customer also. ......Chris

Chris, I am not a steward but I do have a national tech inspector’s license. My opinion is worth no more or less than any other tech worker.

I still agree with Tom in post 3. I think it would be acceptable to pierce or notch the B pillar to install a legal cage based on 9.1.3.f. but nothing is a sure thing unless it has had a ruling from the Court of Appeals.

[Speed Raycer]

I think you're seeing creep from other sanctioning body builds (NASA allows punching through the B pillar)- or builders that don't pay attention to the different rules.

If it were me, I'd build it to the letter of the rule UNLESS the owner signed off on going through the B. I'd rather punch through the B pillar on a 4 door w/NASCAR bars, but I'd rather build a legal cage first.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm going to have to go with NO on this one, here's why:

1. main hoop has to be the full width of the cockpit (9.4.B.1)
2. Front hoop must follow the A pillars (9.4.C.1.a)
3. Two side tubes connecting the front an main hoops are required. these may be nascar style or an X. they may extend into the fornt door. a long list of door parts may be removed if the door bars enter the door cavity (9.4.C)
4. Any number of additional elements may be added within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure (9.4.G.6)

the B pillar is not part of the door. the only REQUIREMENT is to connect the front and rear hoops, which by definition does not require penetration through the door or anything else (in most cars, certianly true this one). There is no allowance given to leave the cage envelope (AKA required structure, consisting of main and front hoops, door bars, rear support braces, and allowed front 7th and 8th points - see 4 above)except by "may extend into the front door" and there's a laundry list of specifically allowed and disallowed modifications to accompany that. the only allowance I can see for bulkhead penetration is for braces and the like through to the trunk etc... "through any mandatory or optional bulkhead..." and that's in a different section of the cage rules than door bars.

Do I think it's safer this way? yes - in a rollover or heavy impact, the possibly compromised B pillar is redundant to the cage. the load path is significantly better that the zig-zag or "Z" bend needed with a more stricct adhearance to the rule, assuming the door bar continues as shown in a strait line to the main hoop.

but I can't find substantiating allowance to do this - the nascar door treatment is NOT mandatory, so there is no blanket allowance. Tech guys will differ in opinion, they do about everything, anyway. even if one says OK, another might not. easier to just NOT build the cage this way and KNOW it will get signed off.

I agree with this reasoning.

[lateapex911]

I was thinking exactly what Chip wrote when I first read this.
NASCAR bars are not a requirement. AND, if chosen, the rule doesn't say they must go into the door cavity by any specific amount. Breaking the interior door plane by a half inch meets the definition in the GCR. There ARE other methods of achieving the same ends other than cutting the b pillar.

Lastly, I wouldn't use the fact that "it got through tech" as a cornerstone of any argument. Tech is concerned that the cage meets the minimum requirements of safety, and may, or may not decide to advise on class appropriateness in borderline cases. (Ignoring whether they SHOULD, or Should not).

There have been instances no doubt that things have slipped through tech that weren't legal. In the case of the Merc, I imagine a protest that went to appeals would be the only and best way to get a binding answer.

Me? I wouldn't do it that way, when there are several other methods I can think of in my head right now..

[JLawton]

And we need to remember that just because one tech guy thinks it's OK, doesn't mean every other tech guy sees it the same way.

[splats]

When I built my 4dr Neon several years ago, I called the National office to ask about going thru the B-pillar. They said "NO". As I could modify the the front doors only & had to leave the B-pillar alone (same as a 2dr). So I built my cage with 3 bars. Top & Bottom bars are almost straight, but my middle bar is a true NASCAR bar with a 'zig' at the rear for the B-pillar. With the bar-to-bar bracing, it made up for the 'zig'. All 3 bars would need to move before the 'zig' would move.:shrug: Just another option.

[zchris]

Well, now I have a quest. I will call the national office and get an answer on this. If they say no to B-pillar cutting, I will put there feet to the fire. I will protest each and every car at the runoffs that have this and force the issue. Come the end of september, there will be clarity in the rules. I am guessing that 50+ cars have this done to them. Hell, its how the Pontiac "how to build a Solctice race car" manual tells you how to do it. Pictures and all. Again, thanks for all the input.
Chris H

[JoshS]

Hell, its how the Pontiac "how to build a Solctice race car" manual tells you how to do it. Pictures and all.

Where can I get a copy of that manual?

[Streetwise guy]

I have not done a roadrace cage in a 4 door with the bars outside the b pillar, but I have done lots of ministock cars. It is stronger and easier to run outside the pillar, but I would ask this: Does the fact that the rear door can no longer be opened have any bearing on this discussion?

[zchris]

Josh, the manual can be purchased from any GM dealer under P/N 88958697. Or order online at www.gmperformanceparts.com (http://www.gmperformanceparts.com) But be prepared,they cost alot. Look at pg 26. One of the problems with this club is a prep shop like Pheonix will build a batch of cars beyond the rules. They show up at the runoffs as GM's ambassador with a slew of nice new cars. And these indescretions are overlooked. In particular the B-pillar issue and in SS the interior A-pillar trim. These were both clearly illegal several years ago in many cars, but hey, its the runoffs. No tech steward said a thing. 3 or 4 years ago I installed a cage in a Solctice. I was showed a Pheonix national winner as an example. It had both of the mentioned illegalities. I explained to the owner that I would build it how he wanted, but, do not be suprised if you have trouble. He opted for the by the rules version. And once the rules get bent, and enough others have followed suit, the rule either gets ignored or changed. Rules creep this way in this club. The SM dash mount brackets that are welded to the unibody are another perfect example of this. I started modifying them when I saw everyone else doing it. Now most SM's are caged that way. I am pretty sure that was illegal by the letter of the law 5 years ago. Yet it happened and now is accepted. CREEP!
Chris H

[TomL]

I understand why there is a debate over whether this is allowed - the letter of the rules isn't 100% clear. But a lot of the objection to allowing B-pillar mods is expressed by ZChris' posts - "It's rules creep." I hate rules creep as much as anyone. I hate that a "full build" now includes multi-thousand dollar ECUs and shocks.

But in this specific case, even if it is "rules creep", my question is, "So what?" Even many of the people who say it shouldn't be allowed concede it's sometimes a better (safer) way to put door bars in a cage. So why object if someone does it? I don't see how the usual reason for objecting to rules creep apply. Rules creep is a problem because it a) allows a modification that previously wasn't allowed, which b) allows a car to go faster (or at least more reliably) and c) forces everyone else to spend money on that modification just to stay even.

But in this case, the b) and c) parts don't apply. The cage isn't going to be any stiffer if the door bars go through the B-pillars. Since it isn't a performance advantage, no one else is forced to modify their existing door bars to keep up. And for the initial cage build, the extra cost of putting the bars in the B-pillars versus not is trivial to nonexistent. All you get from putting the door bars in the B-pillars (where needed) is to have a somewhat safer cage.

So I'll ask, regardless of what you think the rule is now, would anyone object to changing the rule to say "Cutting holes in the B-pillar for the purpose of installing door bars is allowed?" And, if so, why?

[callard]

Like I said in the for sale section, I bent two nascar bar cages around the B pillar but felt that double bends actually reduced the effectiveness of of the nascar bars. If a poll were taken by the ITAC/CRB for member input, I'd be in favor of "through the B pillar on a 4 door car".
Chuck

[shwah]

IMO this will keep potentail cars off the track. I was about to start building an ITB 4 door Jetta. My shoulders are about even with the B pillar on my 2 door Golf. They will be behind the B pillar in the 4 door Jetta. I will not race a car without adequately designed door bars - not straight ones, and not S bent ones. I was going to run them through the B pillar just like the Benze shows - with obvious gap between the cage material and B pillar.

At this point I won't proceed with the car.

I'm not a fan of rules creep, but don't see this as such. What I was planning would have reduced chassis rigidity. What am I missing here about potential performance benefits by the interpretation that we can modify the car to fit door bars that perform as intended, rather than look as they need to enable door gutting?

Also, this is a legitimate safety issue IMO.

[shwah]

Like I said in the for sale section, I bent two nascar bar cages around the B pillar but felt that double bends actually reduced the effectiveness of of the nascar bars. If a poll were taken by the ITAC/CRB for member input, I'd be in favor of "through the B pillar on a 4 door car".
Chuck

Why only 4 door at that point? If a 2 door car has the B pillar where the bar needs to go to be safe, what is different about the situation?

[Chip42]

I see rules creep here, though I agree with "Shwah" and others regarding the improved safeness of the through-pillar design.

creep - wise, the change would promote seating positions that allow better weight distribution than could be possible on SOME chassis where the door bars would otherwise interfere with the seat. no matter what, if you write the rule this way, you WILL see people taking advantage of it to move their main hoops back and seats around to improve the corner weights.

maybe if there were a rule controlling main hoop distance from the B pillar, with larger allowances for 4 doors, the effect of this creep would be mitigated.

[shwah]

Um. We can put the seat where we want now. Are you saying that we consider using driver safety level as a deterrent to move the seat?

What do those of us with 36" inseams do then?

[TomL]

Chip - I just can't see how this a real problem. Can you cite a single car that is so narrow that the reduction of available space caused by keeping the door bars inside the B-pillar (i.e., 1.5 - 1.75 inches) is going to have any effect on how far back you can put the seat? The only constraint that I can see on how far back you can put your seat is the presence of a bulkhead (e.g., Miata , Fiero, del Sol) and the ability to reach the pedals, shifter and steering wheel. Maybe we need to consider eliminating the pedal and shifter modification rules and set a maximum steering wheel dish standard in order to prevent seat location changes? Gotta prevent rules creep, ya know. :D

[shwah]

Tom I gave a real example. The Jetta in my garage. My shoulders will be BEHIND the B pillar to sit where I sit in my car. My seat is positioned based on what I need to reach the controls comfortably, and to be as low as possible. It was placed based on using the stock steering wheel - no funky extensions.

If straight door bars were acceptable to me, I could make it work. They are not. Neither are S shaped bars that are just as close to my body, but go into the door. I use bars that are as close to whatever I might hit, or what might hit me, and as far as me as I can put them.

It is not a limitation to be able to build a legal car. It is a limitation to being able to install nascar door bars that do what they are designed to, rather than simply meet the letter of the rule to enable door gutting at the expense of impact peformance - even over simple straght bars. I don't need to do that to get to weight, and in fact used straight bars and have full door on the passenger side.

[TomL]

It appears I misinterpreted Chip's objection. I thought he was saying B-pillar holes would somehow let you sit unnaturally far back. I understand that for most 4-doors (and some 2-doors), your normal seating position would leave the main hoop far enough back that you can't install proper NASCAR bars (no s-bends) without going through the B-pillars. I guess I had it backwards. He wants drivers of 4-door cars to sit unnaturally far forward if they want to avail yourself of proper NASCAR bars (i.e., place their main hoop at the b-pillar). :rolleyes: I agree that's a choice you shouldn't have to make.

[Chip42]

He wants

I want safety - I'd write in support of this change - it only makes the chassis weaker and improved driver safety. as it is it is illegal, at least as I and other read GCR 9.4.

the creep I foresee is not really all that troublesome, and I was more or less playing devils advocate, BUT allowing tubes to pass through the B pillar or suchlike COULD allow for some interesting seating positions that are NOT about driver comfort. I'm all about driver comfort, I'm 6'3" with a 36" inseam - I get it, and I would never suggest that we try to impair a comfortable seat for a driver.

but I also wouldn't be cool with an IT car moving/blocking (think kids bike pedals) the pedals back to allow for a more rearward seating position, either. basically the same rational.

[Simon T.]

Any photos of the bar going through the B-pillar? I don't understand.

[Greg Amy]

ttt

[TomL]

Sorry Chip. Didn't mean an insult - I know you're okay with a change. Just meant that the (not "your") "no b-pillar hole" interpretation has that effect.