Rear shock tower bar?

[StephenB]

Could I use something like this if it came as a stock part? Can I modify something like this as long as it has no additional mounts and mounts as it did from the factory (Like in this picture?)

Just to clarify this is in the trunk and the 2 bolts on each side attach directly to the top of the shock mount.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Could I use something like this if it came as a stock part?
Sure, there's no requirement to remove it.


Can I modify something like this as long as it has no additional mounts and mounts as it did from the factory (Like in this picture?)
Nope, there's no allowance to modify it.

But, if you build your cage well, there's nothing keeping you from incorporating such an idea into the cage.

http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/DCP_3938.JPG

[joeg]

Agreed. That is kind of a basic concept to strengthen the rear towers. Building it into the cage is much much better.

[jhooten]

The argument could be made that bar is not part of the cage but is an illegal strut tower brace.

[Greg Amy]

The argument could be made that bar is not part of the cage but is an illegal strut tower brace.
Internet forums prove that an argument can be made about anything...but that doesn't automatically give it credence.

The cage rules are clear:

- 8 points max
- 8 plates of max size
- Plates are the "points"
- Any additional/optional tubes within the cage structure are allowed
- Optional tubes may attach to those compliant plates without being considered another "point".

So, on what basis would you argue?

If it really bothers you, then instead of mounting the transverse rollcage stiffening bar to the compliant plate itself, weld it between the two compliant tubes coming off that compliant plates, exactly .0000001" from the plates itself. That way you can sleep at night.

GA, who's been there, argued that to several scrutineers and competitors, all who backed down once I showed them the rules...hey, don't be hatin' 'cause you didn't think of it first... ;)

[betamotorsports]

As an aside...

If you ever want to run NASA PT, all the bars that come together at a mounting point must be touching each other. The above crossbar would not be legal unless it touched the rear braces.

[Greg Amy]

Sounds like it bothered someone in charge at NASA...silly.

[JeffYoung]

Greg's bar is legal. The mounting plate is on the tower, this bar attaches to it. It's not a rear strut tower brace per se, it's a legal part of the cage.

What is the rationale for NASA's rule? That's actually a significant difference between the two organizations on cage structure.

[CRallo]

fixxored

Does not change Greg's point. He is, as usual, very correct...

mmmmm I'm gonna have to go read the NASA rules. Guess I should since I'm a member now huh?


Internet forums prove that an argument can be made about anything...but that doesn't automatically give it credence.

The IT (and SS) cage rules are clear:

- 8 points max 6 points required (front stubs are optional)
- 8 plates of max size
- Plates are the "points"
- Any additional/optional tubes within the required cage structure are allowed
- Optional tubes may attach to those compliant plates without being considered another "point".

So, on what basis would you argue?

If it really bothers you, then instead of mounting the transverse rollcage stiffening bar to the compliant plate itself, weld it between the two compliant tubes coming off that compliant plates, exactly .0000001" from the plates itself. That way you can sleep at night.

GA, who's been there, argued that to several scrutineers and competitors, all who backed down once I showed them the rules...hey, don't be hatin' 'cause you didn't think of it first... ;)

[CRallo]

Very silly, but if they don't want my entry, that's fine!


Sounds like it bothered someone in charge at NASA...silly.

[Greg Amy]

What is the rationale for NASA's rule?
Couldn't say, but I remember when I was running the NX in PTE there was a specific item in the prep regs that added points for having either a rear strut bar and/or a bar in the cage that acted as a rear strut bar. My inference is that they saw that as a loophole and wanted to close it.

However, we all know when there's a will, there's a way. When we were building the cage for the Integra (the above photo is from the NX) , I remembered that rule and instead of placing a lateral bar at the rear "strut" towers (which is pointless in an Integra, anyway) we did both straight-back support tubes to the rear "strut tower" and then we "X"d from there within the rear frame, to that same pad. By triangulating that area back there to those same pads, we strengthened up the same area just as well and...no extra points for a "rear strut bar".

GA

http://i1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb345/GregAmy99/Misc/IMG_0701.jpg

[JeffYoung]

Nice work on that.

[Bill Miller]

Internet forums prove that an argument can be made about anything...but that doesn't automatically give it credence.

The cage rules are clear:

- 8 points max
- 8 plates of max size
- Plates are the "points"
- Any additional/optional tubes within the cage structure are allowed
- Optional tubes may attach to those compliant plates without being considered another "point".

So, on what basis would you argue?

If it really bothers you, then instead of mounting the transverse rollcage stiffening bar to the compliant plate itself, weld it between the two compliant tubes coming off that compliant plates, exactly .0000001" from the plates itself. That way you can sleep at night.

GA, who's been there, argued that to several scrutineers and competitors, all who backed down once I showed them the rules...hey, don't be hatin' 'cause you didn't think of it first... ;)

Been there, done that as well. I remember a tech inspector that wasn't going to give me a tech sticker for my car, because he claimed that my cage was illegal because it had too many attachment points (multiple tubes going to the same plate). I went round and round w/ him about it, so far as to showing him the reference in the GCR. Even w/ that, he didn't want to give me a sticker as he said "That's not what that means". It was only after one of the other tech inspectors came over and told him that it was correct and legal, did he finally give me a sticker.

[betamotorsports]

I don't know the rational behind the rule, I just know there a rule:

15.6.14.B Tube / Mounting Plate Specifications
Any number of tubes may attach to a plate so long as they are touching each other at
the plate. There may be a small gap between tubes to allow welding 360 degrees
around each tube. If there is no gap between the tubes, they must be welded around
the base as much as possible to form a single figure-eight weld, AND the tubes must be
welded to each other two (2) inches up from the base plate.

[Knestis]

I don't know the rational behind the rule, I just know there a rule:

15.6.14.B Tube / Mounting Plate Specifications
Any number of tubes may attach to a plate so long as they are touching each other at
the plate. There may be a small gap between tubes to allow welding 360 degrees
around each tube. If there is no gap between the tubes, they must be welded around
the base as much as possible to form a single figure-eight weld, AND the tubes must be
welded to each other two (2) inches up from the base plate.

Sorry - where is this from? NASA rules I presume?

K

[jhooten]

Been there, done that as well. I remember a tech inspector that wasn't going to give me a tech sticker for my car, because he claimed that my cage was illegal because it had too many attachment points (multiple tubes going to the same plate). I went round and round w/ him about it, so far as to showing him the reference in the GCR. Even w/ that, he didn't want to give me a sticker as he said "That's not what that means". It was only after one of the other tech inspectors came over and told him that it was correct and legal, did he finally give me a sticker.


This is the exact same reason I made the comment I made. My cross bar was welded between the tubes to make the tech guy happy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is the exact same reason I made the comment I made. My cross bar was welded between the tubes to make the tech guy happy.
But Jerry, the point is that Tech guy didn't know the rule. The mounting plates have a square inch limit, that entire plate is considered the singular 'attachment point' so those cross bars are very legal. Agree?

[tderonne]

Legal part of the cage, but performing an illegal function?

[Chip42]

the function is not prohibited, there's just no specific rule allowing such an item as a bolt-on outside of the cage outline. and there need not be, because we have the cage there and can brace with it.

it doesn't count as suspension mounting point reinforcement because the rules tell us that we may put the cage pads on the strut towers and add whatever elements we like within the cage outline...

[tderonne]

....there's just no specific rule allowing such an item as a bolt-on outside of the cage outline. ...


If there's no allowance, it's an illegal function of the cage.

Not saying I agree, just throwing another argument out on the internet.

[StephenB]

Thanks for the replies guys, thread took a turn into something I wasn't planning on and I swear we have chatted about here before, sorry about that!

I was pretty sure I could use it even though it was an option and didn't come on each model, just couldn't remember. Kind of a dumb thread I started looking back...

Stephen

[lawtonglenn]

...just throwing another argument out on the internet.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20argument

.

[tom91ita]

... Kind of a dumb thread I started looking back...

Stephen

if there were no room for dumb threads, there wouldn't be an internet. :blink:

i actually learned something regarding dual purpose cars (nasa/scca).

so if i am learning things from "dumb threads" how do you think that makes me feel?:shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

If there's no allowance, it's an illegal function of the cage.


So this isn't true. The rule states 'specifically disallowed function'.

[Greg Amy]

Legal part of the cage, but performing an illegal function?
What "illegal function"? Stiffening up the cage and chassis? Isn't that the expressed INTENTION of a rollcage...?

Every change provides some level of unintended functionality; the key is to managing/limiting that level.

GA

[Knestis]

...and the MINIMUM wall thickness is defined so that tube can be veeeeery strong.

K

[tderonne]

Extra heavy cages were found to be illegal ballast. Actually pretty similar, ballast is allowed, in a certain place. Strut tower bars are allowed in a certain place.

Wouldn't any function not specifically allowed be a disallowed function?

Where's the lawyers?

[betamotorsports]

Sorry - where is this from? NASA rules I presume?

Yes, the 2012 NASA rule book.

[jhooten]

But Jerry, the point is that Tech guy didn't know the rule. The mounting plates have a square inch limit, that entire plate is considered the singular 'attachment point' so those cross bars are very legal. Agree?


The 2008 cage rules don't say what the 2007 rules did about any number of bars to a mounting plate. So, yes the inspector who looked at my cage in 2002 was incorrect.

BTW, With the location, direction, and speed Cooper hit me I'm not sure the cross bar location on my cage made a bit of difference.

[Knestis]

Extra heavy cages were found to be illegal ballast. Actually pretty similar, ballast is allowed, in a certain place. Strut tower bars are allowed in a certain place.

Wouldn't any function not specifically allowed be a disallowed function?

Where's the lawyers?

Negative, Ghostrider.

Some functions are specifically prohibited in ITCS rule language - the IIDSYCYC clause covers those.

Other functions (like being acted on by gravity) are not specifically disallowed. If the rules say my tubing must be a minimum of .095 wall (or whatever) that's the rule. The rule actually stipulates the minimum for "required" roll cage elements, by the way - not all.

I personally haven't ever seen any protest or RFA that resulted in a finding that I'm not in-bounds with my implementation of the rule - if I were to DO something like thicker required or thinner optional bars, of course...

;)

K

[Z3_GoCar]

What about the 50lb 1/2" thick steel bracket used to hold a battery cut-off switch. I do believe that was ruled illegal.