Cage Legality

While scanning the internet for cages (gotta stay current with the competition http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ), I came across this design and wanted to see what others thought about it.

http://www.advanced-autosports.com/i...m/72int_SM.JPG

Specifically, the use of what looks like 3/4" tubing. Now, part of me says "it's a gusset", the other part of me says "it's a tube and all tubes shall meet the min. spec"

What do you guys think?

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg
Izzy's Custom Cages

Well, I have seen this exact scenario pass tech, although I had my doubts.

Is there a rule that says you can't put a handle on your cage? Thats what the builder said to me when I pointed out the "all tubes of the same size" rule.

Whats odder to me at least, is the forward brace shooting thru the dash vent. Not a great place to direct that load, as it will fold the forward tube in half on impact.

I would have preffered it to have another tube in the door plane, an X type, that joins at that node, then connects down at the main hoop node.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

I've heard the "handle" description before, but I think that handles on the passenger side stretches that a little http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

I agree with you on the forward tube, although there may be a tube that also goes from the firewall pad to the front downbar pad that we just cant see which would help.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/intdone2.jpg

Mine passed annual tech just fine but haven't survived a protest. I understand from another Showroom Stock guy that he has an email from SCCA club racing confirming that tubular gussets are OK. He was going to send it to me but I can't actually find it now...

K

EDIT - more pics at www.it2.evaluand.com/gti


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 12, 2004).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knestis:
I understand from another Showroom Stock guy that he has an email from SCCA club racing confirming that tubular gussets are OK. He was going to send it to me but I can't actually find it now...

K

---

K, if you can find that email, could you post it or forward it?

Like I said, I can see both arguments.. but lean towards the fact that it's still a tube. My GCR's out in the shop, but doesn't the ITCS rule state that ALL tubes must meet the required minimum while the GCR states that all REQUIRED tubes must meet the min. tube requirements? The ITCS trumps the GCR correct?

Warning: here we go into one of my favorite SCCA rules stupidity rants: why doesn't the ITCS simply refer to the GCR SS rules when it comes to cage design? It doesn't, and there are conflicts.

ITCS 17.1.4.D.10.a (p 22) states all cars shall have a rollcage installed per GCR 18 requirements for Showroom Stock "except as provided for in these rules." 'These rules' go on to make exceptions for things like the rear window in the Del Sol, but most of it is redundant with GCR 18.

GCR 18.2 (p151) goes into the details of cage design for SS cars.

Note that nothing in 18.1 should apply to SS (and thus IT) because SS cages are 18.2, except 18.1.6.c as called out within 18.2. This, I believe, is an oversight; the SS cage rules should have been made a sub-section to 18.1 (or 18.1.6 and 18.1.7 should be parallel to 18.1), thus applying all rules in 18.1 to SS. This is merely a technicality and in reality we follow that.

18.1.6.C states "minimum tubing sized for all required roll cage elements" (emphasis on "required"). This is also mirrored in 18.2.3 (SS rules) for "required bracing". 18.4.2.A states "Any number of additional reinforcing bars are permitted within the structure of the cage" without calling out a specific tubing size; the implication being that, since they are not required, they should not have to meet minimum sizes.

So, we're home free, right? WRONG! Let's go back to the ITCS, specifically ITCS 17.1.4.D.10.a.5: "Any number of additional reinforcing bars are permitted within the structure of the cage, provided they meet the minimum tubing size per GCR 18.1.6.C."

The ITCS trumps the GCR, so all reinforcing bars in an IT car must meet the minimum tubing size. I don't know if this conflict to the SS rules is intentional or accidental, but unless the rules are changed I don't see how you can get away with it. You can try and pass them off as "gussets" or "handles" but I suspect that your arguments with Tech will be to deaf ears.

I encourage you to either make them the minimum size or make them out of something other than tubing (plate gussets, rod or plate handles).

Frankly, I wish we'd wholesale re-write the IT cage rules to get rid of conflicts and redundancies like this. These rules were written back in the days when SS cages had to be bolt-in and IT was allowed weld-in. I don't see it happening any time soon...

Greg

Well..all true Greg, but isn't it interesting how a small tube (tecnically illegal) would actually be weaker that a proper rolled gusset (legal).

So, I agree that it is "one of them deals"....and as we have progressed from showroom stock it needs a good look.

I imagine the band aid solution will be to add a rule (yecccchhh) stating something like "...bla bla bla....all tubes must be the same size ......EXCEPT those used as gussets, which are defined as tubes triangulating nodes, at a distance of no more than a foot from the node" or something like that.

In practice, I would be totally shocked if tech were to call any cage with similar gussests, as the area is gray, and it is a saftey advantage. I bet they will leave it for us to protest.

It DOES need clarification, thats for sure!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 12, 2004).]

Just for s--ts and grins in the GCR under definitions "A brace generally formed by attaching, welding a plate at or near the junction of two structural beams or tubes, providing reinforcement particulary in the plane including the tubes at the plate"

[This message has been edited by m glassburner (edited June 12, 2004).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grega:
Frankly, I wish we'd wholesale re-write the IT cage rules to get rid of conflicts and redundancies like this. These rules were written back in the days when SS cages had to be bolt-in and IT was allowed weld-in. I don't see it happening any time soon...

---

I'm with you Greg. I think the whole set of cage rules are just stupid. I'm guessing this is because the advisory committees have all had a hand in the cage rules specific to their category. There is no continuity between any of the cage rules for production based cars (SS, T, IT, P, and even some GT IIRC).

IMHO the whole set of cage rules should be based upon the same basic cage with perhaps some additional requirements as the categories progress. But, those rules should be progressive, i.e., as you go from SS to IT for instance, perhaps you would have greater requirements, but you should never have to undo anything.

I'm also a bit disturbed with the requirement in some categories for "NASCAR" bars. Greg, you totally convinced me that from a structural standpoint, the X is stronger. Makes perfect sense. I hate seeing "NASCAR" bars being mandated out of ignorance.

I think it's time for the CRB to develop a progressive set of cage rules that make a lot more sense than what we have today.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

yeah but....the NASCAR requirement in Touring doesn't preclude you from using whatever X style brace you want. And you can essentially gut a lot of weight from the door in exchange for adding just one "NASCAR" bar. The requirements are very loose.

There are far worse situations, this one seems relatively harmless.

(And getting a bar out there isn't the end of the world from a safety point of view)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake,

Aren't NASCAR bars opperationally defined as 2 horizontal tubes connected by at least 3 vertical tubes? Not sure how you can add just one NASCAR bar.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

No, Bill, that's incorrect.

The ITCS allows gutting of the door if the "roll cage incorporates NASCAR-style side protection extending into the door." The GCR glossary defines "NASCAR-Style Door Bars" as simply "one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to the front hoop" (emphasis mine). Thus, a simple single door bar extending into the door cavity sufficies for allowing you to 'gut' the driver's door.

George: Note that no IT or GCR definition requires a horizontal or multiple horizontal "NASCAR-style" bars; you're only seeing "horizontal" because that's what you expect. The Good Book doesn't say it or require big honkin' horizontal bars with vertical braces. Since a single bar is sufficient to meet the "NASCAR-style" requirement (unless there's a spec in another category book that contradicts the GCR definition), you're free to do whatever you want with it.

(Jake said) "...all tubes must be the same size..."

Jake, a very important distinction here: the rules DO NOT say that all bars must be the same size, they state that they all must meet the minimum requirements. Thus, if you choose to make your required rollcage elements larger than the minimum, there is nothing in the rules to keep you from making the non-required reinfircing bars to the minimum size, thus smaller.

Greg

All good points Greg.

I'll have to send you new photos of my cage. I've got some with the dash mocked up with the seat and steering wheel in place. Now everything is in place and in the process of having all the welds completed by a competent welder (not me).

It's getting there fast now.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Funny... These rules have been in place for some time, and I don't recall seeing ONE single letter questioning this or bringing any discrepancy to the attention of the CRB or the ITAC... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif (hint, hint... Do I need to get out a hammer??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Another interesting point... The Touring rules, which one would kind of expect would be somewhat in-line with IMPROVED Touring, allow one to "gut" the passenger door in the same manner that the driver's door is "gutted" if NASCAR style bars are installed on the passenger side... I find that ODD...

Also... I don't think that a passenger side protection bar is even REQUIRED for IT... again, VERY ODD...

BUT, if the CRB isn't receiving any letters on the subject... Everyone MUST be happy with the rules as written... eh??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 14, 2004).]

Bill, the quote from the definitions section of the 2004 GCR is:
NASCAR style door bars: If installed, shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to the front hoop. (pg 198)

The Touring rules state:
6 Side Proection: Two side protection tubes (door bars) are required on each side of the car. NASCAR style side protection is required on the drivers side....."

So, If the definition of a NASCAR style protection is one bar intruding into the cavity, and the requirements are for two bars (total), then it seems that ONE NASCAR bar, and another bar of a horizontal (side) nature will satisfy the rules.

Therefore, I see no problem with having a NASCAR setup and an X brace.


On edit: Weird how my refresh didn't show the responses following Bills, which makes mine a bit redundant. Oh well. Greg, good point regarding the difference between "same" and "minimum"....


But, of all the things out there to protest, this one must be really far down the list, no?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 14, 2004).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Funny... These rules have been in place for some time, and I don't recall seeing ONE single letter questioning this or bringing any discrepancy to the attention of the CRB or the ITAC... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

---

Actually I brought it up in one of our conference calls. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geo:
Actually I brought it up in one of our conference calls. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

---

Again... Talking about it and doing something about it are not the same thing... You know as well as I do that the only real way to force action on some of these issues is to get it OFFICIALLY on the CRB agenda so it HAS to be considered... Of course, I suppose you or I or anyone else could have requested at the time that it be officially considered...

But then... who listens to us anyhow! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Well Darin, you have a very good point. Perhaps it's time to write a letter. I really do feel there should be real continuity in the cage rules. Right now it's just a mish-mash. Perhaps it's time for me to write a letter.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Interesting...Darin pulled a "Geo" ("write the CRB a letter") ....on Geo!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Interesting...Darin pulled a "Geo" ("write the CRB a letter") ....on Geo!

---

Hehe

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/slap.gif

Hehe

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/moon.gif

http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

My bad guys, I know I read that definition of NASCAR bars somewhere, I just thought it was in the GCR.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

the cage in the original picture is a design well known in the northeast. The dash bars dont attach to the floor or fire wall Thy go to the factory cross dash brace that the dash board bolts to... Illeagal Period. The "Gussets" are kinda cool though.
Dan"The Illegal Miata"Sheppard

Just to revisit the topic... I sent a letter to JT requesting a clarification. Awaiting a reply.

In my "research", the Touring rules specify that a gusset can be made from a tube (GCR 18.3.2).. not so in the IT rules.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg
Izzy's Custom Cages

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:

the other part of me says "it's a tube and all tubes shall meet the min. spec"

---

Doesn't it say ...All "required" tubes shall be of minimum size? (or something to that effect..)

I've looked hard at the question, wanting to be sensible and use .065 wall tubing for option triangulation elements that are in tension/compression, like we did with the rally cars. The rules prohibit it in IT. They are in there.

All the ranting about washer bottles. THIS is a stupid rule.

K

My old IT Golf III ( back in the ITA days ) had gussets made of 3/4 tubing and passed tech in the SE region, I did write the comp board and the reply was gussets are legal, period.

Ok... here's my letter and the response from JT...

I'm sure there will be plenty of arguments about how I worded my letter, or an agenda or whatever...

Letter and image I attached:


-----Original Message-----
From: scott(AT)izzyscustomcages.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:12 AM
To: Jeremy Thoennes
Subject: Roll Cage "Gusset"

To: Jeremy Thoennes, Club Racing Technical Manager
From: Scott Rhea, Izzy's Custom Cages

Jeremy,

I'm writing for clarification on the IT roll cage rules specifically
regarding Gussets. I'm not writing for information to form a protest,
mearly for my own info so that I can provide the best cages for my
customers.

ITCS 10.A.5 states: Any number of additional reinforcing bars are
permitted within the structure of the cage provided they meet the
minimum
tubing size per GCR Sections 18.1.6.C

18.1.6.C states the minimum tubing sizes required as well as:
"If any of the above bend requirements cannot be met, all components of
the roll cage shall be fabricated from the tubing size(s) listed for the
next heavier category of automobiles."

In the attached image you will see a cage built from 1.5"x.120 wall DOM
in
a Miata. The Miata upsized it's tubing so that the additional bends in
the
downbars as well as the main hoop, could be utilized. I'm questioning
the
legality of the "gusset" pictured( Gusset is defined in the GCR as "A
brace generally formed by attaching, by welding, a PLATE at or near the
junction of two structural beams or tubes...").

#1, The "gusset" pictured is not a "plate" as defined by the GCR and #2,
if tubes are allowed as gussetts, as they are in the Touring Category
which specifically allows them (18.3.2), shouldn't the tube gussett meet
the minimum tubing size required?

Since entering into the roll cage business, I've seen many IT and SM
cages
that utilize the smaller and possibly thinner walled tubing as gussets.
Obviously it is a very strong and safe design and I would like to offer
this feature to my customers, but have not been able to find where it is
within the letter of the rules.

Any clarification you can provide would be much appreciated.

Thank You,
Scott Rhea
#300657

--
Scott Rhea
Izzy's Custom Cages
www.izzyscustomcages.com
314-302-3395

http://www.tcdesignfab.com/marg-11.jpg

RESPONSE-----------------

Scott,
I think the key word in the definition is generally; a gusset is
generally a plate. In my opinion, the small tube connecting the front
down tube with the main hoop in the picture you provided would fall
under heading of a gusset.

-Jeremy


------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg
Izzy's Custom Cages

OK, so when does a 'gusset' become an 'additonal brace' thus required to be made out of the same size tube?

***In my opinion, the small tube connecting the front
down tube with the main hoop in the picture you provided would fall
under heading of a gusset.***

Please note that the response by Jeremy "states In my opinion". I am not whacking at anyone but I would like to state that Jeremy's opinion is just that his opinion....... His opinion is not a hard & fast written rule as per the written rule in the GCR/ITCS.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

David took the words right out of my keyboard. I think that we write letters to Topeka hoping to make a case against future issues but, if push ever comes to shove, it ain't gonna make any difference...

K

Ok... so what's my next step... who am I writing next?

The point - unfortunately - is that there just isn't any allowance for this approach in the club racing rules enforcement process.

The best option is to protest, have it upheld, and then have the loser appeal it. Even at that, there is no formal "case law" that carries any weight based on the findings of the CoA.

K

EDIT - it is possible to pay to take something directly to the CoA but I've actually never heard of someone doing it and, like most members I suspect, I don't know the process.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 09, 2005).]

Take a black sharpie and write Gusset right on the small tube.....Clearly it becomes a gusset when you name it.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Take a black sharpie and write Gusset right on the small tube.....Clearly it becomes a gusset when you name it.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I get to use my ol' fogey voice when I mention the SSC Fiat X19 situation at Road Atlanta 25ish years ago.

One entrant put reflective mylar on the roof section they were supposed to remove, and wrote "mirror" on it. Mirrors were free.

That didn't fly, either.

K

Scott, GCR 13.9 Rules Interpretation with $250 to Topeka also is not the same as a written GCR/ITCS rule. I have asked JT/or his side kick about this process. Kirk has the process nailed. You might want to check with JT for the correct process outside the suggestion by Joe.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Not to inflame anybody but in MY opinion if someone protest your little 3/4 tube gussets they should be thrown out of the club under the "weenie protester rule"... Lets work this hard to get a "weenie protester rule" in the GCR for 06!!



[This message has been edited by Fastfred92 (edited February 11, 2005).]

I personally belive that the non-required tubes can be made of anything.

But that's just me.

Quote:

---

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I personally believe that the non-required tubes can be made of anything.</font>

---

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Let me start by saying there needs to be a wholesale re-write of the rollcage regs, especially in regards to Improved Touring. This whole thing goes right back to the arguments I made about wheel diameters, in that it's a mobile home that got parked and has had siding and additions placed on it for the last 20 years. Yet another example of using far too many words for a very simple regulation. This one needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

Anyway, while the rollcage rules for many (most?) of the other categories (such as Spec Miata) allow alternate tubes of smaller-than-minimum size, the bottom line is that the ITCS has in it, in section 17.1.4.D.10.5 (page ITCS 19 in the 2005 regs) a sentence that reads:

"Any number of additional reinforcing bars are permitted within the structure of the cage, provided they meet the minimum tubing size per GCR Sections 18.1.6.C."

Section 18.1.6.C (page GCR 144) governs the minimum tubing sizes, based on weight, for SS, IT, and Touring. Thus, by that very innocuous sentence in the ITCS, it is most assuredly illegal to add any tubes into your cage unless it meet the minimum tubing size.

Stupid? Absolutely. Everyone else besides those IT can do it. Note that even SS and Touring can use smaller tubes for non-required elements! But IT? BRACK, not allowed! See 18.3.3.A and 18.2.4.A for comparison. Thus, I can build a cage with the absolute bare minimum tubes and it would be completely legal, but if I added gussets or braces out of 1-1/4" tubing, nomatter how well-designed or -intentioned, I would have an illegal cage.

Intentional rule? Lord knows.

Guess it's time to write another letter. I'm getting used to rejection...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GregAmy:
the bottom line is that the ITCS has in it, in section 17.1.4.D.10.5 (page ITCS 19 in the 2005 regs) a sentence that reads:

"Any number of additional reinforcing bars are permitted within the structure of the cage, provided they meet the minimum tubing size per GCR Sections 18.1.6.C."

...

---

I stand corrected, but it pretty much makes sense.