Addition of Jack Points

Plain & simple, I would like to see the CRB make a change to allow jack points. I’ve gone far enough to write up a proposal & send it to both the ITAC and CRB which included a proposed wording for the GCR.

In an effort to help move this along I’d like some feedback. Read it, pick it apart, tell everyone what you would do with it should it get adopted. Write up complaints on why it’s not a good idea or how it might get implemented in a fashion that wasn’t intended. This will help those deciding what to do have some insight as to how this change might affect things on a day to day level.

Also, if you are in favor of it, send a note to the CRB and tell them why it’s a good idea for them to spend some time considering this change. Here’s the link

CRB Letter form
http://www.scca.com/Club/crb/crbletter.html

Thanks for your opinions both for and against.
Matt


Here’s the proposed text:

Jack points may be added to the car provided they fall within the following requirements:

- Two locations only per car may be added, one on each side or one on each end of the car.
- Added jack points may not be used to create any additional roll cage attachment point, ballast location or chassis stiffness, intentional or otherwise.
- Each jack point may be fabricated out of no more than 64 square inches of material welded to the chassis, with no edge dimension longer than 10”. Material to be used may not be thicker than 3/16”.
- Reinforcing of existing chassis seams/intersections may be used, provided that the materials used are in accordance with the above statement and length of reinforcement is no grater than 10”.
- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.

I think this is a fantastic idea! It is safer and better for our cars and our crew members! Thanks for taking the time to try and push this through.

At first glance I would like to add jacking plates to my car rather than make a custom jack saddle to fit the contour of the bottom of my car where the "frame" is located. Seems the pads would be easier. The saddle would be some type of convoluted "U" shape that would capture the "frame".

But then again if I had the custom saddle I would not be carrying around the extra weight of the plates and theres no way the jacked car can move around on the saddle.

Does that count as 2 birds with 1 stone?

Quote:

---

...- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.[/b]

---

This is already legal. I didn't have Competition Cages do it because I got in a hurry after our rust set-back and really wish that I had, every time I look at Pablo's rocker panels.

K

As K. mentioned there are methods to accomplish just what your looking to do without a 2 gazillion word rule for everyone (who is winter bored) to pick at.

I wish you success. :023:

Have Fun ;)
David

Yes Kirk you are correct.

I only put that in there (after a fair amount of dithering back & forth) because I've seen the topic of roll cage parts 'touching' the body work get beaten bloody over if it constitutes another attachment point.

Matt

Thank you, this is something I was going to send in too.

My proposal would ask for what you have stated plus an allowance for re-enforcments for where jack stands are placed under the car. I have found that both jacking up my car and setting it on stands is hard on the OE unibody. The ability to use limited amounts of .125 plate in a few areas really goes along way towards keeping a car straight and the owner safe when jacking up and working under a car.

When are you sending this to the CRB? I will send an e-mail in support.

it's on the ITAC board now. Send your comments in whenever you please.

As for the comment about parts of the cage contacting the body, and people getting all upset about it, it's perfectly legal,and the smart way to construct a cage. Getting upset ofver it is the choice of the viewer, but it's really not needed.

Quote:

---

...I've seen the topic of roll cage parts 'touching' the body work get beaten bloody over if it constitutes another attachment point.[/b]

---

That's pretty silly. Anyone who has Competition Cages monkey bars, is breaking the rule with 10-14 "attachment points," then.

K

I never said I agreed with or understood arguing about cage parts touching body parts (insert off color comment here), I just added it because I had seen the discussion come up. Seems like it isn't necessary.

Scott - its already been sent to both ITAC and CRB.

Anyone have any pics on how they added jack points within the rules? I always wanted to just drill a 2" hole in the floor and stick a tube down out the bottom just a hair for the jack to hit. I don't think that this is legal but the touch metohod should work.

Thanks for any pics anyone has.

Michael

Support letter sent.

Doing it legally varies from car to car. The most common method is to have a tube with a floor plate projecting down fron the lower door bar, pressed against the floor. Some cars are nice enough to have drain plugs you can utilize if you want to register the jack.

And creative thinking can come up with lots of other methods.

Support letter sent. :023:

Letter of support sent

Quote:

---

Doing it legally varies from car to car. The most common method is to have a tube with a floor plate projecting down fron the lower door bar, pressed against the floor. Some cars are nice enough to have drain plugs you can utilize if you want to register the jack.

And creative thinking can come up with lots of other methods.
[/b]

---

What makes this legal? Is it because it's not welded to the floor? Seems like it would count as an extra attachment point, but I guess that gets into the "if it's touching" argument mentioned.

I'll be sending in my letter of support. It's too late for my car, though. I don't think there's anything left of the rocker seams.

David

Quote:

---

What makes this legal? Is it because it's not welded to the floor? Seems like it would count as an extra attachment point, but I guess that gets into the "if it's touching" argument mentioned.

David [/b]

---

Yes, if it's not welded, bolted or bnded, it isn't attached.

A quick net lookup yeiled these definitions:

1.fastened together;



4. permanently attached to a substrate; not free to move about;

maybe the rule should be changed to delete "attached" and replace with "touch"?

Has anything been decided on this?? Or is it still in process?

ITAC meets by con call next Monday. Con call from a week and a half ago was cancelled due to the phone system in Topeka being down. THe con call system in Topeka is so congested, we can rarely find alternative times, so we'll be using a private sytem for the upcoming call, and we'll discuss it then.

I like air jacks too!