Proposal: passenger seats

Printable View

04-09-2009, 09:43 AM
vtluu

Proposal: passenger seats

9.1.3.9.e currently reads:

Quote:

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

I'd like it to see it amended to:

Quote:

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted.

Or (to be more pedantic):

Quote:

Front passenger seat and seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

... with maybe another statement saying substituted components should serve no other purpose and should not interfere with driver egress (relative to the already-allowed OEM ones).

I hope everyone here agrees that a passenger seat offers no conceivable competitive advantage (and compared to the same weight in ballast, which is mounted lower, it's a disadvantage).

I use my car for instruction purposes at track days and it would be nice if I didn't have to swap the 30-ish lbs of passenger seat and harnesses for ballast before each race. Not that I do, and not that I would likely ever be protested, but it would be nice to have a formal allowance.

Thoughts, comments?

EDIT: latest wording attempt:

Quote:

Front passenger seat and seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted; substituted components may serve no purpose other than that of the original components. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed. In any automobile where allowed removal of rear seats, upholstery, etc., creates an opening between the driver/passenger compartment and an exposed gas tank, fuel cell, or part thereof, a metal bulkhead which completely fills such opening shall be installed (See GCR 9.3.26.1.)
04-09-2009, 10:44 AM
Knestis

I don't know what popular opinion might be but I for one understand the situation... It might be best to think about being specific:

Front passenger seat, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, rear seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

...making distinct what can be substituted and what can only be taken out...?

K
04-09-2009, 10:55 AM
vtluu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knestis

I don't know what popular opinion might be but I for one understand the situation... It might be best to think about being specific

Yep, hence my second suggested wording.

At the same time I understand the desire to keep things (rules) as simple as possible. What competitive advantage could be gained by substituting back seat/mounting hardware? My first thought would be maybe someone removing a back seat, then attaching a carbon fiber panel over it to cover the hole instead of the required metal bulkhead, and calling the panel a "substitute seat back". But would that already be considered a "tortured" interpretation of the rules?
04-09-2009, 11:00 AM
gran racing

What's your goal with this? Is it to allow a race seat or just an OEM seat with racing belts? If a race seat and the way you have it worded...I'd have a nice large steel box slider built and ensure the seat could be moved as far back as possible with my cage (for safety sake of course). There should also be some steel reenforcement below the seat cushon as well.

I'm sure the first respnose is it would be considered a "tortured" interpretation of the rules, but it's up to someone's judgement, then someone elses after an appeal is filed. The current wording or Kirks is more clear cut.

Ps - I too instruct and just up until this year ran with a passenger seat in my car.
04-09-2009, 11:06 AM
StephenB

I have been out of instructing for a while since my schedule makes it almost impossible so I apologize in advance if this makes no sence!!

Don't most instructing schools now require that the passenger belts are "of the same type" and meet the same safety requirements as the drivers belts are? Does this also apply to the seats in those schools?

Stephen
04-09-2009, 11:34 AM
vtluu

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenB

Don't most instructing schools now require that the passenger belts are "of the same type" and meet the same safety requirements as the drivers belts are? Does this also apply to the seats in those schools?

Requirements/recommendations vary, and I'm not interested in making IT rules to enforce any such requirements.

In my particular case, the passenger seat is a Sparco Roadster "street" seat with a Schroth Profi-II ASM 4-point belt, because (a) the Roadster seat has no anti-sub belt holes, and (b) the (passenger-side) anti-sub belt anchor points coincide with where the fuel and brake hard lines run under the car.

Dave: I agree Kirk's wording (which again I'll point out is exactly the same as my second wording) is preferable, since even a highly tortured interpretation of a "front seat" would yield fairly little useful structural reinforcement. (Keep in mind one could similarly make "ballast" out of metal bars and bolt it to the floor pan with an arbitrary number of attachment points.)

I could also add something like, "Substituted components may serve no other purpose than that of the original components."
04-09-2009, 11:43 AM
gran racing

My bad. I read it wrong on Kirk's post - I thought the front passenger seat was moved to the "may be removed" but not substituted.
04-10-2009, 01:59 PM
EV

I agree. I just became an instructor and am working towards a competition license. I want to use my IT prep car on track days, and have a passenger seat for ride alongs.

I would have to have to pull it every event/school/race. It would be nice of the rules could be rewritten since SCCA now has a PDX program.
04-10-2009, 04:15 PM
raceita

Could you call the passenger seat ballast?

Steve
ITB MR2
04-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Knestis

"Ballast" is narrowly defined by the rules. You can simply leave a stock seat in, under the current rules, thereby requiring less ballast.

K
04-10-2009, 04:48 PM
Ron Earp

Quote:

Originally Posted by EV

I would have to have to pull it every event/school/race. It would be nice of the rules could be rewritten since SCCA now has a PDX program.

Just run the seat. I bought a second seat along the same lines as you did. I'm sure my fellow competitors are not going to care if I have an extra race seat and harness in the car - just so long as I meet the minimum weight requirements. I'm sure some clever fabricators could find a way to use the second seat to an advantage - but I'm not one of them. If you have it bolted in so it's safe, no other mods, I'm sure you'll be just fine.
04-10-2009, 06:36 PM
Greg Amy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Just run the seat.

+1, just as long as you recognize that it is, technically, illegal. While I sincerely doubt it will happen, a competitor would have all rights to protest you over it. - GA
04-11-2009, 09:17 AM
Ron Earp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

+1, just as long as you recognize that it is, technically, illegal. While I sincerely doubt it will happen, a competitor would have all rights to protest you over it. - GA

Totally agree with you as you're 100% correct. But for the life of me I can't think of one person I've meet in the paddock or this forum that would file that given the car meet all other legal IT requirements.

Somewhat of a bad consequence of the IT ruleset. Given that IT started as a "dual purpose" sort of class with street/track in mind, what could be a better modern dual purpose interpretation than a racing/instructing, or racing/track day car?

R
04-11-2009, 10:39 AM
RSTPerformance

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Just run the seat. I bought a second seat along the same lines as you did. I'm sure my fellow competitors are not going to care if I have an extra race seat and harness in the car - just so long as I meet the minimum weight requirements. I'm sure some clever fabricators could find a way to use the second seat to an advantage - but I'm not one of them. If you have it bolted in so it's safe, no other mods, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

+2 I ran a passenger seat for two years I think???? I loved giving people rides, it was probably more fun than the racing... I even took the car Ice Racing and gave people rides :)

I wouldn't change the rule though, as people unfortunatly will take advantage of it.

If you were protested, this clearly would not be a safety item or give you an advantage, so as long as you had the seat installed for no other purpose than I don't think any reasonable steward would give you any penalty other than to remove it before next race. As mentioned, this is if you were to even run across someone as selfesh as that to protest you in the first place.

Just my opinion...

Raymond
04-12-2009, 09:20 AM
Eagle7

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSTPerformance

If you were protested, this clearly would not be a safety item or give you an advantage, so as long as you had the seat installed for no other purpose than I don't think any reasonable steward would give you any penalty other than to remove it before next race.

I'm all in favor of allowing passenger seats, but this troubles me. Does a steward have the lattitude to not penalize an illegal car? Seems like they need to be bound by the rules.
04-12-2009, 11:27 AM
Chip42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle7

I'm all in favor of allowing passenger seats, but this troubles me. Does a steward have the lattitude to not penalize an illegal car? Seems like they need to be bound by the rules.

the tech scrutineers have "checks" on every class after the race at impound. certain illegal items, such as restrictor plates on a spec mitata, would qualify to DQ the car, while others would only be a logbook note to be corrected before the next event (like an undersized overflow bottle).

generally, though, the IT tech checklist wouldn't inspect the passenger seat - but cage welds, belt certifications, fuel inspection ports, air dams, etc... (safety / "easy" items)

competitor protests have a variety of potential outcomes - determined by the SOM, though illegal mechanical items always get a note in the logbook. if a competitor wanted to, he could protest an IT car for having a non-OE seat installed in the passenger location, and the car with a passenger race-style seat installed would be found illegal as a result. GCR- 62, 8.3.3: "In the event a car is found in non-compliance, a claim that the non-compliant item(s) offer no performance advantage shall have no influence on any ruling."

I support the changed language. We have a couple of cars with removable petty-bars and seats. I say send it in.
04-13-2009, 09:10 AM
EV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Just run the seat.

I plan to. It won't be an issue till next year, but even then I plan to. If I have a passenger seat, it will hide my nitrous bottle quite well. :D

Let me know if you are going to send a letter to the CRB, I will pen my own. The more the merrier I say.