Main Hoop Braces/Bulkhead interpretations

[Joe Harlan]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Any chassis stiffening arguements are huge red herrings. OF COURSE it stiffens the chassis.</font>

Jake I hope you don't think I am stupid enough to not know this....The point is there is a legal way and an ilegal way to get to the same thing.

[Knestis]

"Any number of tubes may attach to the plate or each other" (GCR 18.2.8.E) being one of the legal ones, right?

Evidence presented here seems to suggest reinstatement of my NERD status is appropriate, and that only my cheater wire harness bypass fix is illegal. That, and the holes in my hood for the enduro lights.



K

[lateapex911]

Of course not Joe...actually, if I need good solid info on something, you're one I would count on for good legal info...

But, my point was twofold:
1- Where, and how do you draw the line?
2- I think, to some degree, the CRB threw us a "freebie" in the rules, in order that while there may be some performance advantages when certain bars are added, the exchange for safety is worthwhile. Of course, it's not for me to say, but the "NASCAR" door bar rule is a great example of an allowance that is so beneficial for the cost involved (not financial, but from a build point of view) that there are few reasons NOT to do it.

Thats all.....NO offense intended, and sorry if you took it that way.

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

[Geo]

I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.


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

[Joe Harlan]

NO Geo not always true. When you misread a rule it is just your mistake. When I misread a rule it cost me money and reputation. Again I look for ways to get to the same place without having to hang in the grey. One of the things killing this sport is the cost of playing in the grey.

Jake I didn't mean to sound like it was personal it's for sure not. One of the things that gets me going is when we see a rule being pushed to its limits, ECU's come to mind. It get to far down the road and we end up with a rules change because to many people have already done it. Believe I have been there. When 8 points were allowed I found a really cool fix for the 240z....Not that the rule was clarified within a year to state the other 2 bars were to go to the firewall.

[Matt Rowe]

Although I wouldn't waste my time in a protest or even much of an argument on this. If pressed on the "no legal part may perform and illegal function" issue I would refer to 18.1.1 for cage prep which says:

"The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the ..."

That followed with ITCS D.8.H:

"Structural repair . . . Unless specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair or allowed by these rules, no reinforcement, i.e., seam welding, material addition is permitted."

So, someone could make the case that cage bars that act specifically to reinforce the car and has no impact on the safety of the driver are an illegal material addition. Again, I wouldn't bother enough to write a protest based on it, but I could see a way to make the argument. It's twisiting the rules a little, but so is putting in a rear strut bar and saying it is for the sake of driver safety. Remember, a grey area in the rules means it is an unclear intrepretation, and unclear means someone might just rule in the other guys favor when the planets all align properly.

My rear bar is mounted just above the plate anyway so I'm not really worried. But I do find the trend in cages over the past few years to be a real sign of preparation creep. I'm all for having a good safe cage, but more and more people are putting in cages for the sake of stiffening the chassis with driver safety being an added bonus. That certainly seems like a creep towards production level preparation.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
I'm all for having a good safe cage, but more and more people are putting in cages for the sake of stiffening the chassis with driver safety being an added bonus. That certainly seems like a creep towards production level preparation.

Bah....

If someone is doing their homework right, a cage serves two purposes: 1) protect the driver, and 2) stiffent he chassis. This has always been the case. It's not a new phenomenon (sp?).

Lastly, who gets to argue if a tube is there to stiffen the chassis or to protect the driver?



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

[Joe Harlan]

"The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the ..."

Well said and any other intent is truely cheating no matter how much homework you do.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
Bah....

If someone is doing their homework right, a cage serves two purposes: 1) protect the driver, and 2) stiffent he chassis. This has always been the case. It's not a new phenomenon (sp?).

Lastly, who gets to argue if a tube is there to stiffen the chassis or to protect the driver?

Well, the cage's primary purpose in IT has always been to protect the driver, stiffening the car is just a side benefit. Sure anyone with a brain will try and maximise the chassis stiffness within the cage rules. But the cage rules didn't always allow so much. The days of 6 point bolt in cages with limited reinforcement bars didn't leave nearly as much room for chassis stiffness. What is a new phenomenom is unlimited bracing, the additional 8 pt allowance, weld in attachments.

All of this make the cages you can build today FAR different than what was allowed 15 years ago. Sometime take a look a cage built to the full extent of the rules from 1990 and compare it to a current fully built cage. Then tell me there is no rules creep. Sure much of it was done in the name of safety, but the effect is a cage that contributes far more to chassis stiffness than it did 15 years ago. As many people have said before rules creep in the name of safety can bring about some unintended changes, like previously illegal strut bars now being allowed.

As far as who gets to argue safety vs. reinforcement? That's the point of a really well written protest. Now, I don't think I've ever met an inspector or steward that would take the side of a technical infraction when a safety aspect is concerned, but that doesn't mean your aren't deep in a grey area of the rules. But remember I said I would never bother protesting something like that.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I would never bother protesting something like that.</font>

Actually, Matt, I wish you would, if for nothing else to get it either blessed or damned. If we don't protest items we beleive to be illegal then they will never get changed, and in the end they may become de rigeur legal by apathy. Tech is certainly not going to pull us down for something like this.

Tell you what, Matt: if I make it down to Summit this year, let's you and I get together and I'll cover the $25 for you to protest my cage. We'll do it in such a way that it won't kill my weekend (like they tell me to go home on Saturday morning). We'll each debate our positions to the chief Stews and let them decide. If they bless it, I'm golden; if they damn it I'll be given the opportunity to bring my case to Topeka in the form of an appeal. Worst case, I lose my appeal and have to cut it out and re-weld a tube between the bottom of the rear legs (which, as I'm certain we all realize, does *exactly* the same thing.)

No harm, no foul, and definitely no ill feelings.

Whadya think?

Greg

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Actually, Matt, I wish you would, if for nothing else to get it either blessed or damned. If we don't protest items we beleive to be illegal then they will never get changed, and in the end they may become de rigeur legal by apathy. Tech is certainly not going to pull us down for something like this.

Tell you what, Matt: if I make it down to Summit this year, let's you and I get together and I'll cover the $25 for you to protest my cage. We'll do it in such a way that it won't kill my weekend (like they tell me to go home on Saturday morning). We'll each debate our positions to the chief Stews and let them decide. If they bless it, I'm golden; if they damn it I'll be given the opportunity to bring my case to Topeka in the form of an appeal. Worst case, I lose my appeal and have to cut it out and re-weld a tube between the bottom of the rear legs (which, as I'm certain we all realize, does *exactly* the same thing.)

No harm, no foul, and definitely no ill feelings.

Whadya think?

Greg

Sound like a decent plan to me. It would be interesting to see what they say, although I'm reasonably certain they will err on the side of safety, which means any tube is likely to be allowed. Try to give me some warning if you're coming down as my limited budget means I don't make every MARRS race. But it should make for a more entertaining weekend.



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Sound like a decent plan to me. It would be interesting to see what they say, although I'm reasonably certain they will err on the side of safety, which means any tube is likely to be allowed.

I am 100% certain it will be allowed. If it says you can, you bloody well can. I don't see how this can be in question. Greg quoted EXACTLY where the ITCS says you can. But, in the interest of satisfying everyone, Greg has made a nice gesture here.

Regarding changes in the rules, it doesn't matter. Whatever the cage rules I will ALWAYS use the cage to stiffen the chassis as much as possible within the rules. The cage should always be built with this in mind, second only to safety. Fortunately those two things are seldom mutually exclusive.


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

[seckerich]

The whole arguement about the rear strut brace is moot anyway as most cars have shocks which dont exert the same bending force and have little effect on the chassis, The plates are limited to keep someone from spreading the plate all the way down a door opening (I have seen this in tech) and building a tube frame. The limits on the bars stopping at the firewall more than limit you from anything close to production. The rule on plates has been protested and a plate that is 12 x 12 with in an L shape with 4 inch wide legs is legal and within the rules per 2002 decision. Not necessary to get a legal, safe, stiff cage, but legal. Nothing personal in my posts Joe, but for $20 more in tubing someone might spend I will live with that horrible rules creep in the name of safety.

[ddewhurst]

Joe, I been quitely reading & for my 2 cents the rule allows the rear strut to strut tube as long as the tube attaches to THE plate or other tubes that attach to THE plate.

Have Fun
David

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
I am 100% certain it will be allowed. If it says you can, you bloody well can. I don't see how this can be in question. Greg quoted EXACTLY where the ITCS says you can. But, in the interest of satisfying everyone, Greg has made a nice gesture here.

Maybe you can reread the discussion to see why a bar like that fall in a gray area. I see your point and I understand your logic, why you are blind to the opposing view I don't know. I suspect you're bringing a preconceived bias to the rulebook when you are reading it.

Originally posted by Geo:
Regarding changes in the rules, it doesn't matter. Whatever the cage rules I will ALWAYS use the cage to stiffen the chassis as much as possible within the rules. The cage should always be built with this in mind, second only to safety. Fortunately those two things are seldom mutually exclusive.

So rules creep doesn't matter? Considering a bolt in cage for $550 used to be a reasonable cost for anyone to order and install and have a competitive car. Assuming your paying some labor and not just materials what does a current limit of the rules, fully cross braced cage cost? It isn't close to $550. As I said safety improvements are great, but can you tell me the rules changes for cages haven't significantly added to the cost of a competitive car.

Also, a overstiffened cage can actually contribute to driver injury. Remember energy disipation is the name of the game and the more the car deforms the less energy the driver has to take. I've seen firsthand when a driver died when the cage never gave, and the driver took all of the deceleration. A little cage deformation might have made the difference without further endangering the driver. Adding a rear strut bar does little or nothing to protect the driver but does limit the crumple zone available in the event of an accident. That's why the argument can be made that it performs an illegal function without contributing to the safety of the vehicle.

Of course if the rule had been written that the tubes must meet on the plate at single node that would have prevented some of this confusion. But you can never anticipate everything.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.

Matt,

George knows he does that.

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Matt,

George knows he does that.

I know, I guess I need to more obviously facetious?


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Maybe you can reread the discussion to see why a bar like that fall in a gray area. I see your point and I understand your logic, why you are blind to the opposing view I don't know. I suspect you're bringing a preconceived bias to the rulebook when you are reading it.

Not hardly. Just reading the rules as written.

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Of course if the rule had been written that the tubes must meet on the plate at single node that would have prevented some of this confusion. But you can never anticipate everything.

Actually, if effectively does. All tubes must attach to a single point as defined by the mounting plate. Sure it's not an actual node, but it defines exactly what you want defined.




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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
Actually, if effectively does. All tubes must attach to a single point as defined by the mounting plate. Sure it's not an actual node, but it defines exactly what you want defined.

Ah, but the definition as a node is exactly what would eliminate some of the issues we have been discussing. Allowing to mount anywhere on the mounting plate creates all this freedom for interpretation and adds to the gray area. I would say that from engineering standpoint adding "node" into the rule would be better as well as following the intent of the 8 point rule.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
I think people read the rule book far too often with their own prejudice.

Not hardly. Just reading the rules as written.

George, I had no idea that you had a corner on the market of being right all the time. Your lack of objectivity is only exceeded by your arrogance. Maybe nobody needs to buy a GCR, they can just ask you for the answer.



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