Cage Legality

[Speed Raycer]

While scanning the internet for cages (gotta stay current with the competition ), I came across this design and wanted to see what others thought about it.



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

Izzy's Custom Cages

[lateapex911]

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]

[Speed Raycer]

I've heard the "handle" description before, but I think that handles on the passenger side stretches that a little

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.

[Knestis]

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).]

[Speed Raycer]

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?

[Greg Amy]

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

[lateapex911]

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).]

[m glassburner]

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).]

[Geo]

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

[lateapex911]

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]

[Bill Miller]

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

[Greg Amy]

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

[Geo]

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

[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... (hint, hint... Do I need to get out a hammer??? )

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???


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

[lateapex911]

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).]

[Geo]

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...

Actually I brought it up in one of our conference calls.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Actually I brought it up in one of our conference calls.

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!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Geo]

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....


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

[lateapex911]

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]

[Geo]

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

Hehe



Hehe






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