Jacking pads legal?

[seattle7]

Is it legal to install pads underneath the rocker panel, so you can jack the whole side of the car up without mashing the pinch rail?
I couldn't find this anywhere in the GCR or ITCS.
Thanks,
Mike

[chuck baader]

Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all. I saw a neat setup on nascar bars....a tube with flat plate extending down from the bars to the bottom area of the door...open the door...jack point. You are on your own on the passenger side. Chuck

[lateapex911]

basically, no.

But I have seen that and a whole lot more. On a first gen RX-7 I saw a U channel running the length of the car. No flattened "frame rail" on that car!

What I would suggest is to weld a pipe down from your lower door bar at the balance point and attach a plate to that pipe, flat to the floor. Then jack that part of the floor.

Don't attach the plate to the floor, that would be the 7th and 8th attachment points. Touching is not attaching.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 19 2005, 08:20 PM
Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all. I saw a neat setup on nascar bars....a tube with flat plate extending down from the bars to the bottom area of the door...open the door...jack point. You are on your own on the passenger side. Chuck

[snapback]60624[/snapback]

I respectfully disagree Chuck. Where does it say you can add to the chassis?

On the passenger door, things should be different soon, as NASCAR bars are nearly legal on that side.

[Speed Raycer]

The only arguments that I've heard against the added bar/pad sites the "any # of tubes WITHIN the confines of the cage" rule. Is it within the confines of the cage???? IMO, yes, but I'm sure that there are other opinions.

More pics....

[lateapex911]

Thats what I'm talking about!

But isn't the tube size rule not in effect any more? Well, as of......

[seattle7]

Judging from the responses,

a) it's probably not (or definitely not) legal to mount a pad directly to the bottom of the rocker panel, per IIDSYCYC
it's probably not a good idea to support 1/2 the car via the rocker panel alone anyway!

So does everyone just jack up one wheel at a time?

Thanks,

Mike
1986 RX-7 ITS

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by seattle7@Sep 19 2005, 11:55 PM
So does everyone just jack up one wheel at a time?

Ironically enough, my main hoop attachment point makes a perfect jacking point for the whole side of the car.

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Sep 19 2005, 11:58 PM
Ironically enough, my main hoop attachment point makes a perfect jacking point for the whole side of the car.

[snapback]60661[/snapback]

Yeah, but your car's only 8 feet long!!!!

[MMiskoe]

One thing I have done is to build a jig for my floor jack. If you have a jack that you can remove the cup, leaving a round hole this works. A pc of small angle iron (1"x1"x1/8" or so) about 24" long w/ a stub of pipe/round bar in the middle. The round stub sits in the hole where the cup was, the angle iron, "V" up lands on the bottom of the rocker lip and distributes the load so it doesn't crush. Works ok, but has to be lined up right and hurts like hell when you leave this in the jack at shin height.

Now - WHY THE F___ CAN"T WE GET AN ALLOWANCE TO BUILD JACK POINTS?

If things like nascar bars are added over time in the spirit of safety and aren't considered class creep, why can't simple jack points get added? It would not be hard to write it up so that they are for jacking the car, not for adding stiffness. I'd be happy to help draft it.

[lateapex911]

have you submitted a leter to that effect??

If not, why not give it a shot?

(Although it is a workable situation)

[jc836]

IMHO-it is not legal to add what is shown in the pic. That is an attachment point for the cage. With that said-I do agree that there can be a way to connect a flat plate under the car at the CG (ala NASCAR) with a tube going to the cage once such is approved.
Meantime, We use the front and rear pickup/tiedown points to lift the end of the car. I grant this is not the best solution for those with airdam/splitter assemblies up front.
If we are truly concerned about costs and rules creep then the rules as they are should stay as is. I think it possible for someone to argue in favor of airjacks or even a plate/scissors hydraulic jack unit in the pits.

I do like the idea of a modified jack that has a way to connect to the existing jacking points. The channel device is actually made and used on several jacks currently on the market-but these are pricey. The homemade version is a good solution and in keeping with the rules since it does not add anything to the chassis. Just be sure that the jack is rated for 2+ tons.

[Bill Miller]

Not sure how that wouldn't be legal, or how it would be considered an attachment point. I don't see any welds around that pad. If it touches the sheetmetal, but isn't fastned to it, how can it be an attachment point?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Get your own avitars!!! :P

I see that pad from Izzy as legal. Not welded, not bolted - not an attachement point.

As far as writing a rule, make sure it includes maximum dimensions and a maximum quantity, and maximum EVERYTING. Why? Because creative builders will start 'using' them to relocate weight to wherever they dang-well please under the guise of a JP.

Whenever I read a new suggestion , I alsways try and 'torture' it as much as possible to understand the ramifications.

Matt - throw some wording around and lets tweak it for submission.

AB

[Greg Amy]

We've had the "touch" versus "attachment point" argument before, ad nausea,last time was 'how close can you make the tubes to the chassis' (the search is your friend...) The general consensus was that "touching" is fine (although it bunched up some panties), but "attaching" (welding, bolting, etc) is not. Ergo, the pictured pad is legal, assuming it is not "attached" (i.e., that tube could be cut and the rest would be removed by hand.)

I like the idea of having a slip-fit tube in the bars with the door open. Clever. - GA

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by jc836@Sep 21 2005, 06:32 AM
IMHO-it is not legal to add what is shown in the pic. That is an attachment point for the cage.

Which is why I took this pic:


Here's the other side:

[chuck baader]

Respectively, Jake, who is going to carp about adding a reinforcment for 6" of pinch rail... Chuck

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 19 2005, 08:20 PM
Only if it is under an IT legal cage attachment point, or not associated with the cage at all.

[snapback]60624[/snapback]

Chuck I italicized the section I was referring to.

I guess the issue becomes where and how you "draw the line" as Andy pointed out above.

Again, I saw a 1st gen in Atlanta with a U channel that was welded to the "frame" section of the unibody...it was over 3 feet long.

I was told it was for "jacking purposes"...

whatever....

[Knestis]

The jacking point is clearly legal. Removing the cross brace/seat mount on the floor, on the other hand... :P

K

[lateapex911]

Kirk, thats a 1st gen RX-7, and it appears to me that the peice I think you are referring to is still there.

(The grey thing that runs up the rocker and has three tabs with screws?)