Jacking Points

[mbuskuhl]

Are you in favor of adding a rule to permit jacking points? The rule would need to be written so it's only purpose was to allow the addition of jacking points. The number of jacking points, style, location, and exact verbiage would be discussed if there was a common consensus that these are a necessary item.

Andy recently wrote that the ITAC was divided on this issue which means no recommendation goes to the CRB. I am curious if that was a dead even 50/50 vote and what the IT drivers on this forum feel.

Let the voting begin.

[dickita15]

I voted yes. I do believe we should allow them but you do have to write the rule carefully. I will say that I gave up waiting so as while building my new shell last winter I build them in to my cage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write the rule, then tear it apart, then re-write it. THEN vote.

We all WANT jacking points, that isn't the problem or the issue. And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................

[greendot]

And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................
[/b]

I'm not very creative in rules interpretations, but if I can do it without an allowance it seems that it must be easier than folks are letting on.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not hard at all. Guys who do it run a bar with a pad from the cage to the floor. If you don't weld it to the floor, it isn't considered an attachment point. Then when you jack up on the floorpan, you are really utilizing the pad and you won't get any compression of said pan.

[MMiskoe]

Yes, the rules do have ways that it can be done, but none are particularly effecient, practical or safe. This is the trouble.

Last summer when my letter got shot down the first time I asked how it was expected to do it w/in the current rules. We had a good discussion about how it was deemed that the current rules have enough loopholes to allow jack points.

The design premis is to utilize a 'foot' that comes down from the door bar to the floor to support the floor pan. All very well & good on the right side. However when this is applied to the left side of the car, it adds a member that intrudes on the driver space. When I asked if this was a good idea to do so, those present admitted that it was a dangerous way to build a car. NASCAR bars & their associated door gutting is soley to get the roll cage as far from the driver as possible.

Yes, the rules currently allow it, but not in a safe & conveniet way. The rules also allow us to repair damaged body work so should it be expected to just weld in new floor pans every winter? Most of what was changed with the ECU rule could have been done previously, but not easily.

This seems like such a no-brainer especially when you consider that it is one of the few modifications that extends its usefullness to the crew members, who are also being insured by SCCA.

Matt

[Bill Miller]

It's not hard at all. Guys who do it run a bar with a pad from the cage to the floor. If you don't weld it to the floor, it isn't considered an attachment point. Then when you jack up on the floorpan, you are really utilizing the pad and you won't get any compression of said pan.
[/b]

And if you elect not to repair that rust hole in the floor pan, you can extend that bar down through the hole.

[RSTPerformance]

I deleted post as it added no value.

I do however support a rule change to allow jacking points, good luck Matt.

Raymond

[tom91ita]

my cage is a bolt in and will likely have the bottom plate "reinforced" to better protect the bolts that fasten the cage to my car over the winter.

i do not want the heads of the bolts to be damaged due to driving over curbs or getting hit by my jack....

[ScotMac]

my cage is a bolt in and will likely have the bottom plate "reinforced" to better protect the bolts that fasten the cage to my car over the winter.

i do not want the heads of the bolts to be damaged due to driving over curbs or getting hit by my jack....
[/b]

Right. My cage is bolt. I jack on the bolts anyway, because i don't have any other good jack points. Not great for the jack or the bolts. I recently welded it in, but still haven't taken out the bolts!!

[Matt Rowe]

I must be doing something wrong. Years now with the same car jacking it in the paddock and the shop. No matter if it's me or a crew member or family. They line the jack up with the bright orange arrow on the side of the car and lift. Never bent the car yet.

I don't see the need for the rule. All I see is another rule that someone can torture into what they want.

I guess if someone could explain to me why a specific car does not have a suitable jack point it would help but I have a hard time believing that. Anybody have a picture of an undercarriage that is unjackable?

[Bob Roth]

Yes

[RacerBill]

Yes, both sides of my Shelby's frames are very weak.

[Matt Rowe]

Bill, I own one of those cars. There are perfectly good jacking points on it. No need for anything more.

[dickita15]

Yes I found a way to make a jack point but only because I was doing a new cage. I ran the forward cage pad down the rocker on to the floor and then added a plate on the underside of the floor so that the cage mount is welded and bolted.
It is certainly not in the best place for weight distribution but it works. I really could not see a way to do it with my old cage.
Matt is right the foot idea is a problem on the driver’s side.
On my car the factory jack point were really not made for this type of abuse. They are made of tin foil origami and situated to do one wheel at a time. The frame rails are pretty inboard so they are hard to reach plus they bend when you jack on them.

[tom91ita]

I must be doing something wrong. Years now with the same car jacking it in the paddock and the shop. No matter if it's me or a crew member or family. They line the jack up with the bright orange arrow on the side of the car and lift. Never bent the car yet.

I don't see the need for the rule. All I see is another rule that someone can torture into what they want.

I guess if someone could explain to me why a specific car does not have a suitable jack point it would help but I have a hard time believing that. Anybody have a picture of an undercarriage that is unjackable?
[/b]

my honda has a very thin piece of metal for a jack support point on the sides by the rocker panels. over the years, these have bent and now the plastic rocker panels have been damaged/broken.

jacking at the track paddock where the grass/ground is not perfectly level also is part of the issue since things are more likely going to shift, etc. even when you chock tires.

if i am jacking on the front cross member or the rear of the car, not an issue (except having to drive on blocks in front to get the jack under). but frequently i want to jack up from the side to rotate tires front to back.

[mbuskuhl]

We all WANT jacking points, that isn't the problem or the issue. And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................
[/b]

I got the impression not everyone WANTS jacking points when you said the ITAC was divided on the issue. What I did for jacking points you may or may not feel is legal, I know others think it is outside the scope of the current rules. Why do we need to twist a current rule to get a mediocre and legally questionable result?

It's clear from this survey we all want jacking points, now we need to identify how many, location, method of attachment and form. So, discussion should now shift to try and get a consensus on these items before we try and write a rule.

I'd like to see a jacking point on each side of the car and 4 jack stand pads. Jacking points and pads may be a plate, tube, or a combination of both (plate on end of tube). Plates probably do not need to be any bigger than 5" x 5" x 1/4" or 25"sq/in. Attachment may be to the cage or floorboard, but not both (that would create an additional cage mounting point). Tubes may penetrate the floorboard. What do the rest of you want out of jacking points/pads?

Miskoe, will you post the rule you wrote? Anyone else write a proposed rule already?

Here is an old discussion on these http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6162

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is Matt's text:

Thanks,
Matt Miskoe
NER #42 ITS Nissan 300zx

Draft text for ITCS

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.
[/b]

[tom_sprecher]

Write the rule, then tear it apart, then re-write it. THEN vote.
[/b]

Jacking Plates:
1. A total of two jacking plates shall be allowed to be attached to the bottom of the car. Each jacking plate shall be at least .080 thick if welded and 3/16” thick (with appropriate backing plates) if bolted. There shall be a minimum of three (3) bolts per jacking plate if bolted.
2. Each jacking plate shall not be greater than 100 square inches and shall be no greater than twelve (12) inches or less than two (2) inches on a side.
3. Whenever possible, jacking plates shall extend onto a vertical section of the structure (such as a rocker box).
4. The jacking plate may be multi-angled but must not exceed these dimensions in a flat plane.

Seems that if the rule is good enough for roll cage mounting pads it should be OK for jacking plates as far as additional functionality is concerned. All you need is a plate to distribute the stress over a larger area. I am in the process of fabbing up a floor jack saddle that effectively does the same thing. I'd much rather have some plates welded up under the rockers.

[lateapex911]

You have two options to get this into the rule book IMO...

1 - Call the SCCA law firm and explain the safety hazard. 90% of accidents are in the padock, and obviosly this is a major safety issue that goes far beyond a simple cut finger when the car falls.


Raymond [/b]

Raymond please provide the source and facts for this statement, I'd be interested to know the actual numbers and injuries. Just a link will be fine, you don't have to go to the trouble of copying and pasting....I'm sure you found thin info somewhere on the web.........right?