Cage photos in Tech Center is it legal?

[Speed Raycer]

Seat frame looks fine to me. Doesn't seem to be mounted anywhere but to the cage (it's removed in the later pics for the paint process)

Even if it is bolted to the chassis, how is that any different than mounting a non FIA seat w/the required seat brace?

[Speed Raycer]

But only ONE on each side. See the GCR rules.

It doesn't say that. It says one bar may extend from each down tube to the firewall. That doesn't mean that tubes can't attach to tubes. So, w/o seeing the attachment point to the firewall, you can't say that the setup is illegal... plus, that could be a pre '08 logbooked cage

[arpenn]

Scott,
What type of tubing bender do you use to build your cages? My friend has a hydraulic tubing bender for exhaust, and he has the 1 1/2" die for it, do you think that will work on 1 1/2" DOM .120?

[JimLill]

Jim is that picture an example of what is right, or what is wrong?

It looks right to me, an those two tubes go to a single mounting point.

[Speed Raycer]

Scott,
What type of tubing bender do you use to build your cages? My friend has a hydraulic tubing bender for exhaust, and he has the 1 1/2" die for it, do you think that will work on 1 1/2" DOM .120?

Depends on if it's a crush type bender or not. Most exhaust shops that I've seen use a crush type bender (unless it's a performance/tuner shop and have a mandrel bender). Easiest way would be to chuck a piece of DOM up and see if it deforms the inside of the bend...

[arpenn]

So what type of bender do you use?

[Speed Raycer]

Hossfeld Type 2

[jhooten]

in the 2008 GCR rewrite they are covered in the same section of the book.

David is right.

Ok, I see it is for new cars. Cars with a log book prior to 1/1/08 can continue to use the current cage.

[Grumpy]

On the two bars foward of A pillar deal.

Some can read that one bar may go forward from the A pillar.

OR

Some can say I can attach extra tubes wherever I choose.

I can argue both cases. Rules might need to say what they mean.

[Grumpy]

By definition I believe they do not go to one point since they but do not touch the plate.

My previous post is not influenced by this.

[Speed Raycer]

By definition I believe they do not go to one point since they but do not touch the plate.

My previous post is not influenced by this.

Can you clarify this? I'm a little confused since it looks like your 1st sentance is missing something.

Only one bar goes from the downbar to the firewall and any number of tubes is allowed for the cage so?????

AGAIN... this only impacts new '08 logbook builds anyway.

[shwah]

On the two bars foward of A pillar deal.

Some can read that one bar may go forward from the A pillar.

OR

Some can say I can attach extra tubes wherever I choose.

I can argue both cases. Rules might need to say what they mean.

You can argue both cases, but only one is right. What is pictured is totally legal. The rules specify cage connection points, and required tubes. The rules also allow any number of additional tubes. You don't have to be right to argue though.

[Grumpy]

It would count as one point but be careful that all the tubes that are supossed to touch the plate are.

[shwah]

You are completely right. I was not thinking in terms of the current (new) cage rule set. Sorry for the confusion. One tube is what it says, so one tube is what it shall be until those words are changed.

[Speed Raycer]

Here are the rules that I see applying to this situation:

Cars competing in Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring may extend one tube, from each front down tube, forward to the firewall but not penetrating the firewall.....

Any number of additional tube elements is permitted within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure.

IMO, the cage tubes pictured meet the first rule because one tube extends "from each front down tube, forward to the firewall but not penetrating the firewall."

The second tube does not touch the firewall pad and is permitted under the second rule. There is no rule that says they both have to touch the pad.

This really should be on DD's list of dumb cage rules. If they're really looking to protect the drivers foot/leg area, then let us do it. Don't handicap us with the wording just because people are finding some chassis benifits from it. If you want to get rid of the chassis benifits but keep the protection, allow a 7th point on the drivers side but no 8th point.

[shwah]

But they are not within the minimum cage structure. The front tubes are optional.

I am writing a letter on this to ask that they return to the regulation of connection points, rather than tubes.

[Grumpy]

One GCR rule says only one bar can go from A pillar to footwell, and another rule says you can add bars wherever you want. Clear as mud.

This is the first car I have seen with two bars forward.

Time to check in with SCCA National Office.

[spnkzss]

Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?

[shwah]

This is only an issue with the 2008 rule wording. Previously it was quite clear. The fact that they identifiy the number of tubes that can go forward is different than in the past.

It is quite common for IT cars to have two bars going forward to each of the allowed firewall connection points.

I would like to see that still be a legal design, as it provides greater protection from wheel intrusion.

[shwah]

Could you put both bars for your 8 points on the drivers side?

I think yes.