Proposal: passenger seats

[vtluu]

9.1.3.9.e currently reads:

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

I'd like it to see it amended to:

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted.

Or (to be more pedantic):

Front passenger seat and seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

... with maybe another statement saying substituted components should serve no other purpose and should not interfere with driver egress (relative to the already-allowed OEM ones).

I hope everyone here agrees that a passenger seat offers no conceivable competitive advantage (and compared to the same weight in ballast, which is mounted lower, it's a disadvantage).

I use my car for instruction purposes at track days and it would be nice if I didn't have to swap the 30-ish lbs of passenger seat and harnesses for ballast before each race. Not that I do, and not that I would likely ever be protested, but it would be nice to have a formal allowance.

Thoughts, comments?

EDIT: latest wording attempt:

Front passenger seat and seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted; substituted components may serve no purpose other than that of the original components. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed. In any automobile where allowed removal of rear seats, upholstery, etc., creates an opening between the driver/passenger compartment and an exposed gas tank, fuel cell, or part thereof, a metal bulkhead which completely fills such opening shall be installed (See GCR 9.3.26.1.)

[Knestis]

I don't know what popular opinion might be but I for one understand the situation... It might be best to think about being specific:

Front passenger seat, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed or substituted. Rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, rear seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

...making distinct what can be substituted and what can only be taken out...?

K

[vtluu]

I don't know what popular opinion might be but I for one understand the situation... It might be best to think about being specific

Yep, hence my second suggested wording.

At the same time I understand the desire to keep things (rules) as simple as possible. What competitive advantage could be gained by substituting back seat/mounting hardware? My first thought would be maybe someone removing a back seat, then attaching a carbon fiber panel over it to cover the hole instead of the required metal bulkhead, and calling the panel a "substitute seat back". But would that already be considered a "tortured" interpretation of the rules?

[gran racing]

What's your goal with this? Is it to allow a race seat or just an OEM seat with racing belts? If a race seat and the way you have it worded...I'd have a nice large steel box slider built and ensure the seat could be moved as far back as possible with my cage (for safety sake of course). There should also be some steel reenforcement below the seat cushon as well.

I'm sure the first respnose is it would be considered a "tortured" interpretation of the rules, but it's up to someone's judgement, then someone elses after an appeal is filed. The current wording or Kirks is more clear cut.


Ps - I too instruct and just up until this year ran with a passenger seat in my car.

[StephenB]

I have been out of instructing for a while since my schedule makes it almost impossible so I apologize in advance if this makes no sence!!

Don't most instructing schools now require that the passenger belts are "of the same type" and meet the same safety requirements as the drivers belts are? Does this also apply to the seats in those schools?

Stephen

[vtluu]

Don't most instructing schools now require that the passenger belts are "of the same type" and meet the same safety requirements as the drivers belts are? Does this also apply to the seats in those schools?

Requirements/recommendations vary, and I'm not interested in making IT rules to enforce any such requirements.

In my particular case, the passenger seat is a Sparco Roadster "street" seat with a Schroth Profi-II ASM 4-point belt, because (a) the Roadster seat has no anti-sub belt holes, and (b) the (passenger-side) anti-sub belt anchor points coincide with where the fuel and brake hard lines run under the car.

Dave: I agree Kirk's wording (which again I'll point out is exactly the same as my second wording) is preferable, since even a highly tortured interpretation of a "front seat" would yield fairly little useful structural reinforcement. (Keep in mind one could similarly make "ballast" out of metal bars and bolt it to the floor pan with an arbitrary number of attachment points.)

I could also add something like, "Substituted components may serve no other purpose than that of the original components."

[gran racing]

My bad. I read it wrong on Kirk's post - I thought the front passenger seat was moved to the "may be removed" but not substituted.