seat mounting rules

[dickita15]

Below is a draft of a letter I am going to send to the CRB. I believe a problem exists and would like some feed back as to whether I am on the right track and if anyone sees a problem with unintended consequences.

Dear CRB,
I am concerned about how to best mount a racing seat in class where there are limitations on the number of cage attachments points. It seems to make sense to attach the seat to the roll cage rather that to attach it to the sheet metal floor only. In my understanding of the current rules it is fairly simple to fabricate a frame or basket to support the seat and attach it to the cage at the rear of the seat. The basket can also be attached on the driver’s side to the door bars. The problem comes when you try to secure the right hand side of the “basket” to the tunnel it becomes an additional roll cage attachment point.
I would like to find a way to securely mount a seat to the chassis and the cage without violating the number of attachment points. I certainly do not want any rule change to inadvertently allow substantial chassis stiffening that would allow a competitive advantage.
If the CRB agrees that an issue exists and a stronger seat structure should be allowed maybe a rule such as below would be possible.
Mounting structures for racing seats may attach to the floor, cage and or center tunnel. Seat mounting points forward of the main hoop, between the centerline of the car and the driver’s side door bar and rearward of the front edge of the seat bottom are not considered cage attachment points in classes with limitations on the number of attachments.

[zchris]

I would argue the need. If the cage is fit tight to the unibody, you can plate the inner rocker panel and the tunnel. Run tubes between the rocker and tunnel, in front and behind the seat. Then build your seat mounts off of that. I have looked at lots of wrecked cars and have never seen any large movement in the drivers floor pan. Some small tears on a Shine customer car that hit NHMS oval wall and then got rearended. That was a massive hit and the seat did not move, even though there was a little tear in the floor underneath. Beran Peters also front end crashed his AS car at Mid O so hard it ripped the trans tunnel. I do not believe the seat moved on that one either. For safety sake I think we should be able to do anything we want including 360 welding to the unibody. It would also make cars live longer by stressing the unibody less. But I think the seat rule, if changed, will just open up a can off worms and add little true safety. Just my opinion.
Chris

[Spinnetti]

I would argue the need. If the cage is fit tight to the unibody, you can plate the inner rocker panel and the tunnel. Run tubes between the rocker and tunnel, in front and behind the seat. Then build your seat mounts off of that. I have looked at lots of wrecked cars and have never seen any large movement in the drivers floor pan. Some small tears on a Shine customer car that hit NHMS oval wall and then got rearended. That was a massive hit and the seat did not move, even though there was a little tear in the floor underneath. Beran Peters also front end crashed his AS car at Mid O so hard it ripped the trans tunnel. I do not believe the seat moved on that one either. For safety sake I think we should be able to do anything we want including 360 welding to the unibody. It would also make cars live longer by stressing the unibody less. But I think the seat rule, if changed, will just open up a can off worms and add little true safety. Just my opinion.
Chris

I's second that... I also think the cage rules are foolish. We have an endlessly growing number of safety rules, yet we don't want to stiffen the chassis by allowing the cage to touch it. That's nuts.

[pitbull113]

We always mounted the seats to the cage. If you got hit on the drivers side and the cage did move the seat moved with it. We ran two bars off the door bars and one down from the bar behind the seat but not back to the tunnel. Three mounting points were enough.

[TomL]

I have to agree with the naysayers. I think this is a solution to a non-existent problem. Mounting the seat off the rear hoop and side bars should be adequate. And even if you decided to attach the mount to the floor or tunnel, who would ever complain? I've never heard of such a protest, and anyone who would do so is revealing himself as a jackass. And I would hope that anyone reviewing such a protest would turn it down - it's a "strained or tortured interpretation" to call a seat mount a cage attaching point.

BTW, I once bought a car that had just such seat mount. Had won a bunch of races and never was protested. (I subsequently changed the mount, but only because I had to mount a bigger seat.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe it's not about protests - these cars should never make it through their first annual tech.

[mbuskuhl]

I I have looked at lots of wrecked cars and have never seen any large movement in the drivers floor pan.

The floor pan can and will move in a wreck. Below is a Spec 7 that I share a shop who took a hard hit a month ago. It is alledged he was purposefully taken out by another driver, but that's another story and can be found on another forum. Fortunately it was the passenger side but notice how much the floor pan moved up? If that would have been the drivers side his head would have been forced into the roof. Any HNR would be of no help when your head is ejected upwards.

I think the pictures below are a good argument for seat mounts that are integrated into the cage. I know I'll be doing a new seat mount on my car, but don't have to contend with IT rules anymore. FWIW, the cage in the car below held up fine.

It's also a good time to make sure your belts are mounted correctly. His sub belt was not, it was too far forward and ruined his new Sparco seat. Read the manufacturers installation instructions. Sub belt mounting for Schroth is here on page 16 - http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/docs/Co...structions.pdf