Nascar Door Bar Installation Legality

[zchris]

OK , the Benz in the classifieds has brought up a good question on what is legal installation. In the past, if it did not say it was OK in the ruleset, it was not. Now is cutting the B-pillar legal to install nascar bars. In the case of a 4 door car, it is certainly stronger. But I cannot find wording that says that is an acceptable part of the car to cut. Only the door itself. Now if it were up to me we would be allowed to weld the cage to the unibody anywhere and everywhere. But I do not write the rules. Come on you rules nerds. Let this not be part of rules creep.
Chris

[Charlie Broring]

I know of two ITB cars with the door bar going through the B pillar. This resulted in a much stronger and safer installation then using a "zig-zag" bar with two bends in in order to go around the pillar. I question the legality however.

[TomL]

9.1.3.f includes a provision "Other than to provide for installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." To me, that says you can modify the chassis to install safety equipment (e.g., the cage).

[dickita15]

I have always read that the same way as Tom.

[Ed Funk]

Don,t think passenger compartment and chassis are the same thing. If allowed to make chassis mods to allow roll cage installation......whew, slippery slope!!

[ddewhurst]

9.1.3.f includes a provision "Other than to provide for installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." To me, that says you can modify the chassis to install safety equipment (e.g., the cage).

Playing the deviles advocate.

Using rule stated by Tom is it legal to remove the metal braces welded in place between the A pillar & the cowl when installing the front down tubes for an ITA Miata?

[joeg]

Why Not!

On the B-Pillar, as long as you do not weld rhe remaining pillar to the installed door bar, you are perfectly legal.

[Ed Funk]

Is the B pillar part of the chassis? Can I cut a hole in an inner fender to take the rear brace to a more advantageous point on the rear suspension cross member?

[Z3_GoCar]

Why not weld the door bars to a base plate that runs up the B pillar? I've seen several Miatae that don't have the door bars welded to the cage hoop, but rather the base plate that runs up the B pillar bulkhead.

[zchris]

Well I am gonna say that with the response so far and a lack off response from my favorite rules nerds, rules creep has officially happened. 6 years ago when Brian Jones was chief of tech here in the NER, he would have sent you packing. You all may remember the SM/Delgenio debacle. I have a 4 door e36 coming up on my schedule and I will now take full advantage of the new interpratation. I have done many Rally America cars in the last few years and have learned a few tricks on chassis bracing that will fall right into this relaxed interpratation of SCCA rules. Thanks for the responses.
Chris

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

I certainly don't think it's legal to the spirit of the rule - or the intent. But with such a 'grey' statement that is in the rules, I am just not sure how to respond.

Cutting the B-pillar to facilitate a 'door' bar seems like a far stretch to me. The rule says that door bars may extend into the DOOR, not anything else.

Let me ask you this because you are a cage guy...a cross bar is recommended...but what if you put it in such a place where your dash has to come out and can't be replaced? Hate rules like that....

[zchris]

Andy,
I fully agree with you that it is not in the spirit of the rules. But as Dick Patullo is a Tech Steward and he feels its OK, then it should be OK for my customer also. Do you feel the slide down the slippery slope. And if its OK to go thru the B-pillar, then if I can stretch the main hoop pad up the B-pillar I can run the tube thru the pad on the inside of the pillar before getting to the main hoop. It meets the letter of the law then. If you allow the hole in the B-pillar then you open up a can of worms with the current pad rules. I am sure this was not the intent, but. This all comes from things I have seen on Pheonix Racing SS and Touring cars I have seen over the past few years. I am just looking to see where the rules have now moved to as there seems to be a changing landscape everytime I revisit the SCCA ruleset. The above is about 4 door cars.
Chris

[tom91ita]

isn't the pertinent portion where it says "required" equipment?

i thought we needed two bars across the door way between the front and the main hoop but that they did NOT need to be "nascar" style that go into the door.

the "nascar" curve section is what makes these weaker and is not needed, iirc.

[chuck baader]

Just a comment...the rules say you can modify the door for safety. I, et al, assume they mean the front driver's door, but it does not say...therefore, you may modify both doors for installation of the bars/cage. Chuck

[tderonne]

The whole cage used to have be be contained inside the passenger compartment. With the rules rewrite, the only mention I see is that the mounting plates have to be within the passenger compartment.

With the old rules one could argue that the cage that ends up inside the B pillar was no longer inside the passenger compartment. That argument appears to be gone now.

[Chip42]

I'm going to have to go with NO on this one, here's why:

1. main hoop has to be the full width of the cockpit (9.4.B.1)
2. Front hoop must follow the A pillars (9.4.C.1.a)
3. Two side tubes connecting the front an main hoops are required. these may be nascar style or an X. they may extend into the fornt door. a long list of door parts may be removed if the door bars enter the door cavity (9.4.C)
4. Any number of additional elements may be added within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure (9.4.G.6)

the B pillar is not part of the door. the only REQUIREMENT is to connect the front and rear hoops, which by definition does not require penetration through the door or anything else (in most cars, certianly true this one). There is no allowance given to leave the cage envelope (AKA required structure, consisting of main and front hoops, door bars, rear support braces, and allowed front 7th and 8th points - see 4 above)except by "may extend into the front door" and there's a laundry list of specifically allowed and disallowed modifications to accompany that. the only allowance I can see for bulkhead penetration is for braces and the like through to the trunk etc... "through any mandatory or optional bulkhead..." and that's in a different section of the cage rules than door bars.

Do I think it's safer this way? yes - in a rollover or heavy impact, the possibly compromised B pillar is redundant to the cage. the load path is significantly better that the zig-zag or "Z" bend needed with a more stricct adhearance to the rule, assuming the door bar continues as shown in a strait line to the main hoop.

but I can't find substantiating allowance to do this - the nascar door treatment is NOT mandatory, so there is no blanket allowance. Tech guys will differ in opinion, they do about everything, anyway. even if one says OK, another might not. easier to just NOT build the cage this way and KNOW it will get signed off.

[betamotorsports]

I would also say no. I'm a Divisional Scrutineer in CalClub and that would not pass IT tech under Chuck or Dennis. IMHO, I think its a good idea but until we see a rule change allowing it it falls under the "if it doesn't say you can..." catch-all.

FYI... I've stamped three E36 4 door ITR cages and none went through the B-pillar. All just leaned the top bar(s) into a cut out door with the bottom bar running straight along the top of the rocker panel.

[dickita15]

Andy,
But as Dick Patullo is a Tech Steward and he feels its OK, then it should be OK for my customer also. ......Chris

Chris, I am not a steward but I do have a national tech inspector’s license. My opinion is worth no more or less than any other tech worker.

I still agree with Tom in post 3. I think it would be acceptable to pierce or notch the B pillar to install a legal cage based on 9.1.3.f. but nothing is a sure thing unless it has had a ruling from the Court of Appeals.

[Speed Raycer]

I think you're seeing creep from other sanctioning body builds (NASA allows punching through the B pillar)- or builders that don't pay attention to the different rules.

If it were me, I'd build it to the letter of the rule UNLESS the owner signed off on going through the B. I'd rather punch through the B pillar on a 4 door w/NASCAR bars, but I'd rather build a legal cage first.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm going to have to go with NO on this one, here's why:

1. main hoop has to be the full width of the cockpit (9.4.B.1)
2. Front hoop must follow the A pillars (9.4.C.1.a)
3. Two side tubes connecting the front an main hoops are required. these may be nascar style or an X. they may extend into the fornt door. a long list of door parts may be removed if the door bars enter the door cavity (9.4.C)
4. Any number of additional elements may be added within the boundaries of the minimum cage structure (9.4.G.6)

the B pillar is not part of the door. the only REQUIREMENT is to connect the front and rear hoops, which by definition does not require penetration through the door or anything else (in most cars, certianly true this one). There is no allowance given to leave the cage envelope (AKA required structure, consisting of main and front hoops, door bars, rear support braces, and allowed front 7th and 8th points - see 4 above)except by "may extend into the front door" and there's a laundry list of specifically allowed and disallowed modifications to accompany that. the only allowance I can see for bulkhead penetration is for braces and the like through to the trunk etc... "through any mandatory or optional bulkhead..." and that's in a different section of the cage rules than door bars.

Do I think it's safer this way? yes - in a rollover or heavy impact, the possibly compromised B pillar is redundant to the cage. the load path is significantly better that the zig-zag or "Z" bend needed with a more stricct adhearance to the rule, assuming the door bar continues as shown in a strait line to the main hoop.

but I can't find substantiating allowance to do this - the nascar door treatment is NOT mandatory, so there is no blanket allowance. Tech guys will differ in opinion, they do about everything, anyway. even if one says OK, another might not. easier to just NOT build the cage this way and KNOW it will get signed off.

I agree with this reasoning.