Weatherstripping

[jimbbski]

My passenger door has the crank window and OEM door panel. I like it that way.

Same here. I even kept the electric side mirrors!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Same here. I even kept the electric side mirrors!

Me too. So easy to adjust in a pinch.

[lateapex911]

It all depends on your min weight.... A window motor low in the right door is a great place to leave weight if you are underweight...

[Flyinglizard]

I dont see many pas doors with the panel beat into the hole, so that the nascar bars can fit, per rules.

FWIW my new SM has both electric mirrors working.

Making a big deal out of 25yr old rubber door seals is as counterproductive as the heat shield discussion . IMHO.
The car may go faster with all of the seals, less sq in of contact to air.
Back to my hole. sorry . MM

[tom91ita]

The perimeter door weatherstripping and hatch perimeter weatherstripping

Got it.

[JeffYoung]

My passenger door has the crank window and OEM door panel. I like it that way.

Your "like" would change if you werent' carrying so much ballast....lol.....

[adamjabaay]

Got it.

Your the best buddy.

I'm headed to a job on Gun Lake tomorrow ....if it goes well I'll cruise up to you after! I'll call ya tomorrow

[Andy Bettencourt]

Your "like" would change if you werent' carrying so much ballast....lol.....

For sure.

[Xian]

Your "like" would change if you werent' carrying so much ballast....lol.....

What I hear is "Please review my ITS TR8 for additional ballast." Would certainly save you the time/hassle of trying to get weight out of the car...

[lateapex911]

I dont see many pas doors with the panel beat into the hole, so that the nascar bars can fit, per rules.

FWIW my new SM has both electric mirrors working.

Making a big deal out of 25yr old rubber door seals is as counterproductive as the heat shield discussion . IMHO.
The car may go faster with all of the seals, less sq in of contact to air.
Back to my hole. sorry . MM

Wait, are you saying the rules require you to "beat the panel into the hole so that NASCAR doors can fit"??

If so, my reading of the rules is drastically different than yours.

[Flyinglizard]

" modified but not removed"

[Chip42]

For M.O., from Roll cgaes for GT and production based cars:

SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and main hoops across both door
openings are mandatory. Tubes that are welded to any part of the same
mounting plate are considered to be connected to one another (see
9.4.E.3 below). NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another
to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the
front door. In Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring
the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim
panel, armrest, map pockets, wiring harnesses for door locks, windows,
power mirrors, seat wiring, etc., and inside door latch/lock operating
mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be
modified, but not removed only if the door bars extend into the door cavity.
The stock outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be
removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.
All categories except Production and GT shall not remove or modify stock
side impact beams unless specifically authorized.

means the inner metal structure has to be there in some form. you can cut chunks out of it, but you can't just gut the whole thing. you certainly don't have to beat the panel to accomplish fitment.

[lateapex911]

Yea, the compliant thing to do if you are looking to shed pounds is to remove the panel and door innards, leaving a 1/2" or so section of the panels perimeter. Put door opening welting on that raw edge for protection. ...........then make sure at least ONE bar enters the door cavity to some minimal degree. And thats it, rule met. You CAN build huge structures on that side, but id you're trying to make weight, thats a bad idea.

But just so we understand, the rule allows nearly complete door gutting IF a SINGLE horizontal bar protrudes into the cavity.

[Flyinglizard]

This is the evolution of the rule. This rule was changed around 1994 or so. I built cars before and after that(50+cars). The first year, the tech guys said to slice the panel and pound the panel clear of the door bars. We ( builders ) said that was stupid, he said that was the rule,live with it.
The next year many of the cars had the panel cut away, as they are now, just leaving the edge with a hint of the panel plane.
The same( FLR) tech guy said that we were all illegal. WE said that if we all went home, so could he. ( And the cut out panel became the norm around 1995.)
Now days the car have the panels cut out, both sides. Often the pas side have the stronger,lighter, short straight bars. With no door panel intrusion.
The rule has changed but the old wording has stayed. IMHO.
No place else in the GCR does" modify" equal remove large parts of.
Not really an issue IMHO. Look around at the SM cars. Those guys cut everything and no body cares.

[lawtonglenn]

But just so we understand, the rule allows nearly complete
door gutting IF a SINGLE horizontal bar protrudes into the cavity.

only if the door bars extend into the door cavity.

We have no dog in this fight...we have kept our windows in all our
cars, changing them to rollup from power... but I am curious Jake
why do you say "SINGLE bar" if the rule says "bars" plural?

.

[lateapex911]

only if the door bars extend into the door cavity.

We have no dog in this fight...we have kept our windows in all our
cars, changing them to rollup from power... but I am curious Jake
why do you say "SINGLE bar" if the rule says "bars" plural?

.

The regs may require two bars, but the glossary defines nascar bars as "one or more" bars which protrude into the door cavity.
So, ergo, only one of the two required bars is required to break the plane that defines the door cavity.

I think the rule was written that way to encourage people to use the space within the door for added protection, and to give as much flexibility to existing situations.
On my car, i made a set up that had a door bar meet the internal door beam, and the vertical sections transferred down to a lower bar that was a bit inboard. I decided to use the space based on wanting to keep the offending T bone car as far from me as possible. But on the passenger side, I bust broke into the cavity, and used a modified X pattern. I wanted lighter weight, increased chassis strength/stiffness gains and crumple space for lower Gs if there is a T bone on that side.
My X barely entered the cavity.

[dickita15]

This is the evolution of the rule.

Sadly you are right, rules interpretations evolve and worse local tech inspectors sometimes do not interpret as intended. This of course is the very hard challenge of writing clear rules.
For instance recently we found that in two divisions it was interpreted that FIA seats need back braces when they get old. The tech department and CRB disagreed and it has been clarified that for SCCA this is not true. Sadly the club made things more difficult that it needed to be for competitors in those areas for years.
One of this internet board’s biggest value is to vet these interpretation difference and build a consensus as to what the rules mean.

[Greg Amy]

...recently we found that in two divisions it was interpreted that FIA seats need back braces when they get old. The tech department and CRB disagreed and it has been clarified that for SCCA this is not true...

This likely stems from NASA regs, which initially interpreted it that way, then explicitly require back braces after five years. I ran across this last time I raced with NASA (almost got sent home) and has been the primary technical reason I have not raced with them in five years (I refuse to modify my FIA-certified seat to add a back brace).

As you know, Dick, this is something that scrutineering circles discussed internally and chose to disregard, but I like that we're explicitly codifying it in the GCR.

GA

[Flyinglizard]

I have a customer car here now for the FAI seat brace.
I was told the same thing by tech/owner. Over 5 or 10yrs old( second hand info). The seat needs a brace.
What is the actual rule? The seats are not designed for any structure up near the shoulders IMHo as they flex a bit and are quit thin.
I can understand some sort of "back stop" rule, to keep the driver from loosening the belts in a rear hit. The back stop should be at or just under the shoulders, well under the neck/head impact area IMHO.
I dont want to drill the shoulder area without adding a lot of glass/plate to spread the load. In carbon/glass structure, that can lead to other failure points by increasing the strength in one spot . I dont want to do a LPA for modifying a seat.
TIA, MM

[dickita15]

What is the actual rule?

9.3.41. SEATS
The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats that have been homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999, or seats that have been certified to FIA. Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure.
Note it now says “Seats that have been homologated”. This should clear up an confusion on expired certifications in SCCA at least.
If I was adding a back brace for some other sanctioning body I would never drill a composite seat. I would bond something to it. Double stick tape might work.