More creep...

[lateapex911]

......as did my childhood blanky, ......, and the porn that I got rid of when I got married. :P

K
[/b]

Now THAT's an interesting combo in the "Rites of passage" book....

The rule allows "modification", but not "removal" of....but makes no reference to what the modification should be based on.

I would think that the rulesmakers know FULL well that we all are going to look at a rule and see what we can do with it. (If you give the keys to your new Ferrari to a pal, you KNOW you have to say "Keep it to posted limits" or whatever, if you don't want him whomping on it, right?) If they had intention of limiting the modification to something less than "up to Removal of..." they really missed the chance to write it in.

(And I'm not playing the "intent" card, LOL)

In the words of the great IT philosopher, "If it says you can, you bloody well can"...LOL.

Now lets see if he pops up and tells me this aint one of those times...

[Geo]

In the words of the great IT philosopher, "If it says you can, you bloody well can"...LOL.

Now lets see if he pops up and tells me this aint one of those times...
[/b]

Since my buddy Jake is calling me out.....

I cannot argue with your logic Jake. There is certainly plenty of fuzziness there. Andy makes a good point about the limitation for installation of safety equipment, but I agree with you that this rule specifically allows modification without limiting the extent and IMHO this trumps the more general rule Andy references. The question as I see it is when the modification turns into removal of the inner door panel. Folks have to decide for themselves where that line is and realize that if a tech inspector disagrees, you may be SOL.

Just as an aside, I am bothered by the fact the rule allows for removal of the inside door latch. I can see some poor bastard groggy after a nasty hit with the car on fire trying to figure out where the door latch he removed went to.

As for me, I don't have NASCAR bars. Don't want them. I'm perfectly happy with my 0.060" aluminum door skins I fabbed up.

I don't know how I earned the titile of "philosopher" (#$%^head usually is mentioned first ), but I do believe if a rule says you can do something and places no limitation on how you accomplish it, it's the wild west baby. You and I are involved in the rules writing process and it behooves us to to remember this so when we have to craft rules we are as clear as possible about what we want to allow and place limits beyond that.

[lateapex911]

............
Just as an aside, I am bothered by the fact the rule allows for removal of the inside door latch. I can see some poor bastard groggy after a nasty hit with the car on fire trying to figure out where the door latch he removed went to.[/b]

That's why I have a release latch where the old one was, and have it marked with a graphic arrow.

...... You and I are involved in the rules writing process and it behooves us to to remember this so when we have to craft rules we are as clear as possible about what we want to allow and place limits beyond that.[/b]

Exactamoondo!

[Joe Harlan]

NERDS Anonymous did an intervention and took mine away. I think it ultimately went to the same place as did my childhood blanky, my sense of indestructability, my youthful idealism, and the porn that I got rid of when I got married. :P
K
[/b]

There is the problem Kirk....Maybe your just wound to tight from giving this up....

[ddewhurst]

Joe, I'll give ya some information that has me all wound up.

I read the friken rules for roll cage side hoops for ITA Miata/Spec Miata & then remember what said cars with implemented roll cage side hoops look like I say to myself WHAT THE HELL IS THE VALUE OF THE WRITTEN RULES. With my understanding of the roll cage side hoop rules & knowing what the whole deal looks like behind the instrument panel (mine is apart at this time) anyone with the roll cage side hoop path going THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar is NOT IMHU of the rules LEGAL to the written rules.

I would appreciate anyone who owns one of these Miata's to enlighten me on the legal implementation of the side hoops THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar.


EDIT: Sorry, I for got no one protests anyone in IT so do what the hell ya care to do. (just like Production )

Or, wait untill someone protests the roll cage side hoop implementation. (Then the CRB will change the rule to match the illegal roll cage side hoop installations just like they do in Production )

[JamesB]

That's why I have a release latch where the old one was, and have it marked with a graphic arrow.
[/b]

I dont have an arrow, but I do have a pull handle in the area of the stock one.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I'll give ya some information that has me all wound up.

I read the friken rules for roll cage side hoops for ITA Miata/Spec Miata & then remember what said cars with implemented roll cage side hoops look like I say to myself WHAT THE HELL IS THE VALUE OF THE WRITTEN RULES. With my understanding of the roll cage side hoop rules & knowing what the whole deal looks like behind the instrument panel (mine is apart at this time) anyone with the roll cage side hoop path going THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar is NOT IMHU of the rules LEGAL to the written rules.

I would appreciate anyone who owns one of these Miata's to enlighten me on the legal implementation of the side hoops THROUGH the instrument panel within 1/2 inch of the A pillar.
EDIT: Sorry, I for got no one protests anyone in IT so do what the hell ya care to do. (just like Production )

Or, wait untill someone protests the roll cage side hoop implementation. (Then the CRB will change the rule to match the illegal roll cage side hoop installations just like they do in Production )
[/b]

David, In plain engrish......I can't tell ya. It is not the responsibilty of the competitor to protest safety gear...simple as that. How the hell do some of these cages get stamped? Maybe it was legal when looked at but changed after the fact? Annual Tech should catch those changes? I many times gone to th safety steward and pointed out a cage that was not compliant. You should not have to protest a none compliant safety stuff. the stews can deal with it in their own. The cage deal makes no sense. In my opinion the requirements should be the same all the way up. From IT/Touring all the way to GT. If I build a touring car this year the cage should be good all the way to GT. Spec them correctly so the added weight of a heavey cage does not prevent a car from being competitive.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

It also amazes me how some of this stuff gets through. I've seen logbooked cars where the welds where the top tubes attach to the main hoop weren't 360* welds (guess they couldn't get between the roof and the cage). Weld covered ~320*. How the hell does something like that get stamped????

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

It also amazes me how some of this stuff gets through. I've seen logbooked cars where the welds where the top tubes attach to the main hoop weren't 360* welds (guess they couldn't get between the roof and the cage). Weld covered ~320*. How the hell does something like that get stamped????
[/b]

Well because nobody looks.....

I have actually gone as far as taking photos of cars on track that when the driver steps on the brake his head pops up above the cage..........cracks me up....That Hans device will work real well with his helmet dragging the pavement..

[turboICE]

I have what I think may be a better question. Assuming that the allowance for NASCAR style door bar is for safety, why is the SCCA's requirement to be a NASCAR style door bar so weak?

NASCAR-Style Door Bars - If installed, shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to the front hoop[/b]

One bar intruding into the door cavity and done.

Even when most people talk about them elsewhere, maybe they think of it as two bars with trusses that intrude in the door.

What I think the rule and most nonNASCAR people completely miss is that observationally there is a much more significant design requirement in NASCAR (I say observationally because the rules themselves are proprietary.)

What I am talking about is that every current NASCAR cage I see are designed in a way to move intrusion forces on the door bar out of shear and into compression. This should be the real focus of the NASCAR door bar rule - reducing shear forces that would be exerted on the door bar joints with the main and front hoops.

Unless you move some of the force distribution out of shear and into compression - they aren't any safer than straight door tubes and some of the examples I have seen on track are definitely less safe.

Example:



Now this is very problematic for many of us with main hoops far behind the B pillar (myself included). Tube frame cars can manage this but when the best place for the main hoop is 6-9" behind the B pillar actually making "safer" NASCAR door bars is problematic.