Another Roll Cage Question

[anthony1k]

I've read through the 07 GCR section on roll cages and I still have a couple of question.

1. Does the two side bar rule go into effect for IT cars in 2007 or 2008?
2. Do all IT cages have to be welded (not bolted in)? If yes, is that effective in 2007or 2008?

Anyone with information please share.
Thanks

[JamesB]

I've read through the 07 GCR section on roll cages and I still have a couple of question.

1. Does the two side bar rule go into effect for IT cars in 2007 or 2008?
2. Do all IT cages have to be welded (not bolted in)? If yes, is that effective in 2007or 2008?

Anyone with information please share.
Thanks
[/b]

1. Yes, 2 bar rule is in effect for 2007.

GCR 9.4.2.G Side Protection:

Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. Door side tubes may extend into the door. NASCAR-style side protection, or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. The door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified.

2. I recomend welding, but SS cage rules still says you can bolt the cage in and the ITCS does not override that rule.

[anthony1k]

It is clear now. Thank you JamesB.

[erlrich]

1. Yes, 2 bar rule is in effect for 2007.

GCR 9.4.2.G Side Protection:

Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. Door side tubes may extend into the door. NASCAR-style side protection, or one bar bisecting another to form an "X" is permitted. The door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified.

2. I recomend welding, but SS cage rules still says you can bolt the cage in and the ITCS does not override that rule. [/b]

Here's one for the rules nerds (as it appears we've grown tired of debating ECUs ); with the re-wording of the rule to add the requirement of two door bars, and the allowance for X-style bars, what does "...this type of side protection" now refer to? NASCAR bars? X-style bars? Two door bars? All of the above? Just wondering if anyone else thinks the rule doesn't mean what it used to mean.

[JeffYoung]

Earl, I think you are right. I think it means any tubing that extends into the door can result in the glass, etc. being pitched.

[Speed Raycer]

any tubing that extends into the door can result in the glass, etc. being pitched.
[/b]

The key being "that extends into the door"

[mom'sZ]

Earl, I think you are right. I think it means any tubing that extends into the door can result in the glass, etc. being pitched.
[/b]

Jeff: I think, what you think, is what most of us think. I agree that we all interpret the rule as meaning that any bar protruding into the door allows us to pitch the glass and regulator. I think we all think that is what the rule writers intended the rule to mean. But.... I think what Earl is saying is.... read it very carefully and see if you can't interpret it differently.

GCR 9.4.2.G Side Protection:
Two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory.[/b]

first sentence. Means you must have two door bars

Door side tubes may extend into the door.[/b]

Second sentence. means any side bars may extend into door

NASCAR-style side protection, or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted.[/b]

third sentence. means nascar style or X is legal

The door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.[/b]

forth sentence. door may be gutted 'to facilitate this type of side protection'. Earl is asking what type of side protection? It says 'this type'. Does this type refer to nascar style bars? Does it refer to an X bar? Does it refer to any bar that protudes into the door? Or does it just simply refer to any style double door bar?
I'm not saying that's what it means (don't flame me) I'm just saying (and I think Earl is too) that it could be interpreted as meaning any double door bars. Let's think about it. The paragraph is about double door bars, right? You must have double door bars, both sides. They can extend into the door. They can be NASCAR style. They can be an X style. They can be any type but there has to be two. It doesn't take a huge leap to think the 'this type' could simply mean any double door bar, not strictly ones that protude into the door.
Honestly, when I first read the book, I thought 'why are the rules so vague?'. It almost seems like they are vague on purpose. Why they would be vague on purpose is beyond my comprehension, but they do seem purposefully vague. Was it just easier to write them that way? Did they want to give us wiggle room? And I'm not advocating twisting every word or it's possible meaning. In fact I built my car very carefully to be sure it would be deemed legal by anybody's interpretation. (not an easy task) This is one place I think a couple more words would have been helpful.

[Greg Amy]

...read it very carefully and see if you can't interpret it differently...[/b]

Ah, the magic words that precede every long winter thread...

[erlrich]

I'm just saying (and I think Earl is too) that it could be interpreted as meaning any double door bars. Let's think about it. The paragraph is about double door bars, right? You must have double door bars, both sides. They can extend into the door. They can be NASCAR style. They can be an X style. They can be any type but there has to be two. It doesn't take a huge leap to think the 'this type' could simply mean any double door bar, not strictly ones that protude into the door.[/b]

Bingo. That's exactly what I was thinking. We all know, or at least we think we know, what the intent of the rule is. But is that because the rule clearly spells it out, or because we know what the rule used to say? If this were the first version of that rule you had ever seen, would you still draw the same conclusion? When pondering this question I also considered the use of the word "facilitate", and if that somehow conveyed the intent that you could only gut the door if it were absolutely necessary; but the fact is the word facilitate means "to make easier", and so only adds to the ambiguity in my opinion.

Not that anyone would ever intentionally strain the interpretation of the rule mind you

[ddewhurst]

Ahhh, it's winter time. Screw the SCCA rules I'm off ice racing. :snow_cool: But first I'll leave ya all with my take on the rewritten IT side protection rule.

Ya see how it is folks this whole SCCA road racing deal was started by what is now known as Production car folks with production cars. The Production car adhoc/CRB people keep their rules F _ _ _ _ _ UP so that no two people at a given moment understand the rules but at a moments notice they may change a rule to suite a long standing member. Then the ITAC/CRB figured they would continue the practice because the IT cars are close to what the original cars were back in the 40's. Hey, if it works for the Production cars it'll work for the close cousin IT car. & geting closer with the ECU'S...............

The following said within a Production car post everal years ago works for many of us. Do what the F _ _ _ you want because you'll never finish close enough to the front that anybody will care or check your car. The tech people sure as hell don't weed out the illegal cages during anual tech or at the Runoffs.

Have Fun
David

[lateapex911]

Ahhh, it's winter time. Screw the SCCA rules I'm off ice racing. :snow_cool: But first I'll leave ya all with my take on the rewritten IT side protection rule.

.......The Production car adhoc/CRB people keep their rules F _ _ _ _ _ UP...........but at a moments notice they may change a rule to suite (sic) a long standing member. Then the ITAC/CRB figured they would continue the practice ...........

David

[/b]

Yup, go ice racing , have fun, and come back in a better mood......

[ddewhurst]

Jake, I can start with some people in the Northeast that have illegal roll cages. I can go on & on with stuff that gets bent for those that COUNT. How come it was so quite when soemone started a thread about 2 nd gen RX-7 rear camber adjustment. I found some illegal camber adjusters for the 2 nd gen but the advertiser didn't claim they were ITS legal.

Get in a better mood.

As always, Have Fun with a
David

[lateapex911]

Jake, I can start with some people in the Northeast that have illegal roll cages. I can go on & on with stuff that gets bent for those that COUNT. How come it was so quite when soemone started a thread about 2 nd gen RX-7 rear camber adjustment. I found some illegal camber adjusters for the 2 nd gen but the advertiser didn't claim they were ITS legal.

Get in a better mood.

As always, Have Fun with a
David
[/b]

David, all the smileys can't erase the ascerbic nature of some of your statements. You stated your disgust with the actions of the ITAC to protect the interests of certain individuals, without anything to make your case. Fine, but lets' not dismiss it as a little joke, wink wink, nudge nudge.

I have NO idea what you are claiming with the roll cage stuff, care to enlighten us on how an illegal cage was protested, and cleared because of the protestees influence?

As for the 2nd gen adjuster stuff, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Most members here wouldn't know a 2nd gen susp part if they tripped over one, like me. As the poster was a new guy, I doubt anyone was protecting anyone for the reason you cite. But maybe I just don't see the same conspiracy and I'm missing it all.....

[ddewhurst]

***I have NO idea what you are claiming with the roll cage stuff, care to enlighten us on how an illegal cage was protested, and cleared because of the protestees influence?***

Jake, attend a few National races in the Northeast & lets talk after you have looked at one of the fstaest H cars. Then look at the new H car that first raced in 2006 & it races in the Northeast. Don't come on with your normal enlighten us. No one should need to be inlightened. The folks who do anual tech of safety items should be declaring illegal cages illegal. Look at some N

***As for the 2nd gen adjuster stuff, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Most members here wouldn't know a 2nd gen susp part if they tripped over one, like me. As the poster was a new guy, I doubt anyone was protecting anyone for the reason you cite. But maybe I just don't see the same conspiracy and I'm missing it all.....***

Jake, look at your ITAC friends webb page & then tell me who's barking up a tree.

***David, all the smileys can't erase the ascerbic nature of some of your statements. You stated your disgust with the actions of the ITAC to protect the interests of certain individuals, without anything to make your case. Fine, but lets' not dismiss it as a little joke, wink wink, nudge nudge.***

Jake, please don't short credit me. I took a shot at more than just the ITAC. Ask your friend on the ITAC how he adjusted the rear camber in his 2nd gen RX-7. Please note I didn't suggest that he had anything illegal. Also look at some of the Miata roll cages in the Northeast & report back on how many illegal cages you find. I looked at the Runoffs & there were illegal cages in Miatas just as there were illegal cages in Production.

[ddewhurst]

***I have NO idea what you are claiming with the roll cage stuff, care to enlighten us on how an illegal cage was protested, and cleared because of the protestees influence?***

Jake, don't come on with your normal enlighten us. No one should need to be enlightened. The folks who do anual tech of safety items should be declaring illegal cages illegal. Attend a few National races in the Northeast & lets talk after you have looked at one of the fataest H cars. Then look at the new H car that first raced in 2006 in the Northeast.

***As for the 2nd gen adjuster stuff, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Most members here wouldn't know a 2nd gen susp part if they tripped over one, like me.***

Jake, look at your ITAC friends webb page & then tell me who's barking up what tree.

***But maybe I just don't see the same conspiracy and I'm missing it all.....***

You got that ^ correct. You only need to see the illegal stuff all the time not only when it effects you.

***David, all the smileys can't erase the ascerbic nature of some of your statements. You stated your disgust with the actions of the ITAC to protect the interests of certain individuals, without anything to make your case. Fine, but lets' not dismiss it as a little joke, wink wink, nudge nudge.***

Jake, your form of sarcasm may cower some people but not here. Ask your friend on the ITAC how he adjusted the rear camber in his 2nd gen RX-7. Please note I didn't suggest that he had anything illegal. Also look at some of the Miata roll cages in the Northeast & report back on how many illegal cages you find. First you would need to be familar with whats under a Miata dash. I looked at the Runoffs & there were illegal cages in Miatas just as there were illegal cages in Production. With roll cages I could care less what some of you have to say about safety. Rules are rules.

No smilies......
David