I thought we weren't supposed to read more into the rule than what it says.....
Bolt-in cages are legal, yes? I've never seen less than three tubes (usually five total) on every door bar on a bolt-in cage. Could be the reason behind the "continuous" main hoop description. Assume the word continuous in the door bar rule and every bolt-in cage is now illegal even if you weld the sleeves.
As long as no assumptions are made, I think the rule is fine as written. I sure hope it's not clarified as continuous.......
I wonder if Autopower has geared up for two bolt-in door bars? Anyone know?
Matt
Bolt-in cages are legal, yes? I've never seen less than three tubes (usually five total) on every door bar on a bolt-in cage. Could be the reason behind the "continuous" main hoop description. Assume the word continuous in the door bar rule and every bolt-in cage is now illegal even if you weld the sleeves.
As long as no assumptions are made, I think the rule is fine as written. I sure hope it's not clarified as continuous.......
I wonder if Autopower has geared up for two bolt-in door bars? Anyone know?
Matt
Bill Miller
New member
Steve,
I understand where you and Dick are comming from, but the rule say "2 side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops..."
The design in the picture does not meet that. It has one tube connecting the front and rear hoops, and it also has a tube from the front hoop to the connecting tube, and one from the rear hoop to the connecting tube. If the design in the picture is considered legal, under the new rule, you could attach the short tubes anywhere on the continuous tube.
I agree that the pictured design should be fine, but it doesn't fit w/ the rule, the way it's written.
It was mentioned to them at some point after labor day, and they were not aware of the rule change at the time. I think they are going to make a kit for the 1G rx7, since the MARRS srx7 ruleset specs the AP bolt in cage. I did not speak to them personally, though. F1 Al, you reading this?
That having been said, it should not be that difficult to weld on the stubs and bolt a flipped copy of the 2nd drivers side bar for most AP cages.
Bill Miller
New member
Not at all Greg. As I said, if that design pictured is legal under the new rule, what's to say that you couldn't attach those short tubes anywhere on the continuous tube. The short tubes don't connect the front hoop to the main hoop. They connect the front hoop to another tube, and the rear hoop to another tube.
I don't think you explicitly need 'continuous' here, to require that they be continuous. The rule says that you have to have two tubes connecting the main hoop (point A) to the front hoop (point
. That means the tubes go from A to B. It says nothing about being able to go from A to C (in this case, the other connecting tube) and then to B. IIDSYCYC 
Ok, so for the sake of argument, let's accept your line of reasoning. Now, compare the two photos in this thread, one being Kirk's bars which are two distinct and separate tubes welded together at the same point as Steve's.
I'll surmise you believe that Kirk's cage is "legal". Therefore:
- You think Kirk's cage (post #5) meets the letter of the rules, and
- You think Steve's cage (post #17) does not,
...despite the fact that they both functionally do the exact same thing. Therefore, I can only conclude your problem is with the words (letter) of the rule versus the function (spirit). Yes?
Not a commentary, I'm simply trying to understand your position.
If true, then we have an "agree to disagree" situation. If, however, you want to argue there's a functional difference between the two designs in terms of safety, then we still gots a significant difference in opinion. Absent the plate fillets that I know Kirk added to his cage, I can illustrate how Kirk's cage can fail much easier than Steve's... - GA
I'll surmise you believe that Kirk's cage is "legal". Therefore:
- You think Kirk's cage (post #5) meets the letter of the rules, and
- You think Steve's cage (post #17) does not,
...despite the fact that they both functionally do the exact same thing. Therefore, I can only conclude your problem is with the words (letter) of the rule versus the function (spirit). Yes?
Not a commentary, I'm simply trying to understand your position.
If true, then we have an "agree to disagree" situation. If, however, you want to argue there's a functional difference between the two designs in terms of safety, then we still gots a significant difference in opinion. Absent the plate fillets that I know Kirk added to his cage, I can illustrate how Kirk's cage can fail much easier than Steve's... - GA
Bill Miller
New member
Like I said Greg, I think the 'X' in the picture is fine, from a safety and functionality standpoint, I just don't think it meets the letter of the rules. That's all.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Clarification forthcoming.
Racerlinn
New member
Thanks Andy.
I assume this means I don't have to start shooting emails to everyone in Topeka (not that they would be particularly responsive this week).
The pic I posted is not my car, but my bars are nearly the same. The car is going for additional passenger side bars as well as a few other's in the near future and I want to make sure I have everything done all at the same time (unless Amy wants to just trade straight up for his egg...
). Thanks for everyone's thoughts and opinions. I do think this rule will affect quite a few people that simply have not thought about it yet.I called autoower last night and ordered a cage for a zcar. I asked about the rule change concerning door bars for 07. I was told that some designs had been updated and some had not. The zcar had not. They (autopower) agreed to send me two extra door bars (no extra charge) to add myself.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Unfortunately, I think this is something that needs to be from Topeka and printed in Fast Track. I don't think it's smart for inter-regional travellers if we leave it up to local tech-teams. Still working on it.