Changes in the Door Bar Rules??

David.
harold has lived in florida for a number of years and though he keeps his region of record up here he only tows up for a couple of races in mid season. His annuals are done in the south east. I have not given his setup much thought but if it is illegal I am suprissed no one has made a deal of it at the runoffs. knowing harold I doubt it because he is under the radar.

As to the second car I have no idea what car you are referring to but IF it is as you say it does not sound right.

I certainly understand your argument against the X but like greg I belive differently. And like greg I will accept a higher authority telling me I am wrong. what I do not understand is why you are so disrespectful to those that disagree with you on such a point.
 
****In context, I mean that, for example, when two plates or tubes are welded together, the actual weld itself is stronger than any particular area of the contiguous plate or tube. I do not mean to imply that the resulting structure is stronger than a contiguous plate because, obviously, it cannot be: any structure is only as strong as its weakest point.***

Greg, I agree & I didn't have a desire to start stating facts out of books. I do have a question for you about the cage picture you posted. When I look at the drivers side B pillar vertical tube with a bend that looks to be directed to the left, the main hoop diagonal looks like it passes behind this B pillar tube. Using the words of Dick I'm not being disrespectful to your project I'm only asking a question of what you have & what my eyes see. ;)

***what I do not understand is why you are so disrespectful to those that disagree with you on such a point.***

Dick, my intent is not to be disrespectful to anyone. We all have different presentation skills. IIRC Harold's car has been the same since I first viewed the car at the 1997 Runoffs & it was bitched about & or protested IIRC at the 2004 Runoffs. The second car I mentioned is the H car of Ron Bartell. I do not bring these cars up to be disrespectful to the drivers. Sometimes when it comes to rules it appears to be stature of drivers that answers the legality of rules. I bring the cars up to attempt to make a point of how the Production rules have CREEPED & if WE in the Improved Touring community start doing the same type of things by twisting the rules with our roll cages, side protection, & other items WE will be in the same boat.

A thought I have had about the new IT side protection rule as I understand the rule is that maybe the CRB is trying to align the IT side protection rule with the Production side protection rule. The "X" for side protection will not meet the Production side protection rule unless there is a horizontal tube from the main hoop to the front /side hoop above the "X".

The one item WE all should remember is that the main purpose/intent of the roll cage is to protect the driver. In my humble belief N_ _ _ _R has driver horizontal side tube protection for a very good reason.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 10 2005, 09:15 AM
...a question for you about the cage picture you posted.
[snapback]62191[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

From the other side. We did it this way for a few reasons:

- Allows the main hoop to be placed as far back as possible for driver clearance
- Allows the door bars to protrude farther into the door cavity (with the main hoop so far back the door bars would either have to be bent - making them less strong - or nearly flat instead of protruding)
- Creates more roll structure over the driver for crush protection

http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollcage/DCP_4711.JPG
http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollcage/DCP_4697.JPG
http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollcage/DCP_4724.JPG
http://www.kakashiracing.com/images/rollcage/DCP_4721.JPG
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 10 2005, 09:15 AM
A thought I have had about the new IT side protection rule as I understand the rule is that maybe the CRB is trying to align the IT side protection rule with the Production side protection rule. The "X" for side protection will not meet the Production side protection rule unless there is a horizontal tube from the main hoop to the front /side hoop above the "X".
[snapback]62191[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

David that is an excellent point, logical progression and lack of conflict between the different catagories has been a stated goal of the CRB. maybe the CRB should just adopt the prod side protection wording, the would only have to add the door gutting wording.

by the way while reviewing the prod cage wording I found this 18.6.b.2 open top automobles without a windshield and with a high front hoop design....since the windshield frame is to be removed there is no requirement to follow the line of the A- pillar. Not expressing an opinion, just happened upon this.
 
Dick, when we look at the GCR/PCS with respect to roll cages we will find there are some considerable re-writes since the 2004 GCR/2004 Runoffs. You will also note that ALL cars must have the correct shaped main hoop by 1/1/207. The CRB is & has been in full swing for a couple years trying to get roll cages brought to some common sameness instead of the free for all that has been going on for a bunch of years. When I read the 2004 PCS or the 2005 GCR (the Production roll cage rules have been rolled into the GCR for 2005) for Production roll cage side hoops the wording is considerable for 2005. BUT, when I read rule GCR 18.6.b.2.a. the side hoops are to be identical for open tops with windshields & for open tops without windshields except for GCR 18.6.b.2.a.1. & 2. meaning the side hoops front down tube will terminate within the cockpit. & in Production the TWO required side protection tubes SHALL be connected to the front & rear hoops across both the door openings. Harold's side protection tubes DO NOT connect to the front hoop/side hoop. His side protection tubes connect to a secondary support brace that connects to the side hoop up high & traveles to the floor down low.

With tongue in cheek ;) I say that according to some peoples thoughts that diagonal brace is the side hoop.
 
I realize that this wont mean much during a protest, but here's a little clarification I received from Topeka (and the email I sent for ya'll to rip through my leading wording ;) :

-----Original Message-----
From: Izzy's Custom Cages {edit}
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Jeremy Thoennes
Subject: New SS, SM, IT door bar rule

Jeremy,

I'm seeking a clarification of the new IT, SM, SS doorbar rules.


"Item 5. Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/06: Allow NASCAR-Style
side
bars on the passenger side of Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Improved
Touring competition cars. Change section 18.2.7 to read as follows:

7. Side Protection
Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05 >>>>TWO (2) side tubes<<<
connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are
mandatory.

Does this new rule make an X bar illegal if using one continuous bar and
two shorter bars?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
----------------
Subject: RE: New SS, SM, IT door bar rule View Full Header
View Printable Version
From: "Jeremy Thoennes" <edit for spammers>
Date: Mon, October 10, 2005 3:44 pm
To: "Izzy's Custom Cages" <edit>
Priority: Normal



No, x braces would still be allowed.

-Jeremy
------------------
 
With no disrespect to Jeremy I beleive his response makes no sense with respect to the written IT side protection ruel for 1/1/07. I have written Jeremy explaining to him my understanding of the new 1/1/07 IT side protection rule suggesting that the "X" is not TWO tubes with each connecting the front hoop to the rear hoop. I suggested to him that the "X" is in fact THREE tubes of which one tube is connected to the front hoop & the rear hoop & that each of the other two tubes has one end connected to one hoop & the other end of the same tube is connected to the single tube that is connected to the front hoop & the rear hoop. I suggested that there is a contradiction between the "X" (three tube) & the new rule (two tube) asking for an explanation before we in IT have a farce like the Production main hoops which are required changed by 1/1/07.

IMHJ this whole IT side protection rule is a very large joke. The GT cars & the Production cars have the exact same rule & the "X" is not legal UNLESS there is a horizontal tube above the "X". If the CRB thinks the "X" alone dose not provide enough driver safety for the GT & Production drivers then why do some IT people think the "X" provides proper safety for IT drivers. Are the IT cars play toys compared to the GT & Production cars or are they somewhat equal. IMHJ the IT cars should have the same side protection rule. But no the CRB can't admit that the IT red headed stepchild cars are real race cars & require the same side protection rule/driver safety as the GT & Production cars.

Next letter is to the CRB.................. Requesting that the IT side protection rule be written with the same words as the GT & Production side protection is.

Please take your best shots. I'll appreciate your thoughts to either strengthen my presentation letter to the CRB or decide that a letter is not required.
 
This is silly. What makes you presume the Production and GT cage rules are better? I don't think they are. In fact, I think they are rather poorly conceived and written are probably the results of minor dinking with the wording over the years resulting in silliness.

IMHO (what does IMHJ mean?) Production and GT cage rules should be more similar to IT cage rules (including the X being legal).
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 10 2005, 09:55 PM
With no disrespect to Jeremy I beleive his response makes no sense with respect to the written IT side protection ruel for 1/1/07. I have written Jeremy explaining to him my understanding of the new 1/1/07 IT side protection rule suggesting that the "X" is not TWO tubes with each connecting the front hoop to the rear hoop. I suggested to him that the "X" is in fact THREE tubes of which one tube is connected to the front hoop & the rear hoop & that each of the other two tubes has one end connected to one hoop & the other end of the same tube is connected to the single tube that is connected to the front hoop & the rear hoop. I suggested that there is a contradiction between the "X" (three tube) & the new rule (two tube) asking for an explanation before we in IT have a farce like the Production main hoops which are required changed by 1/1/07.

[snapback]62252[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

excelent david. we have an opinion. you are articulating the other side of the argument. I am willing to comply with what ever his responce is.

the cage rules for all the catagories need to be brought more in line, The rrb has said they want better progression between catagories. Touring, Improved Touring, Grand Touring. pick a car and keep pouring in money, :)
 
***What makes you presume the Production and GT cage rules are better?***

George, I didn't say the Production and GT "cage " rules are better. I said :) that IMHJ the side protection rule in IT should be the same as the side protection rule in Production & GT.


***In fact, I think they (Production & GT cage rules) are rather poorly conceived and written are probably the results of minor dinking with the wording over the years resulting in silliness.***

George, I agree with you. ;)

IMHJ the new IT side protection rule is poorly conceived & writen which will allow silly personal random fabricating of side protection.
 
David, my point was why should IT conform to Prod and GT? I think the whole group of cage rules should be rewritten. If that happens, then something more along the lines of the rules for IT would make more sense. From a liability standpoint I think the club should not get too specific about some things because people can disagree about what is safer. My my hide I'm going with an X. I believe it to be safer than NASCAR bars, especially as loosely defined in the GCR.
 
George,

An X is fine, and if you feel that's the safer route, go that way. Just add an additional tube, above or below the X. As it stands now, an X does not meet the letter of the new rule. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

I appreciate the comments from the tech folks (Greg and Dick, et al)about allowing the X. I would caution you, that since an X does not meet the letter of the new rule, allowance of a non-compliant configuration opens you up to some liability. God forbid that something happens, and someone gets hurt/killed, and it's found that they have a non-compliant cage. They're going to go to the car's logbook, and see who approved the non-compliant structure. I won't even go into re-writing the rules in the tech shed.

This issue needs input from a higher authority (CRB or BoD), w/ a definative position on the compliance (or lack thereof) of an X configuration, in an IT car.
 
Bill, express approval of the Club Racing Technical Manager isn't enough for you? What do you want, a letter from the CRB? If so, what did your letter/email to them say when you sent it this week requesting such?

And the veiled "threat" of liability is not only silly, it's insulting. If I lived my life worrying about what a lawyer and his client might do, I'd never leave the covers in the morning (in fact, I'd probably worry about cancer from the detergent or something). Comments/threats such as that are just so stupid on so many levels it just makes me ill.

Bill and David, just let it go. Personally, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; the rest of us are going to follow what we believe is right, not how many angels there are on that there pinhead. It's just so silly (at the very least) to sit there and argue that you approve what I may be doing as the spirit of the rules but believe that it's against the letter of the rules and I shouldn't be doing it. Fine, I invite your protest.

If you believe the X design is not as strong as two parallel bars, then I can accept you're wrong and we can agree to disagree. If you believe that the X is fine from a strength perspective but it bothers you that this may be technically against the letter of the rules then get the rule changed to something you do like. In either event, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is done. - GA
 
Greg,

I'm sorry you took my comments as a veiled threat, because they were certainly not meant to be anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out what I thought was a potential issue.

And no direspect to Jeremy, but his opinion, is just that, his opinion. It, along w/ $1.50, will get you a cup of coffee at the protest hearing. It's what's written in the rule book that matters. Or, that notwithstanding, what the CoA rules on.

And it really has nothing to do with my opinion on which is the better design (from a structural or safety point of view). As I've stated several times, I think that an X meets the spirit of the rules. But, until it explicitly states that, the new rule, that is required 1/1/07, does not allow it. I'm sorry if you think I'm just being silly, but you get used to that, being a rules nerd and all. As I said, how many tubes are attached to the continuous tube that connects the main hoop to the front hoop? You can't say the non-continuous tubes are welded together, to form a continuous tube, because they're not, they're welded to the continuous tube. So they only way the non-continuous tubes connect, and join the main hoop to the front hoop, is by being welded to the continuous tube. No matter how you slice it, that is not two tubes, that connect the two hoops.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 10 2005, 12:37 PM
You will also note that ALL cars must have the correct shaped main hoop by 1/1/207. 
Click to expand...


Well KINDA anyway. My understanding is that this applies to any NEW production cage builds. There is still going to be some gray area for those cages already built, assuming the owner can show how safe the design is for his car.

I'll admit to not going to the Prod tent meeting this year, I'd seen that show before. So if there was any new info there, I didn't hear it.

Carry on with this good discussion, I'll go back to lurking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top