Changes in the Door Bar Rules??

Drew, go read the Production main hoop rule for 1/1/07 & forget the Production gossip. ;)

Now back to the regularly scheduled pi$$ing contest about the new IT side protection rule for 1/1/07. With no disrespect or respect to anyone here are some facts that kind of agree with what Bill Miller stated.

What Jeremy says is about rules is OPINION just like what WE say about rules.

Rule 13.9 for $250.00 is just another OPINION.

Nothing means nothing about a rule untill something is protested & a decision is complete then the OPINION is gone. It's fact..............

When Jeremy & I finished our e-mails back & forth I presume Jeremy had a sizeable question that I planted in his mind based on the following question I asked him which he will forward to the CRB as a rule request.

"If the CRB is going to specify a new side protection rule for IT why didn't they use the same rule that the GT & Production classes have ?"

I will accecpt that the current GT & Production side protection rule provides adequate side protection beyond the proposed new IT side protection rule where every Tom, dick & Harry can fab side protection to their own ability. No disrespec to anyone. :rolleyes:

I understand that Topeka has no desire to take liability & I also understand Topeka has no desire to restrict peoples choice of freedom in design. BUT, many of us DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY to design & or fab roll cages or side protection.
 
I ran this up the pole a few times in the past and was told the word "continuous" makes the difference. The rules state we must have a bar at shoulder height connecting the main hoop behind the driver--but most go through the diagonal as two pieces? Never says it must be continuous, just there. Same goes for the x bars. Only thing that makes x illegal in production is the statement about horizontal. Sometimes you must read what is left out as well as what is written.
Steve Eckerich
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 12 2005, 10:58 AM
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. 
Click to expand...

I appreciate the advice Bill. I already have a tube from the base of the main hoop to the base of the front supports. That said, I wouldn't have worried anyway.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst+Oct 12 2005, 05:46 PM-->
What Jeremy says is about rules is OPINION just like what WE say about rules. [/b]
Click to expand...
I'd tend to give Jeremy's opinion a little more weight than what is bantered about on a discussion board.
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 12 2005, 05:46 PM
Rule 13.9 for $250.00 is just another OPINION.
Click to expand...
And a rule that I believe has only been used twice since it was put on the books. Even if something gets protested and a ruling made, you can still appeal it or try to get the rule modified. No real permanant facts forever, much like the legal system.

<!--QuoteBegin-ddewhurst@Oct 12 2005, 05:46 PM
I understand that Topeka has no desire to take liability & I also understand Topeka has no desire to restrict peoples choice of freedom in design.
Click to expand...
OK, NOW we are getting somewhere. This is a real truth and a reason why I'd caution anyone on tearing out their cage to meet the rules for 2007. SCCA doesn't want to get into telling you how to design a cage and then be on the hook if it fails. The liability is too great, this is why there will be some grey area to this roll cage rule. Call it gossip all you want David, but SCCA isn't going to pay out a huge sum to cover a failure of their "mandated roll cage".

Back on topic, change to wording to duplicate the prod side door rules. Makes it easier to go from Prod to IT. I'm sure it was just an oversight, not trying to make anyone's life harder or to make drivers jump hoops to be compliant.
 
I understand hat IF is the biggest little word in a dictionary. But IF the IT rule was changed to the exact same rule as the GT/Production side protection rule an "X" with a horizontal tube below the "X" would not meet the rule.

***I appreciate the advice Bill. I already have a tube from the base of the main hoop to the base of the front supports. That said, I wouldn't have worried anyway.***

I am either building or buying a different car & I really could care less what the side protection rule is for IT other than consistency between OEM type race cars would make common sense. I will have side protection that will allow me to transfer to race in Production with the same car. Notice I didn't say win in Production, I said race. ;)

Drew, I don't race the protest/appeal circuit. The only time I came close to a protest towards someone was during my first year with the Spec-7 I mentioned to two racers that if they had the same illegal exhaust (they both knew they were illegal) the following year I would protest them. Never happened because they both went to different classes. :023:
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 13 2005, 06:06 AM
Drew,

The SCCA already mandates our cage design, just look at the GCR.
[snapback]62511[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



:lol: Bill, good one. As you know every cage design matches the drawings in the GCR. B) Too many different cars to have a spec cage design.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 13 2005, 01:03 PM
I understand hat IF is the biggest little word in a dictionary. But IF the IT rule was changed to the exact same rule as the GT/Production side protection rule an "X" with a horizontal tube below the "X" would not meet the rule.
Click to expand...

1) I couldn't care less. You are the only person who seems to have an agenda to make the IT cage rules the same as the Production cage rules.

2) I was simply responding to Bill's suggestion.
 
doorbars1.jpg


It's a little sharper in real life but here's the new door structure, before the taco gussets and/or plating go on. They are pyramidic, poking outward about 5" into the door panel but not penetrating the sheetmetal structure. With the smaller diameter tubing, it really seems roomy in there now.

cage01.jpg


The rear of the cage is essentially like the last one, with the additional diagonal down from the struts to the bottom of the main hoop.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 22 2005, 07:05 PM
doorbars1.jpg


It's a little sharper in real life but here's the new door structure, before the taco gussets and/or plating go on. They are pyramidic, poking outward about 5" into the door panel but not penetrating the sheetmetal structure. With the smaller diameter tubing, it really seems roomy in there now.

cage01.jpg


The rear of the cage is essentially like the last one, with the additional diagonal down from the struts to the bottom of the main hoop.

K
[snapback]63242[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Nice! That's pretty much the exact thing I was conjuring up in my head for a "Nascar X".
 
The only think about an X like that is that you lose all of the advantage of the X. Might as well go all the way with classic NASCAR style door bars.
 
Originally posted by Geo@Oct 23 2005, 02:02 AM
The only think about an X like that is that you lose all of the advantage of the X. 
Click to expand...

How so? Note of course that they are just tacked here and that we'll be gusseting them much like the last ones.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 22 2005, 09:12 PM
How so? Note of course that they are just tacked here and that we'll be gusseting them much like the last ones.

K
[snapback]63255[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

The traditional X is torsionally stronger and (IMHO) safer because they traverse the shortest distance between two ponits. To bend them, you must stretch them. Bent tubes like that take far less energy to bend. You are gonig to lose the torsional rigidity with the bent tubes. BTW, by bent I mean bent outward, not bent to meet in the middle on the same plane.
 
Ah - gotcha. I will grant that, since they are not straight, they are not as rigid as the same materials and gusseting in a flat plane.

K
 
Here it is, all welded up with taco gussets and stuff. I'm VERY pleased with Chris Schimmel's most recent creation. You can't tell from the pics but it is amazing how much roomier it is in there with 1.5" tubing pushed closer to the chassis, and the seat 1" lower than it was.

cage08.jpg


cage09.jpg


K
 
We elected to not add a dash bar, because of the presence of that massive black-painted structure that bolts across that space. It is essentially trapped between the uprights - though not attached to them, obviously- and is way stouter than a tube would be. I also wasn't planning on using a dash bar as an excuse to take dash/heaterbox/controls out, like I see some folks do... :)

When things settle down next week, I'm going to do the math and figure out what this one weighs, and compare it to Pablo's first cage. Should be interesting.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 24 2005, 09:34 PM
Better shots of what's going on in the door holes...

cage05.jpg


cage07.jpg


K
[snapback]63428[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Sheeesh !!! finally a decent cage. Not like that "rinky dink" one in Pablo...lol


J/K Kirk.......mmmmmm very sweet....nice nice very nice !!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top