component removal
- Thread starter slowguy
- Start date
But just to clarify, again most of the people I run with including myself and within general agreement run with a heater core and no box. I'll say it again: limited modifications withstanding, we are afterall driving "race cars," not street prepared autocrossers.
And those having defrost problems should probably use Rain-X.
GRJ
grjones1
George,
Your cage appears to be chromemoly, really nice. But I always thought the horizontal dash bar was used to protect your legs and to keep a motor from coming through to crush the driver in a head on. Yours appears a little high to accomplish that purpose? And that's a very interesting base plate. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vertical plates to the frame rail, but the SS cage spec says the bar is supposed to be mounted to the "floor" not to the frame rail. Don't be offended, I'm just asking for my own edification.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
George,
Your cage appears to be chromemoly, really nice. But I always thought the horizontal dash bar was used to protect your legs and to keep a motor from coming through to crush the driver in a head on. Yours appears a little high to accomplish that purpose? And that's a very interesting base plate. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vertical plates to the frame rail, but the SS cage spec says the bar is supposed to be mounted to the "floor" not to the frame rail. Don't be offended, I'm just asking for my own edification.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
Actually, the cage is 1020. Thanks for the kind words though.
The dash bar IMHO is to keep the forward portion of the cage collapsing in a side collision. If the engine were to come through the firewall, I doubt a cage tube will stop it. I placed it where I did to protect my legs. A lot of 944 owners put the tube below the dash creating a kneecapper. My knees will be virtually in contact with the lower dash as it is. I would have put it behind the dash, but there is no room.
As for the mounting plate, it's made the way it is to meet the rules. The plate can be any shape and it is attached to the floor and the forward tube is attached to the plate, and thus the floor by definition. Sounds tortured, but I cleared it with Topeka first. Besides, the 944 rocker is many times stronger than the thin floor that flexes as I walk on it.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
George,
More power to you, but that tube-to-plate-to-floor business is the same kind of ruling that allowed repositioning of suspension mounting points in Production. If you are old enough to remember back that far.
As far as thin floors, that's why we reinforce the base plate with bottom and vetical plates to the frame rail.
But hey, if the bar keeps the car away from your body, I'm all for it. But it appears as if some "rules creep" is ongoing. Pardon my concerns. (And if .95 thou cold rolled can't keep the motor off my torso, I'll be dead from fright anyway.)
G. Robert
Until I got involved with crewing in IT a few years back I was not intimately familiar with any of the rules specifics, so no, I don't know. Basically, I asked for dispensation from Topeka and the response that came back was what you see in the photo. Actually, it makes sense given the fact the tube only needs to attach to the plate, anywhere on the plate. The mounting to the floor is defined by the plate on the floor.
But, I understand your point.
Understood. Very disconcerting though anyway.
And that, as you have surmised, was the major reason behind that placement. The 944 has such a wide rocker (2") that placing the tube all the way to the floor would place it right next to my leg. The 944 cockpit is cramped, especially for a moose like me.
Originally posted by grjones1:
(And if .95 thou cold rolled can't keep the motor off my torso, I'll be dead from fright anyway.)
Well, that's kind of my point. If the engine makes its way through the firewall, it will make its way through the tube (and of course the driver).
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Mike Spencer
New member
Back to the Heater side of this for a moment (please).
Being a newbie, I'm asking a lot of questions lately. Both here on the site and elsewhere. When talking about the heater hoses, a friend who also races IT7 told me to get a "new" GCR. The hoses were now removable. I didn't remember that being the case, and ended up e-mailing him the same passage quoted above.
My question is, was this ever even contemplated? He's not arguing with the facts. It's just that he would have bet money that I was wrong. Wondering where that might have come from....
------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 #60
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)
K, if George can run his rollbar tube to the floor by way of an S plate, we can certainly read the ITCS literally: heater "cores" must remain intact.
My feeling is at times as long as it suits one person's purposes, the rules can be interpreted, while at other times, we must adhere to the "letter". Got to be one way or the other: If an interpretation is considered sound, it can be accepted. But, I'm with you on having the rules clearly written initially (as I've said before.)
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
Originally posted by Geo:
George,
This is all academic; however, again I'll go so far as to say attaching the tube by way of the plate evenually leads to attaching the suspension by way of the plate and that eventually leads to rear wheel drive mini coopers, if you know what I mean.
GRJ
Bill Miller
New member
Dick,
I agree that some could argue S&T, but the point I was making, was that the rule was pretty open. But you saw that
Not if you removed more of the dash!!!
As far as George's design goes, I like and support (and feel that it's totally w/in the rules) to wrap the rocker boxes like that. Much better than just a floor mount. Anyone that doesn't take full advantage of the mounting plate rules is leaving something on the table.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I agree that some could argue S&T, but the point I was making, was that the rule was pretty open. But you saw that
Not if you removed more of the dash!!!
As far as George's design goes, I like and support (and feel that it's totally w/in the rules) to wrap the rocker boxes like that. Much better than just a floor mount. Anyone that doesn't take full advantage of the mounting plate rules is leaving something on the table.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
And it is afterall a "safety and comfort" issue, and of course there is no additional chassis stiffness, so no mechanical advantage is achieved, so we can make allowances. (My how the worm turns.) Sorry guys, sometimes I just can't let it go.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
Okay - let me get this straight. The fact that the book says the core must remain means I can remove the heater box, right?
Excellent.
So I can logically - and completely within the rules - install an add-on 6th gear kit to my gearbox because, "no alteration of of the stock transmission gear ratios" is allowed. I'll leave the original 1st through 5th stock of course since it's required that I do so but the absence of any prohibition of my kit allows me to install it.
I can't believe how silly I've been. Now, I just have to make sure that all of the other kids are doing it and it's all good...
K
Excellent.
So I can logically - and completely within the rules - install an add-on 6th gear kit to my gearbox because, "no alteration of of the stock transmission gear ratios" is allowed. I'll leave the original 1st through 5th stock of course since it's required that I do so but the absence of any prohibition of my kit allows me to install it.
I can't believe how silly I've been. Now, I just have to make sure that all of the other kids are doing it and it's all good...
K
GRJ, I realize you're trying to make a point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
The attachment points are defined in the GCR and/or ITCS by the mounting plate. Any any number of tubes may mount anywhere on these plates. So per the book what I've done is specifically allowed and... (I haven't written this in a long time) If it says you can, you bloody well can.
The error you are making (and I suspect know this) is that you are defining the mounting point by the tube when the rules define it by the mounting plate.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
The attachment points are defined in the GCR and/or ITCS by the mounting plate. Any any number of tubes may mount anywhere on these plates. So per the book what I've done is specifically allowed and... (I haven't written this in a long time) If it says you can, you bloody well can.
The error you are making (and I suspect know this) is that you are defining the mounting point by the tube when the rules define it by the mounting plate.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by grjones1:
And it is afterall a "safety and comfort" issue, and of course there is no additional chassis stiffness, so no mechanical advantage is achieved, so we can make allowances. (My how the worm turns.) Sorry guys, sometimes I just can't let it go.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]
Robert,
Those are the rules as written. It says plates can be 100 in^2, and can be multi-angle. IIRC, the only specific comments about floor mounting are for bolt-in cages (bleah!) requiring backing plates.
Why wouldn't you want to take as much advantage of the rules as possible? If you can do it w/ in the rules, and increase chassis stiffness, more power to you for a better design. I know that's the way the cage in my old ITB Rabbit GTI was built!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
K,
If you keep this up, I'm going to demand a rescindment of your PhD. Your analogy fails of course because nowhere in the ITCS is their a context in which the transmission is under consideration for removal. And the rule to which you refer is discussing change to gear ratios not to addition or subtraction of gears. And we're not talking about adding a heater (or a gear) we're talking about what components may be removed. You know as well as I the language permits inference by way of exclusion. If the writers of the rule intended that the box be retained, they would have said "heater" or "heater box" and probably "all its components." Why would they have used the word "core" if they did not intend core and only core. I don't say "crankshaft" if I mean "engine" and I don't say "gear" if I mean "transmission". And yes if the rule said I "must retain the fifth gear ratio," I would assume I could change 1st through 4th. Because that's, by nature of the language, what the statement implies.
Uh, GRJ, I do believe our boy was using what we here call "sarcasm"...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
"Mounting plate" or "tube", the ITCS says by SS cage rules, and the SS cage rules say
"the forward part of the cage shall be mounted to the floor of the vehicle." And this refers to both welded[b/] and bolted cages, Bill.
And guys yes I understand and appreciate your interpretation and I agree, but what I'm saying is this same interpretation was granted to suspension mounting points in the Production rules which eventually resulted in totally free suspensions and skyrocketed the cost of racing in Production. And when I argue a safety issue you throw the same argument back at me: "rules creep" and "cost escalation", etc. I just want you to see that when it fits your purpose, you say one thing, when it fits someone else's situation, no interpretation is allowed. Let's just try to be even-handed.
And Geo don't get me wrong, I'm for your installation on this, but when I ask for a change in the name of safety and comfort, I expect the same consideration.
G
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]