do cage support "boxes" count as mounting plate area?

The rule was written before anyone used boxes. It was, and still is, the shadow of the plates upon the car structure. Per Ryan MIles @ SCCA tech 8/9/12.
The 15 in(?) longest side rule counts.
Basically if you make a crush box, place it on a 12x12 plate , you are good to go. As the rule is written today and clarified by SCCA tech.

Maybe the crush box needs a max side size also. As long as they are less than the 15 in rule, up the sill plate, they should be very safe.
I am sure that if you built a fancy box over about 6in from the floor plate/level , you may have some valid safety issues.
You should avoid the potential to crush the box more than you have room to the roof, minus 2in, IMHO. I like 1/2 to 3/4 in before it all loads up .
Short story is that there is very little stiffness gain, as long as the cage sits inside of the 12x12 rule. (Not much even as the cage gets really tied, either.)
 
We used boxes on the Speedsource cars long before this rule, but for conversation lets say it is some new innovation. Good to hear you got the opinion of the day from the latest person in the tech office. Lets see which way the wind blows next week. For reference you received an opinion that is only good after it passes CRB muster. That might have changed too, but that is how the system works. They are the only ones who can clarify and give a rules interpretation, and there is a form on the SCCA site to have that done if you want. I know it is hard to tell tone on a post, but not being a jerk, just giving information as it has been all for the years I have been a National Tech.
 
Flyinglizard said:
The rule was written before anyone used boxes.
Click to expand...
This ain't nuthin' new. We've been doing this for over a decade. And we've always followed the plates size rule.

In fact, for the 2006 ARRC (for reference, that was six years ago) on a cage we built in 2004 (for reference, that was eight years ago) we kept cardboard cutouts of all the plates to hand to Scrutineering to make it easier for the Tech guys to measure the plates.

What's old is...old again.

Maybe the crush box needs a max side size also.
Click to expand...
"Crush box" definition does not exist in the GCR. In fact, I don't think anyone on this forum has the engineering degree and testing experience to be designing "crush structures". As such, all parts of...whatever you want to call it...is subject to the plate rule.

And in fact, if one wants to get technical, remember that the GCR baseline is "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't". Ain't nuthin' in the GCR about "crush boxes", thus they don't exist...and if you're doin' 'em - whatever they are - you're not compliant.

seckerich said:
...For reference you received an opinion that is only good after it passes CRB muster....
Click to expand...

Ding.
 
This is a common problem with SCCA tech. The local tech person has to have an opinion of what the rule means. And it varies..
The IT guys themselves will beat the thing to pieces, regardless of the head of tech opinion, at the national level.
And, it is just not that important.. IMHo.

FWIW I have the testing for the Crush box from 10yrs ago and we are in the process of running it on INEX next week for the patent stuff. So yeah, I have a lot of time in research both the theory and results of cage failures and improved design areas.

I really dont care about compliant on safety issues. I have seen way too many SCCA cars with crap cages. ( no cross bars, small welded floor plates without any tabs. )
All of my VWs now run HP, the only IT spec car is the SM and that runs NASA.(NASA checks the cars at regional races).
 
tom91ita said:
thanks for all the comments.

i do plan on using most of the allowed area. the dimensions noted were for discussion. i will likely "count" any box support area as part of the allowed area since it will not be that much and better safe than cutting out part of it....

i like the idea of any "inner" tubing section being a 1/2" shorter for some allowable deflection/crushing.

Dave, one area of welding would be for the landing by the "A" pillar where i want to get very close to the rocker. if i "build" that up a bit with a "box" then that weld would be much easier. i really kind of liked what Greg (i think?..) had done with landing that support on the rocker panel as well.

if the reason we can build the "box" is because of the allowed area, i don't see how i cannot count it.

question just for grins, if i built it up to be 5" high under the main hoop, would anyone think that would pass tech? it could still meet the area requirements etc. but i do not think it would pass tech. bascially, at what point does a "box" stops being an attachment point and becomes part of the support structure?
Click to expand...

Tom,

I think I did the lex cage kinda how you mention... I'm about at 50% overlap to the rocker on a couple tubes, so I just boxed the rocker to extend it out, with small flanges on the bottom of the box to act as load spreaders. The primary load transfer is in shear to the rocker box as extended by the box... I'll take a couple snaps and post later to see if that's what you mean... Honestly, I think some of these cage rules are goofy. With all the crazy insurance rules anyway, I'd think we should build the cage with as much tube and plate as we want. So what if it stiffens up - it gets heavier too!
 
Always loved the early cage rules for the Grand Am series. Cages must be built to accepted industry standards. That was it.
 
tom91ita said:
Dave,

you guys in for Chicago in October? we submitted again for AutoBahn...
Click to expand...

Yep, we'll be there - #77... with some fatter tires on wider wheels to keep that beast in check a bit better.... gunning for FTD :)

Steve - definately like those cage rules :). Our Lemons cage is very conventional SCCA, but I did tie it to the shell in more spots.
 
Last edited:
When the updates to the cage rules were done a few years ago it was discussed to leave out the pad area rule all together. That would be fine if you did not have the high number of classes that had so many cars built to the early regulations. You would essentially make them obsolete overnight without a lot of extra money and time. Some would argue that you do not really add that much stiffness with a cage confined to the passenger compartment, but data show otherwise. I have seen the difference in flex on a surface plate and it is substantial.
 
seckerich said:
When the updates to the cage rules were done a few years ago it was discussed to leave out the pad area rule all together. That would be fine if you did not have the high number of classes that had so many cars built to the early regulations. You would essentially make them obsolete overnight without a lot of extra money and time. Some would argue that you do not really add that much stiffness with a cage confined to the passenger compartment, but data show otherwise. I have seen the difference in flex on a surface plate and it is substantial.
Click to expand...

That said, I've had to update my cage twice since it was orginally built, at some cost. I've had many costly upgrades in that time, with more to go.... changes in shock rules, cage, ECU, Hans etc. and almost always more expensive... Rules they are always a-changing; Only peoples time horizion varies.... I've been running SCCA events of one kind or another since 1987 so not much sympathy for worrying about the cost of an optional change when I've borne plenty of non-optional ones.
 
Spin, while a plate change rule SEEMS innocent, it is much more complex. Allow anything, and you will get EVERYthing. As Steve points out, seam welding will become legal. That's fine you say? I disagree, it will mess with the competitive balance. You might have a light car thats easy to make weight with. So you go nuts, your firewall gets stiffened where some suspension subframe attaches, stiffening an Achilles heel issue with your car: lower A arm geometry movement under load. Another guy with the same model car but a bigger engine has to run at a lower weight. Guess what, he cannot make the same mods you can, because hes over his minimum with all the tweaks he can come up with as it is.

And that kind of thing will happen all over the 300 plus model ITCS.

The current plate rule is FINE, and leaves PLENTY of room for proper structure and creativity.
 
lateapex911 said:
Spin, while a plate change rule SEEMS innocent, it is much more complex. Allow anything, and you will get EVERYthing. As Steve points out, seam welding will become legal. That's fine you say? I disagree, it will mess with the competitive balance. You might have a light car thats easy to make weight with. So you go nuts, your firewall gets stiffened where some suspension subframe attaches, stiffening an Achilles heel issue with your car: lower A arm geometry movement under load. Another guy with the same model car but a bigger engine has to run at a lower weight. Guess what, he cannot make the same mods you can, because hes over his minimum with all the tweaks he can come up with as it is.

And that kind of thing will happen all over the 300 plus model ITCS.

The current plate rule is FINE, and leaves PLENTY of room for proper structure and creativity.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.. Rules stability is important to maintain the status quo. I'm ok with the cage rules as they are, though would love to tie the cage to the roof and pillars purely from an engineering standpoint.
 
Spinnetti said:
Gotcha.. Rules stability is important to maintain the status quo. I'm ok with the cage rules as they are, though would love to tie the cage to the roof and pillars purely from an engineering standpoint.
Click to expand...

Me too.

It'll be interesting if the NASA rules evolved to make it mandatory (you can do it now in NASA) to see what the SCCA's stance would be. I know folks here will trot out all sorts of reasons why not to do it from basic expense to claiming you'll need more expensive shocks due to chassis stiffening.
 
Spinnetti said:
...would love to tie the cage to the roof and pillars purely from an engineering standpoint.
Click to expand...

Ron Earp said:
Me too.
Click to expand...
You can do it now, in Super Touring, Production(?), and GT.

The default Improved Touring/Touring/Spec Miata/Showroom Stock cage provides sufficient safety margin for the level of performance and prep that these cars are allowed. Anything else is performance-enhancing desirability.

GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top