Door Glass Removal Rescind?
- Thread starter grjones1
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Nope, LOL. The definition in yhe GCR mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars and that they are the ones entering the door cavity. The definition doesn't say how much they need to enter the cavity, nor does it call out any involvement with the door glass or mechanisms, it merely states that they must "enter the door cavity".
As the famous IT.com philosopher from texas reminds us, "If it says you can do it, you bloody well can do it".
***The definition in yhe GCR mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars and that they are the ones entering the door cavity. ***
When I get involved in a rules discussion most times I read the GCR/ITAC before I start typing. Please have a
& then show the rule that mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars. 
When I get involved in a rules discussion most times I read the GCR/ITAC before I start typing. Please have a
& then show the rule that mandates the bars that are to be considered for the "NASCAR" entitlement be the horizontal bars. 
erlrich
Super Moderator
Man...and I swore I wasn't going to jump into this one
.You make an excellent point raffaelli; but first let's clear up one misquote - the rules don't say anything about the "door cavity", the rule says "Door side tubes may extend into the door". Period. Nothing about them having to be NASCAR bars (although they may by default fall under that definition), nothing about what comprises the door, nothing about them being the horizontal bars, nothing about a cavity.
So, that said, where exactly does the door begin?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
OK guys, the rules grant you an allowance to gut the door mechanisms IF you install "NASCAR style" door protection...........
The rules refer, in several places I think, to the allowance of removing parts of trim and panels to facilitate the installment of the cage. So, if your armest is in the way of a door bar, you may cut the armrest.
Now, if you all refer to your 2007 GCRs, and you read the definition of "NASCAR style door bars", (Glossary section) you will find it does indeed read: "...shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity..."
So, if you want to take advantage of the NASCAR bar allowance, your bars must intrude into the door cavity.
Now it doesn't define door cavity, so we're left to common sense and a techs judgement on that. But as there is precedent for removing trim to allow for cage installation, I would say that contacting and or interfereing with the trim is NOT an allowance to gut the door. However, if your door will not close without the door panel (defined in the GCR as the panel that supports the trim) being clearanced around the doorbar(s), I'd say the rule allows you to go all the way. Note that the allowance defines the limits as modification of the door panel, but not the entire removal of it.
IF the bars don't meet the definition in the GCR, you're out of luck.
The rules refer, in several places I think, to the allowance of removing parts of trim and panels to facilitate the installment of the cage. So, if your armest is in the way of a door bar, you may cut the armrest.
Now, if you all refer to your 2007 GCRs, and you read the definition of "NASCAR style door bars", (Glossary section) you will find it does indeed read: "...shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity..."
So, if you want to take advantage of the NASCAR bar allowance, your bars must intrude into the door cavity.
Now it doesn't define door cavity, so we're left to common sense and a techs judgement on that. But as there is precedent for removing trim to allow for cage installation, I would say that contacting and or interfereing with the trim is NOT an allowance to gut the door. However, if your door will not close without the door panel (defined in the GCR as the panel that supports the trim) being clearanced around the doorbar(s), I'd say the rule allows you to go all the way. Note that the allowance defines the limits as modification of the door panel, but not the entire removal of it.
IF the bars don't meet the definition in the GCR, you're out of luck.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
OK, thats the quote as it stands now. I suspect it will be cleaned up. The NASCAR definition hasn't changed. The existing rule has always mandated the NASCAR bars entering the door cavity in exchange for the right to gut the door, and I suspect this wording will get tightened up to make that clear. I can see that a shade of gray has slipped in with the inclusion of the "may" wording regarding the side tubes entering into the door.
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
There is absolutely no reason to include the first two sentences in your quote. They have no bearing on the issue at hand. The important line is:
And all the other stuff you listed may be removed. The only thing contingent upon the 'facilitation' of installation is the modification of the internal door structural panel.
Oh, and BTW, you don't need one horizontal tube as part of an 'X'
Installing 'NASCAR-style' door bars is not required to modify the door in the allowed manner.
/edit/
BTW, it doesn't say anything about 'cutting' the armrest. It says you're allowed to removed (along w/ a bunch of other bits), but you're not allowed to modify it.
Do these two clauses mean the same thing?
...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.
...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed ; and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.
K
...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.
...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed ; and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection.
K
Eric Parham
New member
I'm going to propose that they do. Now compare with this one:
...the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed, to facilitate this type of side protection.
The first (original) is vague, but the "to facilitate . . ." wording cannot fairly be said to modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.
The added semicolon in the second (Kirk's) would make it clearer that the "to facilitate . . ." wording does not modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.
The added comma in the third would make it clearer that the "to facilitate . . ." wording does modify the "glass . . . may be removed" portion.
It could be even clearer, though, depending on the actual intent.
As for the actual intent, NASCAR-style protection (which may add crush zone) on the driver's side is basically a no-brainer, and is encouraged by providing the desired allowance to gut the driver's door. That's all fine, and I haven't seen or thought of any good argument why it should change, so I assume that the new rule, as written, does not match the intent.
The passenger's side is less obvious, particularly since the slightly increased crush zone for NASCAR-style protection simply isn't needed to protect the driver. In fact, bending the bar so it intrudes into the door might well weaken it so as to provide LESS intrusion protection than a straight bar would have. There have also been good arguments in the past for removal of the glass for safety reasons (I myself got glass in my eye after a Meotter used my pass door as a 5th brake/turn-in point), so I would argue that such removal is not simply being offered as an incentive (as is basically true on the driver's side).
I'd like to see NASCAR-style protection required on the driver's side, at least 2 "horizontal" bars required between the driver and the door on both sides, and leave it up to the competitors/builders whether to remove some or all of the front door glass from either or both sides (idea: with Lexan allowed for supplemental front door windows, such as fixed vent glass). I see no point at all in requiring or promoting NASCAR-style on the passenger's side. Sound reasonable?
jumbojimbo
New member
Sorry to resurrect this thread.
I thought it was pretty clear that with nascar bars I could remove the door panel completely. And the DPO of the car did just that.
I'm getting ready for my first annual tech and in talking to the tech guy on the phone he indicated that even with nascar bars I need at least a partial door panel. His theory is that I need something to cover the door handle mechanism so I don't get tangled up in it.
Do I really need a "door panel" or do I just need something to cover the potentially sharp door handle mech?
thanks
jim
I thought it was pretty clear that with nascar bars I could remove the door panel completely. And the DPO of the car did just that.
I'm getting ready for my first annual tech and in talking to the tech guy on the phone he indicated that even with nascar bars I need at least a partial door panel. His theory is that I need something to cover the door handle mechanism so I don't get tangled up in it.
Do I really need a "door panel" or do I just need something to cover the potentially sharp door handle mech?
thanks
jim
this is what i have:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom91ita/2255173620/
i have seen some doors where the inner panel was taken off to the very top of the door which some consider to be excessive and some may argue is to keep the window net clear and functional (hint??). but what is the reason for doing a passenger door that way?
i do have more off in the front section near where the one net clip is but if i remember right, it had more to do with the contour of the door and an easy path to cut with the sawzall.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom91ita/2255173620/
i have seen some doors where the inner panel was taken off to the very top of the door which some consider to be excessive and some may argue is to keep the window net clear and functional (hint??). but what is the reason for doing a passenger door that way?
i do have more off in the front section near where the one net clip is but if i remember right, it had more to do with the contour of the door and an easy path to cut with the sawzall.
Furthermore, I would expect that on plenty of cars, mine included I think, once the door bars get into the door cavity enough to preclude having the window winder mechanism in there (yes, mine are still manual!), well then, the door glass is no longer properly contained anyway, even if the glass itself could still clear the door bars by a fraction of an inch. So then what would we have to do, tape it in place??? Doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, if the glass were retained in place with a gutted door, it would readily be subject to damage by the door bars in a side impact, but no longer contained by the stock sheetmetal and door inner trim panel... and the driver now gets showered with glass. This also doesn't make sense.
Of course, there's still the question of whether or not the rules clearly spell this out.
On concern I do have with the rule, given what Raymond quoted above... the wording "and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection." seems to leave some room for interpretation on just how much of the inner door panel can be cut out. Most IT cars I've seen have had only the very edge/lip of the inner panel still there... but then I recently reviewed the GM Solstice prep book, and see how they carved away just a narrow slot for the door bars. I hope there's no threat that so many existing IT cars could now be considered illegal for this reason?
I hope I'm just over-analyzing the wording?? I've little experience at this rules-nerd stuff...
Furthermore, if the glass were retained in place with a gutted door, it would readily be subject to damage by the door bars in a side impact, but no longer contained by the stock sheetmetal and door inner trim panel... and the driver now gets showered with glass. This also doesn't make sense.
Of course, there's still the question of whether or not the rules clearly spell this out.
On concern I do have with the rule, given what Raymond quoted above... the wording "and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection." seems to leave some room for interpretation on just how much of the inner door panel can be cut out. Most IT cars I've seen have had only the very edge/lip of the inner panel still there... but then I recently reviewed the GM Solstice prep book, and see how they carved away just a narrow slot for the door bars. I hope there's no threat that so many existing IT cars could now be considered illegal for this reason?
I hope I'm just over-analyzing the wording?? I've little experience at this rules-nerd stuff...
mbuskuhl
New member
The cage and door below was done by the head of tech in my region. Not only did he oversee the cage construction, but it was his shop that cut the door. What you see below works here but may not work with your inspector. Post up what you got.
If you run a "NASCAR Bar" into the door, you're free to gut the inside as much as you want. No door panels are required. As long as you leave the outer skin and factory outer intrusion bars in place, you're good.
That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to protect yourself from the sharp edges; of course it is. But, it's not specifically required, though I can see a tech guy being concerned about it. - GA
On edit: Buskuhl's car above appears legal, and I like the way Tom used door edging to protect from the sharp edges...