IT to ST crossover cage rules

E

EV

New member
GCR 9.4.C sections 2 and 3 exempt IT, SS, SM and T from the requirement of having a cage tube that extends from the forward down tube. I think STU and STL should also be included in this exemption as many of these cars cross over and without that tube, you risk running a fowl of the rules.

Thoughts?

p.s. letter already submitted, but wanted to see if I am out of line
 
EV said:
GCR 9.4.C sections 2 and 3 exempt IT, SS, SM and T from the requirement of having a cage tube that extends from the forward down tube. I think STU and STL should also be included in this exemption as many of these cars cross over and without that tube, you risk running a fowl of the rules.

Thoughts?

p.s. letter already submitted, but wanted to see if I am out of line
Click to expand...
It's actually already in our agenda to discuss...

The problem is that Super Touring requires a horizontal dash bar and front leg stubs (the 7th/8th points) but Improved Touring (and SM, T, and SS) has them as optional. Therefore there's only one of two resolutions:

- Make these bars optional in Super Touring, or
- Require them in Improved Touring (and SM, T, and SS).

The former idea goes against the grain of those who believe lack of these "optional" bars is a true safety hazard; the latter is opposed by those already in those categories that want to keep them optional. Some scrutineers feel that our allowances of cars into ST prepped to other categories also exempts them from the additional safety requirements, while others feel that it does not.

My personal opinion is that from a safety aspect these bars should be mandatory for all categories, and I suspect the vast majority of the cars out there already have them in some form (or they can be easily added). But in the end, that's a decision the CRB is going to have to make.

As noted, it's in our agenda for discussion. - GA
 
I'm thinking it is already covered.

GCR listed IT cars,85 and newer,under current IT specs.

Cage is ok in IT,should be OK in ST under this rule. Correct? or did I miss something. Or did I just over simplify this?

Why add more words to an already wordy book.

Dan
 
Dano77 said:
I'm thinking it is already covered.
Click to expand...
Dan, relevant sections from the GCR, from page 109 of December 2011 (bold and italics mine):

Front Hoop Bracing

All open cars with a high front hoop and all closed cars
except those competing in the Improved Touring, Showroom
Stock, and Spec Miata classes must incorporate a
horizontal front hoop brace at the approximate level of
the dashboard. It is recommended that cars competing
in Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, and Spec Miata
classes also have the front hoop brace.
Click to expand...
One tube must extend, from each front down tube, forward
to the firewall or through the firewall except in vehicles in
Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring.
This tube, one on each side, must connect to the chassis at a
point not more than 12 inches forward of the front axle centerline.

Cars competing in Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec
Miata, and Touring may extend one tube, from each front
down tube, forward to the firewall, bulkhead or wheel well,
but not penetrating any panel.
Click to expand...
These tubes are required in Super Touring...

Cage is ok in IT,should be OK in ST under this rule. Correct?
Click to expand...
Depends on whom you ask. "Some say" that our allowance for IT cars to compete in ST under their IT prep rules does not waive the GCR rollcage requirements for cars competing in ST. That has not been formally clarified.

GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Depends on whom you ask. "Some say" that our allowance for IT cars to compete in ST under their IT prep rules does not waive the GCR rollcage requirements for cars competing in ST. That has not been formally clarified.

GA
Click to expand...

And this is my point... An overreaching tech inspector could gaff you if they wanted to. Heck, I once had a note in my log book that said "paint must match"... Really?
 
ST requires a fuel cell. IT does not. Does that mean I have to put a fuel cell in my IT car to run it in ST? NO.

IT cars prepped to the IT rules are allowed to in ST as is. The GCR is clear on the subject as written as of the December updated version:
"Any GCR listed IT cars, 1985 and newer, under their current IT
specifications may compete in STU. GCR listed IT cars of 2 liters
and less engine displacement, 1985 and newer, may compete in
STL under their current IT specifications.
Note: While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category,
their inclusion in the category will allow regional competitors to
participate in national events."
 
Last edited:
You're "preaching to the choir", Jerry. But I'm hearing not everyone thinks that way, which is why we're going to clarify it.

Actually, there is a third option: CRB comes out and formally says that "IT prep" means everything, including safety items.

GA
 
jhooten said:
ST requires a fuel cell. IT does not. Does that mean I have to put a fuel cell in my IT car to run it in ST? NO.
Click to expand...

I am sure Greg will correct me if I am wrong, but the last rule set I saw said fuel cells are required only if the fuel tank isn't located between the axles and frame rails. So no, a fuel cell isn't required.

If you remember, new rules for next year also exempt ST from the fire system requirements presumably for the same reason as I am requesting the cage rules be clarified.

But again, I could be wrong.
 
That's bad rules reading - it's an IT car, with an IT cage. IT cars may run in ST. The car is legal.

counter example: if you wanted to run in Production, and ran a non compliant cage, then the tech would be correct to point out that your car did not meet minimum production safety requirements as the PCS does not state that IT cars may compete in IT trim. The fact that some IT cars meet production requirements does not mean that they must or that those which do not may run as production as-is.

the STCS specifically states that IT cars compliant to IT rules may run in ST.

If this is really a problem, write a letter to the ITAC and request that the cage rules in the GCR be referenced within the ITCS, then a car prepped to IT regs is specifically compliant in ST with a cage that does not meet ST rules.
 
Chip42 said:
That's bad rules reading - it's an IT car, with an IT cage. IT cars may run in ST. The car is legal.

counter example: if you wanted to run in Production, and ran a non compliant cage, then the tech would be correct to point out that your car did not meet minimum production safety requirements as the PCS does not state that IT cars may compete in IT trim. The fact that some IT cars meet production requirements does not mean that they must or that those which do not may run as production as-is.

the STCS specifically states that IT cars compliant to IT rules may run in ST.

If this is really a problem, write a letter to the ITAC and request that the cage rules in the GCR be referenced within the ITCS, then a car prepped to IT regs is specifically compliant in ST with a cage that does not meet ST rules.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this interpretation. The problem will become the first time you make any modification that is allowed in ST and not in IT all ST requirements kick in.
As Greg states this is a philosophical question for the CRB with the input of the STAC.
 
jhooten said:
ST requires a fuel cell. IT does not. Does that mean I have to put a fuel cell in my IT car to run it in ST? NO.
Click to expand...

I. Fluid Piping & Fuel Tank​
1. Fuel Cells/Tanks
The use of a fuel cell is required unless the stock fuel tank is located
between the axle centerlines and within the main chassis structure​
(i.e., frame rails, etc.).
 
additional IT cars that ARE legal in ST even though they aren't compliant to the ST rules (I am not arguing against this, just pointing out that the people readng the cage rules are missing other opportunities to be wrong):

1)ANY ITR car running the maximum allowed wheel rim width for ITR (8.5") in STU or L.

2)Integra type R or S2000 (2.0L) built to ITR rules in STL

3) any 2ZZ-GE powered car (ITR Celica GTS, ITS Corolla XRS) in STL (too much valve lift)

4) Many cars which are underweight by the ST class rules when running at ITCS prescribed weight, such as the Mazda Protege ES 2.0L (ITA), Lexus IS300 (ITR), Nissan 300ZX (ITR or ITS), MAzda miata (ITS), etc...
 
EV said:
I am sure Greg will correct me if I am wrong, but the last rule set I saw said fuel cells are required only if the fuel tank isn't located between the axles and frame rails. So no, a fuel cell isn't required.

If you remember, new rules for next year also exempt ST from the fire system requirements presumably for the same reason as I am requesting the cage rules be clarified.

But again, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


OK perhaps I should have said for my ITS 85 Supra (may it rest in peace).
 
jhooten said:
We had the weight argument in tech. It cars got to run their IT weight after much ado.
Click to expand...

as it should be.

STAC - I've said it before but Tech DOESN'T GET this class. what can you do to educate them? I'm asking seriously because other than tech bulletins and whatnot, I'm not sure. I have a good relationship with Toni, she is or at least was the national chief. maybe she has ideas?
 
Chip42 said:
additional IT cars that ARE legal in ST even though they aren't compliant to the ST rules (I am not arguing against this, just pointing out that the people readng the cage rules are missing other opportunities to be wrong):

1)ANY ITR car running the maximum allowed wheel rim width for ITR (8.5") in STU or L.

2)Integra type R or S2000 (2.0L) built to ITR rules in STL

3) any 2ZZ-GE powered car (ITR Celica GTS, ITS Corolla XRS) in STL (too much valve lift)

4) Many cars which are underweight by the ST class rules when running at ITCS prescribed weight, such as the Mazda Protege ES 2.0L (ITA), Lexus IS300 (ITR), Nissan 300ZX (ITR or ITS), MAzda miata (ITS), etc...
Click to expand...

Engine coolant lines in the passenger compartment:

Along with *any* car from IT or Touring or Showroom Stock or Spec Miata that has lines containing engine coolant entering the passenger compartment, which is specifically disallowed in ST.

It allows disconnecting/plugging of the lines. SS, SM and T do not specifically allow removal or plugging of the lines or heater core. So any car from SS, SM or T - that want to enter in ST, MUST eliminate lines conatining engine coolant from running through the passenger compartment. IT cars can plug them, since this is allowed under their rules.
 
Chip42 said:
STAC - I've said it before but Tech DOESN'T GET this class. what can you do to educate them?
Click to expand...

One of the key goals of the mid-year re-write of the category philosophy (the whole front of "the book") was to do just that. I suggest unless there's something missing from there, all one really needs to do is read the opening sections of the Super Touring Category Specifications.

And if that doesn't work, then use the protest/appeal process to get the point across to specific individuals in the local organization.

Keep in mind that the regulatory issues at hand here are ONLY GCR main body SAFETY issues, such as roll cage, cell, etc. if someone is getting their ITx car bounced because of weight, prep, cams, etc then it's solely due to people not reading the regs. There's not much we can do about that, and the protest/appeals process is your friend.

GA

Edit: Also recall that I wrote a CRB column in SportsCar (the issue that arrived immediately after the Runoffs) bringing all this to the attention of the membership/hierarchy...

While there are legitimate (but IMO, incorrect) disagreements in regard to the safety questions, I kinda think we've done our homework, but you can't FORCE people to read the regs for the other stuff. "Horse to water" and all that...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top