June Fastrack

lateapex911 said:
Maybe it's late, but, does this sentence help you case?
Click to expand...

I have a tendency to try and explain that I understand both sides of any argument when I engage myself in it. the construction is varied, the materials are varied. the techniques and design of the braces will vary. there are too many things to control that cannot be controlled tightly enough given our club type structure.

the point, I hope, was that improperly installed they are dangerous, and that the mounting mechanisms already inherent to the seats, with which they were approved, should be BETTER inspected and possible legislated before additional, uncontrolled fabrication is brought to bear.

there's a story that sticks out in my mind. a veteran, legendary chief of tech from the buccaneer region and a guy who was still moving up the scrutineering ladder were doing an annual on a car at savannah. the new guy wanted to fail the seat because it was loose. he insisted that they add a back brace. the veteran signed off on the annual anyhow because the seat was FIA and that was all he needed to see. both of these guys have annualled hundreds if not thousands of our cars. and they were both missing the problem. the seat was not mounted adequately within the current rules. overlooking the poor installation because of a cert that has nothing to do with the success of the mounting, or to insist that additions be made beyond repairing the actual failure when said addition is NOT required, seems to sum up the SCCA approach - do nothing then over react to failures of the nothing. the tech sheds are full of good, concerned men and women. many of them are very smart, but their backgrounds vary and their foci or pet issues vary and their competence is not well regulated - the inherent issues within a club of volunteers.

this rule change is dangerous due to a number of factors, most of which are simply out of the reasonable control of the club.

tom91 - I get that you think the kirkey seats of the world should be allowed to run without a brace if the sparcos are. fine. just show me where FIA, SFI, NHTSA, DEKRA, or another worthy organization has crash tested it successfully without a brace and it's all good. most Al seats are structural garbage. sorry.
 
tom91ita said:
My aluminum seat was not intended to be mounted with a seat back brace as evidenced by the mounting instructions sent with the seat. Since i am required to install something that is stupid, dangerous and unnecessary, so should those with FIA seats.
Click to expand...

I hope you are not serious.

Is your aluminum seat carry and FIA certification? No
Was your seat tested without the back brace? No
Could you of paid the extra money and got an FIA seat? Yes
Of standard seat materials isn't aluminum the best one (other than maybe steel) to modify without loosing structural integrity? Yes
Doesn't your case come off a bit selfish? Yes
 
StephenB said:
If your interested in the FIA process. I am actually going to make sure my belts are mounted per their testing standards as well.
Click to expand...

don't forget to tape your feet to the footrest and to have your arms crossed and the forearms taped together as well so the seat can perform as tested.

was i serious about submitting a statement that was sarcastic, riduculous and possibly insulting? yes.

was it my intent you need back braces? no.

i was trying to point out how absurd this is and not how much it is needed.

but one thing i have just realized is that my seat back is ~ 36" long and that one inch off the bottom is on the "back" just as much as 1" off the top.

there is no dimensional aspect to this requirement that it be X" from the top or that it be perpendicular to the seat, etc.

and for those with FIA seats mounted within an inch or so of the main hoop and bracing, in an rear impact, you in effect have a back brace. the seat will deflect and then hit the cage anyways.
 
tom91ita said:
and for those with FIA seats mounted within an inch or so of the main hoop and bracing, in an rear impact, you in effect have a back brace. the seat will deflect and then hit the cage anyways.
Click to expand...

In effect you are correct, but oper the rule I would be illegal unless I had installed something. In this case where my seat is around an 1" from the roll bar maybe less. If the rule passes I will still have to come up with some sort of seat back brace that attaches to a seat consisting mostly of fabric and steel cage, in that cramped area, ohh and also make it adjsutable quickly so my father can jump in during enduros' and we can more the seat forward in quick fashion. Since this is nearly inpossilbe do to because of constraints reasons this is why I chose a quality FIA seat. In the other car which the seat doesn't move I have an aluminum Kirkey and it has a back brace as it is not an FIA seat and requires one.
 
Last edited:
another question for those with FIA seats, do you replace them every 5 years per FIA's useful life statements or have them re-certified for the extra 2 years?

SCCA seems to be silent on this but it seems to be implied that if one makes use of the FIA design to not need the seat brace one might be expected to follow the rest of FIA's requirements.
 
tom91ita said:
another question for those with FIA seats, do you replace them every 5 years per FIA's useful life statements or have them re-certified for the extra 2 years?

SCCA seems to be silent on this but it seems to be implied that if one makes use of the FIA design to not need the seat brace one might be expected to follow the rest of FIA's requirements.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have a rule that says FIA seats must be replaced or treated as a non-homologated item after their stated service life (or 5 yrs) than a blanket rule that legislates the unsupervised engineering adulteration of a proven design. that way I can choose to NOT compromise the integrity of my safety equipment and still be in compliance.

BTW, wrist and ankles of a DUMMY are taped, so what? the number of variables for what can be hit by the flailing limbs of a driver in a wreck is not in the pervue of the seat to control. The seat is about upper body containment and safety.

the attitude you take with respect to aluminum seats vs. FIA simply baffles me. a sarcastic letter cannot help the system, nor the discussion - wether you mean it or not. nothing personal, but please DON'T submit a letter to the CRB if that's all you have to offer.
 
Last edited:
i will not be submitting a note on the seats. but since reason and logic seem to have failed on other topics, it is sort of "what do we have to lose" mode of venting.
 
The seat thing is extraordinary...Essentially, the CRb is saying: "We see certain FIA seats are being mounted in a manner that was non homogulated, so we propose that ALL seats be modified in a manner that is non homogulated." (As well as contrary to the requirements of mounting)


Now, i think the CRB has stepped on it (along with the ITAC, but the CRB are the bosses, so they are in the line of fire too) on the ridiculous engine mount issue, but this is SO ludicrous, I have to think there is a back story that we just don't know about. If so, either shame on them for not filling us in (Maybe there are liability concerns!?) or kudos to them for forming the question in a way to get a guaranteed "Are you nuts!?" response.

I'm hoping there's more going on here than what I see.
 
rules creep

I don't understand why motor mounts and crank-fired ignitions are in the same category of a "closer to production" conversation. Essentially every other bushing is replaceable in the car, but the one set of mounts that actually breaks is not. This is silly and not consistent. But making a modification and changing the ignition system on some cars is maybe ok? That makes no sense. Not all cars get electronic ignitions. The point is supposed to be to improve the car that you have, not to make a different one.

Does everybody also get to switch to DOHC engines? Or disc brakes? Please don't mess up IT. The whole point about fighting over washer bottles is that we aren't fighting about racing transmissions.
 
I think I may have just found out what I'm going to do with my Isaac device in 2012. Use it as a seat back brace for my FIA seat! :D
 
So, if you allow motor mounts...do you also allow transmission mounts? They seem to be pretty much in the same ballpark (a lot moreso than crank fired ignitions)


As far as the shifter modifications that are allowed....why not just allow the short shifters? My stock rubbery shift thing causes me to grind unless I'm very precise with the shift. So instead of costing $100 or $200 for a short shifter that is a huge improvement over stock....I'm going to be rebuilding transmissions? I don't much see the point in being able to modify almost every part of the shifter - but not being able to just buy one that's already been worked over.
 
jamsilvia said:
So, if you allow motor mounts...do you also allow transmission mounts? They seem to be pretty much in the same ballpark (a lot moreso than crank fired ignitions)


As far as the shifter modifications that are allowed....why not just allow the short shifters? My stock rubbery shift thing causes me to grind unless I'm very precise with the shift. So instead of costing $100 or $200 for a short shifter that is a huge improvement over stock....I'm going to be rebuilding transmissions? I don't much see the point in being able to modify almost every part of the shifter - but not being able to just buy one that's already been worked over.
Click to expand...

You're allowed to modify almost every part of your shifter? I see ONE part, the shaft, that you can lengthen or shorten. (The knob is free, allowing alternative longer lengths).

You said that you need to be precise in the shift...so be precise. Or don't and rebuild the transmission, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."
 
lateapex911 said:
You said that you need to replace motor mounts periodically...so replace motor mounts periodically. Or don't and utilize a stay rod to extend the life of the motor mounts, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
lateapex911 said:
You're allowed to modify almost every part of your shifter? I see ONE part, the shaft, that you can lengthen or shorten. (The knob is free, allowing alternative longer lengths).

You said that you need to be precise in the shift...so be precise. Or don't and rebuild the transmission, your choice. Choose your car for the strengths, and deal with the warts. All cars have them.

To take the your argument further, it's like saying "I'm blowing my engine because I'm holding a certain gear longer to get into a corner to save a shift. So we should be allowed to swap trans ratios, it will save me blown motors."
Click to expand...

...or go race with NASA where they allow motor mounts, transmission ratio changes battery relocation and could care less if you have your washer bottle. Pick the playground that you feel most comfortable in..
 
Chris, the difference is that the philosophical barn door to hold the engine in a position for racing was opened way back when they said it was ok to control engine movement, via the use of stayrods..

Whether you chose to use the stay rod, or you desire mount mods is rather irrelevant.. they are both just different ways to skin the same cat that we've been allowed to skin since the eighties. (although some are more effective/cheaper/easier in certain cases)

The redesign and changing of an entire shifter mechanism though, is a door that has never been opened.
It would raise the game across the board. I don't see a huge need, but I am aware that it's a popular item in the aftermarket.

I'm also aware that shifting is an issue when the engine/trans flops around.
Ironic.
 
Show of hands: How many people actually run an engine stay rod?

And please explain to me how it can be constructed to hold the engine in two directions (fore/aft, and side/side) without multiple attachment points??

And, what good will a stay rod do holding the engine in only one direction (fore/aft, OR side/side)???

Sorry, I don't see the allowance of a stay rod as a satisfactory reinforcement of motor/trans mounts. Chuck
 
This is totally a gut reaction, but I spent some time looknig at GT and Prod cars at CMP last weekend. Most had pretty intricately fabricated stay rods.

I can tell you what "feels" more Prod -- they stay rod over a urethane motor mount by FAR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top