What's grey about it? It specifically says what you can do.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Main Hoop Braces/Bulkhead interpretations
- Thread starter Speed Raycer
- Start date
What's grey about it? It specifically says what you can do.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Matt Rowe
New member
The grey area is when you take into account the rule of a legal part can not perform a prohibited function. The ITCS specifically calls out reinforcing front suspension points and specifically disallows reinforcement of any other suspension mounting point. Therefore even though cage reinforcement is legal the bar is performing a prohibited function bringing the situation into a gray area.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
Matt, I can see where you're coming from, but this is going to be one of those "agree to disagree" situations.
The regs governing rollcages specifically allow large plates, they specifically allow these plates to be mounted to the rear suspension shocks mounts/tower/pickup points, they specifically allow additional bracing within the cage, and they specifically allow any number of tubes to attach to those large plates. Taken in context, strengthening of the chassis is - in my opinion, "obviously" - allowed and even encouraged.
While I can certainly appreciate your position of seeing rules creep in the rollcage rules versus the original in the 80's that only allowed bolt-in cages (which, by the way, I built and raced in back then) the rules today specifically and explicitly allow and encourage this activity.
Honestly, short of requesting a written rules change, there is no way you're going to curb or restrict this activity. It's plainly legal.
Greg
The regs governing rollcages specifically allow large plates, they specifically allow these plates to be mounted to the rear suspension shocks mounts/tower/pickup points, they specifically allow additional bracing within the cage, and they specifically allow any number of tubes to attach to those large plates. Taken in context, strengthening of the chassis is - in my opinion, "obviously" - allowed and even encouraged.
While I can certainly appreciate your position of seeing rules creep in the rollcage rules versus the original in the 80's that only allowed bolt-in cages (which, by the way, I built and raced in back then) the rules today specifically and explicitly allow and encourage this activity.
Honestly, short of requesting a written rules change, there is no way you're going to curb or restrict this activity. It's plainly legal.
Greg
bldn10
New member
Matt, we have all agreed that any decent, modern cage is going to be designed to and in fact stiffen the car - a prohibited function. Therefore, per the rule you are focusing on, most all cages are illegal. Extreme? OK, let's step back and and look at additional tubes w/i the structure, that are expressly allowed: are we going to examine each one and ask whether it adds to safety or adds to stiffness? Of course not because they are expressly allowed even if they are put in solely to stiffen. Therefore, the cage rules have to be exceptions to the "no other purpose" rule. You have certainly pointed out a facial inconsistency but, unfortunately, we can't always interpret rules in such literal fashion. Like some others, I am 100% certain on this one.
------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
Matt Rowe
New member
First off, let me remind everyone that I said I can see what people are getting at with respect to what is a effectively a rear strut bar being illegal. I also specifically said I would never protest something like this (Greg's request for a friendly protest and clarification aside) because it's definitely a gray area that almost any official is going to err on the side of safety. I don't even think we really disagree as much as I see both sides.
I would say strengthening of the chassis for the purposes of driver safety is plainly allowed and stated. Anything else is reading intent into the rules and as we know the intent doesn't matter. Strengthing of the suspension points is specifically prohibited in many cases and if it says you can't, then you can't. In this case application of the rulebook contradicts itself.
I was pretty sure you were familiar with the old style cages. Since my car was originally built in the early 90's I have a reminder of those rules everytime I have the chance to upgrade something. I certainly wasn't implying that rewriting the rules to limit chassis stiffening was a good idea, I just was pointing out the incredible difference in cage construction allowed by rules changes in the name of safety. "Rules creep" is a term frequently thrown around here but I don't think this is an example that has been pointed out before.
As I think virutaly everyone feels that pure safety issues should take precedence over any other issue. No, in most cages built with the IT rules all of the bars contribute to saftey in some respect. But, there are some extreme cases where an argument can be made that a bar serves no other purpose than to strengthen the car.
As far as how the rules is taken in application I agree it's difficult if not impossible to argue each element of the cage. Greg Amy's is probably the most borderline example I have seen but I think a protest is ultimately doomed. It's just too much of a grey area. But nowhere does it say the cage is excepted from the "prohibited function" clause, that is an interpretation that is being made and interpretations are subject to the decision of the SOM and COA. The clause exists to prevent unforseen rules intrepretations from bypassing specifc rules that disallow an advantage
Again, I am just trying to clarify on what basis a protest could be made. It's nothing more than a friendly discussion and certainly doesn't mean that I don't see why several of you chose to interpret the rules the other way. It's a gray area, despite George's denial that there should even be a question about it.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited January 11, 2005).]
One last point before we stop flogging this dead horse.
Everyone, it seems, has taken as a base assumption that using the rollcage to stiffen the chassis of the car, especially at the suspension, is a prohibited function. It is not. In fact, it is specifically allowed (nay, encouraged) by ITCS 17.1.4.D.10.a.4, which allows the attachment of the rear main hoop braces to the "rear shock mounts/towers or suspension pickup points." If this is not an encouragement to brace the rear suspension, then why is it even mentioned?
Again: I believe that stiffening of the chassis or rear suspension is not a prohibited function of the rollcage, expressed or implied. It may have been twenty years ago when we bolted in Autopower cages, but it is not today...GA
Edit: typo
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 11, 2005).]
Matt Rowe
New member
The rules do state that reinforcing suspension points is limited to certain limitations as far as strut bars.
17.1.4.D.5.d.8 - No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted.
As for why the strut/shock towers are mentioned, I think your reading an intent into the rules by making the assumption that it is to allow stiffening. I would suggest the reason is that those areas are universally among the strongest point in the rear of any car and would be the most secure to mount the cage to. Similar to calling out the rocker boxes for the main hoop mounting, it's not to stiffen the car, it's to make sure the cage mounts don't rip out of unreinforced sheetmetal in the event of an accident.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'm thinking that even IF this were an issue, how can an official judge the builders intent??
Is the official gonna say "That tube over there IS there for safety, but this tube over here is NOT...it's a stiffener, and you are outa here!"? No... I don't think so.
Maybe we can tell if we crash all the cars on test sleds and record g-loading in 3D on a crsah test dummy. (Maybe Gregg of Isaac can pony up a spare dummy..............) Of course, we will need multiple examples of identical models with cage variations.
You really get into deep water when a protest requires the officials call on the builders intent!
Look, the rulesmakers knew damn well what the benefits were when they wrote the rules. They put specific limits in to keep it under control. Easy to enforce limits. And the limits result in design decisions for the builder. The points are largely defined, the tube size is a given (which will result in the builders compromise...is the resultant strength gain worth the weight added?) and plate sizes.
Sure it IS rules creep, but the benefit to us as competitors with families, etc. is far greater than the cost of increased build complexity or performance gain realized on the track.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Is the official gonna say "That tube over there IS there for safety, but this tube over here is NOT...it's a stiffener, and you are outa here!"? No... I don't think so.
Maybe we can tell if we crash all the cars on test sleds and record g-loading in 3D on a crsah test dummy. (Maybe Gregg of Isaac can pony up a spare dummy..............) Of course, we will need multiple examples of identical models with cage variations.
You really get into deep water when a protest requires the officials call on the builders intent!
Look, the rulesmakers knew damn well what the benefits were when they wrote the rules. They put specific limits in to keep it under control. Easy to enforce limits. And the limits result in design decisions for the builder. The points are largely defined, the tube size is a given (which will result in the builders compromise...is the resultant strength gain worth the weight added?) and plate sizes.
Sure it IS rules creep, but the benefit to us as competitors with families, etc. is far greater than the cost of increased build complexity or performance gain realized on the track.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
We're flogging past each other, Matt.
I completely agree. The above rule thusly allows "relocation or reinforcment" of suspension components or mounting points that it does allow. The rule I quoted before allows (I say "encourages") reinforcement of the rear suspension mounts.
My cage does not reinforce any suspension pickup or mounting point other than the one allowed by 17.1.4.D.10.a.4.
"Stiffening" of what? The rollcage? The suspension pickup point itself? Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that stiffening the chassis with the rollcage is a prohibited function (a point with which I disagree). If I stiffen the rollcage to the suspension mount, am I doing it to stiffen the rollcage or am I doing it to stiffen the mounting point? Chicken or egg? If my intent was the former but the latter resulted, am I illegal? So, what we're really talking about here is proof of intent?
Fine, I heretofore formally renounce that my intention for the design of that rollcage was to stiffen the rear suspension points; it was PURELY to stiffen the rollcage for maximum safety. It is very unfortunate that my rollcage design resulted in a potential performance advantage but I assure you that it was not my intent. Therefore, despite any perceived performance advantage I have thus not in any way violated the "intent rule"; therefore, I am 100% in compliance with the rules. However, now that an illegal potential result has been proven possible, and you have been made aware of it, it would be in clear violation of the regs if you were to do the same to your car, because your intent would be clear.
Now, really, just how silly is this?
Matt, again, I agree with you: the rules have creeped from 1984. Yes, my rear suspension has been strengthened by my rollcage design. But, if you continue to tilt this windmill it will fill you with frustration to the point of self-destruction.
I wholly encourage you, if you feel that strongly about it, to pursue a rule change with SCCA. If the rules change, I will comply. But I also feel strongly that this cage is completely and totally legal, to both the letter and the intent, even to the point where I am willing to risk time, money, and effort to prove it with you.
But, please, don't take time trying convince me otherwise. I, and many others, believe these designs are completely legal. - GA
Edit: DOOH! Typos and maybe a Freudian slip???
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 11, 2005).]
I completely agree. The above rule thusly allows "relocation or reinforcment" of suspension components or mounting points that it does allow. The rule I quoted before allows (I say "encourages") reinforcement of the rear suspension mounts.
My cage does not reinforce any suspension pickup or mounting point other than the one allowed by 17.1.4.D.10.a.4.
"Stiffening" of what? The rollcage? The suspension pickup point itself? Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that stiffening the chassis with the rollcage is a prohibited function (a point with which I disagree). If I stiffen the rollcage to the suspension mount, am I doing it to stiffen the rollcage or am I doing it to stiffen the mounting point? Chicken or egg? If my intent was the former but the latter resulted, am I illegal? So, what we're really talking about here is proof of intent?
Fine, I heretofore formally renounce that my intention for the design of that rollcage was to stiffen the rear suspension points; it was PURELY to stiffen the rollcage for maximum safety. It is very unfortunate that my rollcage design resulted in a potential performance advantage but I assure you that it was not my intent. Therefore, despite any perceived performance advantage I have thus not in any way violated the "intent rule"; therefore, I am 100% in compliance with the rules. However, now that an illegal potential result has been proven possible, and you have been made aware of it, it would be in clear violation of the regs if you were to do the same to your car, because your intent would be clear.
Now, really, just how silly is this?
Matt, again, I agree with you: the rules have creeped from 1984. Yes, my rear suspension has been strengthened by my rollcage design. But, if you continue to tilt this windmill it will fill you with frustration to the point of self-destruction.
I wholly encourage you, if you feel that strongly about it, to pursue a rule change with SCCA. If the rules change, I will comply. But I also feel strongly that this cage is completely and totally legal, to both the letter and the intent, even to the point where I am willing to risk time, money, and effort to prove it with you.
But, please, don't take time trying convince me otherwise. I, and many others, believe these designs are completely legal. - GA
Edit: DOOH! Typos and maybe a Freudian slip???
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 11, 2005).]
Matt Rowe
New member
I'm sure we can all acknowledge that when these rules were changed they could not have forseen every possible manipulation possible. I think everyone realizes that if there is a rule someone will find a loophole to exploit it. I would guess that allowing multiple bars to attach to the plates was done to make fabrication easier. Greg's cage has taken that allowance and stretched it pretty far, probably farther than originally intended. On the one hand, congrats to him for exploiting the rule. On the other hand, does it really contribute to the driver's safety which is the stated purpose of the cage. If he wants to follow through with his offer then maybe we'll find out.
Hey, as I said, I agree that the benefits to safety are worth it. I'm just clarifying why it's a gray area. I'm certainly not saying anyone is cheating by exploiting the ambiguity in the rules.
In the meantime, I'll try to stop responsing as long as no one claims that it is a black and white issue. Deal?
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
dickita15
New member
I must admit that even I am on greg's side on this one. the no prohibited function clause is just to broad for it to be well applied in this case. the rear "strut bar" also changes the weight distribution by adding balast in a non approved location. is that another prohibited function. in order to enforce this clause it has to be obvious.
if I put a heat shield on my exhaust out of 16 ga metal it should be legal. how about 1/8 " probably would pass. if it was 1/4" plate I would say no.
because the no prohibited funcion clause is vauge the proof must be obvious.
dick patullo
if I put a heat shield on my exhaust out of 16 ga metal it should be legal. how about 1/8 " probably would pass. if it was 1/4" plate I would say no.
because the no prohibited funcion clause is vauge the proof must be obvious.
dick patullo
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Awww...c'mon! It is what !??????
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
G
Guest
Guest
Question,
Is there a reason that Greg needs wait for the next race to have his cage inspected? That "could" effect his weekend of having fun? Is there a way to have a SCCA inspector to be paid for his time to inspect the cage long before the race so changes could be made if it is infact not legal.
Could Greg send pictures of the mounting points in question to SCCA for clarification long before the racing starts to give him time for mods?
My opinion is if Gregs cage design might save lives then get the rule changed and everyone
do it. And if this is such a grey area Give Greg some time to make changes "Just" in case.
Just a thought.
Mont
[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 11, 2005).]
Is there a reason that Greg needs wait for the next race to have his cage inspected? That "could" effect his weekend of having fun? Is there a way to have a SCCA inspector to be paid for his time to inspect the cage long before the race so changes could be made if it is infact not legal.
Could Greg send pictures of the mounting points in question to SCCA for clarification long before the racing starts to give him time for mods?
My opinion is if Gregs cage design might save lives then get the rule changed and everyone
do it. And if this is such a grey area Give Greg some time to make changes "Just" in case.
Just a thought.
Mont
[This message has been edited by Marzracing (edited January 11, 2005).]
Matt Rowe
New member
Options for clarifications are possible by submitting a request to national along with a check for $250. I don't think anyone here feels it is worth that kind of money one way or the other. It is unclear to me if that would eliminate the possibility of a future protest, if additional information is lodged in the protest although I'm sure most people think it is a get out of jail paper. My only question is a good protest would make a case based on the various rules interpretations that we have been discussing. Were Greg to submit his rear bracing for an opinion I doubt he or anyone else would make a strong case for why it is in question. So I don't know that it would prove anything beyond what everyone already accepts. As I said I don't think anyone here would think its worth the money.
I seriously doubt Greg is any danger of receiving a penalty or DQ. I think the cage in question has been around and under scrutiny for long enough. Since he put forward the idea of a test protest I would imagine he's had people look at it before but no one has protested yet or we wouldn't be having this debate.
If you take a look at the pictures in question I think you'll also find that the bar in question really has a marginal effect on safety at best. Plus it appears that almost everyone is doing something with a better impact on safety, this design just pushes the limits of the mounting plate rule more than most. So getting a clarification on this extreme case isn't really going to make cage building safer.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96