May Fastrack Posted
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
its66
New member
I would love to know the reason to NOT allow a jacking point which does not perform any otherwise speicfied illegal function. I could understand not allowing them to be designed in a way as to increase the chassis' stiffness.
Would any IT racer object to a competitor adding a jack point? I would like to see this put out for member input. If it already was, I must have missed it... Yet another reason to put Fastrack back in the checker
Would any IT racer object to a competitor adding a jack point? I would like to see this put out for member input. If it already was, I must have missed it... Yet another reason to put Fastrack back in the checker
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Regarding the jacking points:
Andy can chime in and correct me if I remember this incorrectly, but the ITAC felt that there are many ways to put jacking points in a car now, and legally as well. As such it was felt that writing a rule that allowed more could get tricky and could open up things and allow some unintended consequences.
I would guess that if there was a real problem with the situation as it exists now, the ITAC might have been more willing to take that chance, but it seems like the benefit wouldn't pay for the risk.
I think it's a reasonable point, though I do see the requestors points as well.
(I might add that i have been under cars and seem lots of things I wished I hadn't. Like 3 foot long 3" x 2" U channels welded from the the front to the back....for "jacking")
Andy can chime in and correct me if I remember this incorrectly, but the ITAC felt that there are many ways to put jacking points in a car now, and legally as well. As such it was felt that writing a rule that allowed more could get tricky and could open up things and allow some unintended consequences.
I would guess that if there was a real problem with the situation as it exists now, the ITAC might have been more willing to take that chance, but it seems like the benefit wouldn't pay for the risk.
I think it's a reasonable point, though I do see the requestors points as well.
(I might add that i have been under cars and seem lots of things I wished I hadn't. Like 3 foot long 3" x 2" U channels welded from the the front to the back....for "jacking")
Chris Wire
New member
I think this issue is of greater importance to a class that is based on an OE chassis vs. a tube frame or more unlimited class.
The damage caused by repeatedly jacking the OE chassis points does significant damage over time. Whether or not it degrades overall chassis integrity is debateable, but the damage is pretty obvious. I think limited jacking points are needed. The rules can be written to limited what can be done, similar to how the 100 sq. in. rule is written for roll cages.
I think the ability of IT cars to run enduros adds to the frequency of our cars being jacked up, sometimes right on pit lane, where time/speed become more critical than in the pits.
I'm disappointed with the decision.
I read through all of this stuff yesterday and I had no objection at this time to the new ITA classifications. The automatics and wagons thing getting crossed out was odd though. I don't get it I guess.
One thing I saw that I did personally find quite interesting though was the "EG" Civic Si hatchback getting classed in limited prep FProd at 1950lbs with 12.0:1 compression and a .450" lift. "Now that's interesting!"
Speed Raycer
New member
I'm with Chris (and it's 100 not 120
). It wouldn't be that hard to specify a max. sq. inch rule, min & max thickness. Make 2 different allowances for points tying into the cage vs points in the middle of the rocker.
Chris Wire
New member
I'm with Chris (and it's 100 not 120
[/b]
Whaddyamean? That's what I wrote!
I say leave the middle of the rocker out, since it's generally perceived to be a weaker point. Require it to be within say 6" of a cage mounting point, then specify maximum size and thickness.
I know I can lift both wheels off the ground by jacking either cage point. It just mangles the chassis when I do.
its66
New member
Perhaps I am dense. The only legal way I can think of to add a jacking point is something welded to the roll cage. The only way to access that would be through the door. Yes, if you were building a car from scratch, you might be able to design the mounting pads for the front down tubes in such a manner that they provided some sort of jacking pad by reinforcing the floor from inside the car. ON an existing car, that isnt' really an option.
You have already seen a 3 foot long U channel underneath a car, without the provision to add a jacking point. An addition which permits a jacking point would do nothing for this vehicle.
I wouldn't propose such wording which would permit that much steel, or that would permiting tieing two suspension mounting points. I would recommend a one piece basically rectangular pad with allowances made to allow trimming to fit the factory shape of the floor. No more than 80 square inches. No more than 12 inches in length or width. Maybe 3/16th thick maximum (Scott R..may have some input here->) I would permit it to be welded(connected) to either the pinch weld OR the frame rail, but not both. The jacking point would not be permitted to perform any otherwise illegal function. (chassis stiffening, etc)
Tear it apart. I realize it may not be perfect, but I think everyone will see the direction of this. Who objects? Chris W., Wouldn't you love to have a car whose floor, rockers, and pinch welds don't look like mine. The last time I took an RX7 to get straightened, the frame guy looked at it and scratched his head for an hour, trying to figure how he was going to hook it up and tell if it was square, because the pinchwelds were so destroyed.
feedback??
You have already seen a 3 foot long U channel underneath a car, without the provision to add a jacking point. An addition which permits a jacking point would do nothing for this vehicle.
I wouldn't propose such wording which would permit that much steel, or that would permiting tieing two suspension mounting points. I would recommend a one piece basically rectangular pad with allowances made to allow trimming to fit the factory shape of the floor. No more than 80 square inches. No more than 12 inches in length or width. Maybe 3/16th thick maximum (Scott R..may have some input here->) I would permit it to be welded(connected) to either the pinch weld OR the frame rail, but not both. The jacking point would not be permitted to perform any otherwise illegal function. (chassis stiffening, etc)
Tear it apart. I realize it may not be perfect, but I think everyone will see the direction of this. Who objects? Chris W., Wouldn't you love to have a car whose floor, rockers, and pinch welds don't look like mine. The last time I took an RX7 to get straightened, the frame guy looked at it and scratched his head for an hour, trying to figure how he was going to hook it up and tell if it was square, because the pinchwelds were so destroyed.
feedback??
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, I know of a few methods of accomplishing the end result, and I think they are currently legal. here's one off the top of my head.
Add a tube from the lower door bar (at the balance point of the car) to the floor, and weld a pad to that...if it's close to a drain plug, all the better, because you can now fab up a pad for the jack with a registration pin that fits a hole in the floor pad. As long as the pad isn't attached to the floor, you're good to go.
As in all matters of the rules, I appreciate there are two sides to the coin. And these things are the results of votes...there are 9 members of the ITAC...get to know a couple guys, make your case, and resubmit it...maybe you can tilt the balance. (I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to offer options)
Add a tube from the lower door bar (at the balance point of the car) to the floor, and weld a pad to that...if it's close to a drain plug, all the better, because you can now fab up a pad for the jack with a registration pin that fits a hole in the floor pad. As long as the pad isn't attached to the floor, you're good to go.
As in all matters of the rules, I appreciate there are two sides to the coin. And these things are the results of votes...there are 9 members of the ITAC...get to know a couple guys, make your case, and resubmit it...maybe you can tilt the balance. (I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to offer options)
its66
New member
Hmm.. That reminds me too much of the current ecu rule, or the old no threaded body shocks. I can have a jacking pad that sits on the floor, but it can't be welded to the floor. Can I have my dash bar "sit" against the firewall? It seems almost like torturing one rule to prevent the torture of another. Seems like an awfully difficult way to add a jacking point just because someone, somewhere might break the rule. (which, we both know they already are)
I also understand the other side of the coin, I just don't agree with shooting down a reasonable jacking point allowance. If it is reasonable, and the rule is well defined, where is the problem.
I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but not having an allowance within the rules because someone might break it, or challenge it doesn't make any sense.
I'll stop now.
RacerBill
New member
Reading this thread, I get the impression that there are more pros than cons to allowing jacking points. And I whole heartly agree. I have to jack my car at least twice a weekend - the race tires do not fit on the trailer and I have to mount narrower tires. The stock jacking points are mangled to the point where if I don't repair them, they will be a safety issue.
I, too, see absolutely no reason why reasonable sized jacking plates cannot be allowed. I have more steel welded to my frame to provide towing eyes than I would have for one jacking plate on each side of the car.
I, too, see absolutely no reason why reasonable sized jacking plates cannot be allowed. I have more steel welded to my frame to provide towing eyes than I would have for one jacking plate on each side of the car.
tom_sprecher
Super Moderator
Since we can not add jacking plates to the bottom of the car that are the same contour as the "frame" I plan to make a jack saddle that is. Not as fast as a big plate welded to the botttom but it should work.
RSTPerformance
New member
While I do like the idea of having a jacking point to keep newbie crew from jacking up on the floor and making a big dent, and or to protect my rockerpanel from the damages that jacking has caused... I do think that some people could use it to ones advantage.
I am not someone whom thinks that weight makes a huge difference, (but then again when your car weighs 2,500lbs, 10 - 20 lbs isn't anything)... Some (many on this website) think that weight and weight placement makes a HUGE difference. I envision some lead jacking points on my car
Raymond "Lets think this one all the way through" Blethen
I am not someone whom thinks that weight makes a huge difference, (but then again when your car weighs 2,500lbs, 10 - 20 lbs isn't anything)... Some (many on this website) think that weight and weight placement makes a HUGE difference. I envision some lead jacking points on my car
Raymond "Lets think this one all the way through" Blethen
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Of course you can..and many do. Same for the A pillar and the B pillar.... It's just good cage building....
First, I'm not so sure it's all that hard, and second, the reason wasn't because of someone breaking the rule, it was because of the risk reward ratio and the word "torture"....
Remember, I'm playing devils advocate in a sense here...
I was the author of the request for jack points.
I had seen it shot down a few years back, but had no idea what had been proposed or why it was rejected. So I hung back a while, but wrote up and mulled over a proposal that I thought would cover a large portion of the rule writing process, thus making the decision for the ITAC & the CRB easier. I was quite disappointed when I heard that it had been shot down again.
The proposal was listed here back in February at the time I was submitting it in an effort to get some other people to either read it & chime in on necessary changes and to send letters to the CRB supporting it. Its still on the Rules & Regs page, scroll down a bit, so rather than reprint it here go take a look.
Its interesting that the comments made here are very close to what I had written in my proposal for size & thickness of materials.
What I find most irritating is that no one has shown exactly how 'the rule is adequate as written'. Yeah yeah yeah, you can add a down tube from the cage to sit near the floor & all which is great for the passengers side. On the drivers side, this proposed bar needs to come down just about under my left hip, not an optimal spot if you ask me. Call me a wuss, but I want the roll cage as far from me as possible and I'm moderately sure that a lot of other cars would need the jack point in a similar location relative to the driver.
I agree that any rule change is a new potential creep item and possible route to something unintended. But cripe, how much chassi stiffening can you really do w/ 64 square inches of material (I carried 64sqin in mine).
So although I'm frustrated that it didn't go through, I am very happy to see the response here. Perhaps another round of letters to the CRB would make them take another look? I don't know the process for that.
Thanks
Matt
I had seen it shot down a few years back, but had no idea what had been proposed or why it was rejected. So I hung back a while, but wrote up and mulled over a proposal that I thought would cover a large portion of the rule writing process, thus making the decision for the ITAC & the CRB easier. I was quite disappointed when I heard that it had been shot down again.
The proposal was listed here back in February at the time I was submitting it in an effort to get some other people to either read it & chime in on necessary changes and to send letters to the CRB supporting it. Its still on the Rules & Regs page, scroll down a bit, so rather than reprint it here go take a look.
Its interesting that the comments made here are very close to what I had written in my proposal for size & thickness of materials.
What I find most irritating is that no one has shown exactly how 'the rule is adequate as written'. Yeah yeah yeah, you can add a down tube from the cage to sit near the floor & all which is great for the passengers side. On the drivers side, this proposed bar needs to come down just about under my left hip, not an optimal spot if you ask me. Call me a wuss, but I want the roll cage as far from me as possible and I'm moderately sure that a lot of other cars would need the jack point in a similar location relative to the driver.
I agree that any rule change is a new potential creep item and possible route to something unintended. But cripe, how much chassi stiffening can you really do w/ 64 square inches of material (I carried 64sqin in mine).
So although I'm frustrated that it didn't go through, I am very happy to see the response here. Perhaps another round of letters to the CRB would make them take another look? I don't know the process for that.
Thanks
Matt