May Fastrack Posted

So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K
 
Was your patch made with 1/4" plate???

;)

Re; THe automatic transmission, I have no memory of that being discussed and meant to bring that up last night on the con call. We had a change in operations and I was kinda busy and forgot to ask. I'll see whats up with it.
The station wagon thing was deemed to be a rule from a bygone era that existed for reasons that now have seperate rules. There are lots of cars out there that are technically station wagons but we don't think of as such, and it could be cool to class them in the future.
 
Yeah, that's what I suspected, but not the answer I would have liked. I actually had read 9.1.3.d.8.h and I can see where the rule came from. Seems funny that I had to spend $1500-$1700 for a roll cage to make the car safe, but I can't repair the jack points on the frame to make them safe unless my FSM contains a specific procedure for doing so.

Well, that's the rule, and we have to live by it. But, it can be changed (we can race automatics and station wagons, now, right?). I appeal to all racers who legitimately need jacking plates (no 3/4" thick gussets, please) to write well written, logical letters to the ITAC, and the CRB requesting this change.

What is the maximum size you would allow before saying a jacking plate performed a secondary function (like reinforcing the frame) 4"x4", 6"x6", 16 sq in., 36 sq in? Would it have to be flat, or could it follow the shape of the frame? Limited to one or two bends? What thickness should be allowed?

OK, I'll be the first to jump in. Jacking Plate Rule, draft 1:

Two total jacking plates,......no, no, no!!!!!!

A total of two jacking plates may be welded to the body of the car, maximum one per side. Each plate shall be no larger than 36 sq. in., 1/4" thick, and not longer than 8" on any one side. Each plate shall have a maximum of two bends to conform to the shape of the part of the car it is welded to.

Matt: how did you word your proposal (just so we can all be on the same page or at least close to it)?

I intend to send in pictures of my jacking points, showing how deformed they are, and why they need to be repaired.

I agree that the statement 'the rule is adequate as written' without stating what rule or why they believe that it is 'adequate' does the members, especially those who write requests, a disservice.

Anyway, I will definitely write to the ITAC and CRB supporting this change or any other proposal.

Just an afterthought, but since they have prohibited jacking plates except as they can be added within the rules as written, can the club be found negligent if a car slips of a jack due to frame collapse and injures a driver or crew?

BTW, if you want to see the ultimate in rules simplicity, look up No Problem Raceway Park and the Grand Bayou Circuit Racing Rules - TWO PAGES, Total!!!!!!




So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

That makes two of us!!!!

BTW, 9.1.3.d.8.h makes no mention of the thickness of the material added or if it even is restricted to metal. Adding a sheet of rubber to the underside to keep out the water could be 'material addition'. Jake, are you saying that there is some gray area in that rule? (just kidding!)
 
So since the FSM doesn't specifically allow for welding a sheet steel patch over the rust holes in the floor of a Golf, it's not legal? Guess I'm screwed. :o

K
[/b]
Click to expand...


Maybe I never really looked for it, but I don't remember any FSM I have owned having a section on rust repair, crash damage or basic body repair(other than some which have measurements to aid in having the "frame" pulled). Does that mean my 14 lbs of bondo are illegal? :P

I'll have to look at mine tonight when I get home.
 
Below is a link to the previous thread, and the opening post for that thread which includes my stab at the rule text:

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10539


Plain & simple, I would like to see the CRB make a change to allow jack points. I’ve gone far enough to write up a proposal & send it to both the ITAC and CRB which included a proposed wording for the GCR.

In an effort to help move this along I’d like some feedback. Read it, pick it apart, tell everyone what you would do with it should it get adopted. Write up complaints on why it’s not a good idea or how it might get implemented in a fashion that wasn’t intended. This will help those deciding what to do have some insight as to how this change might affect things on a day to day level.

Also, if you are in favor of it, send a note to the CRB and tell them why it’s a good idea for them to spend some time considering this change. Here’s the link

CRB Letter form
http://www.scca.com/Club/crb/crbletter.html

Thanks for your opinions both for and against.
Matt


Here’s the proposed text:

Jack points may be added to the car provided they fall within the following requirements:

- Two locations only per car may be added, one on each side or one on each end of the car.
- Added jack points may not be used to create any additional roll cage attachment point, ballast location or chassis stiffness, intentional or otherwise.
- Each jack point may be fabricated out of no more than 64 square inches of material welded to the chassis, with no edge dimension longer than 10”. Material to be used may not be thicker than 3/16”.
- Reinforcing of existing chassis seams/intersections may be used, provided that the materials used are in accordance with the above statement and length of reinforcement is no grater than 10”.
- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.[/b]
Click to expand...

The reasoning for the various sizes is to keep it from adding any significant balast or stiffening. From what I was told, there was concern about suspension pick up points being strengthened.

Matt
 
GCR 9.3.7 prohibits automatics except for the hand control situation in all classes so I believe that removing the redundant provision in the IT section changes nothing.
I thought there was a station wagon reference in the GCR as well but I can’t find it right now.
 
Then this works just fine. Station wagons (i.e. manual tranny non turbo Subarus) in, automatics out. Fine by me, and seems like a good idea.
 
My letter to CRB requesting that they reconsider jacking plates has been submitted. Substantially the same as Matt's form with the addition that the plates could have a maximum of two bends to conform with the part of the car it is attached to.

If you think this is a good idea, send a letter from the form Matt posted.
 
Then this works just fine. Station wagons (i.e. manual tranny non turbo Subarus) in, automatics out. Fine by me, and seems like a good idea.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That is the first thing that popped into my mind, but then did Subaru make anything that was not AWD, I was thinking just about everything made by Subie was AWD execpt perhaps the Justy...or whatever that CVT tiny car was called.

I have worked (in my youth) for VW, Mazda, Chevy, Isuzu, Subaru, Jag, Caddy, MB, Porsche......
Dealers. I went through college under a GM training program, part time in school part time at a dealer. I have never seen a FSM talk about rust repair, or repair to jack points, I still have a zillion Olds FSM books in my shed somewhere.
 
Personally I think it'll be a sad day in the paddock if you get protested for a jack point. And by jack point I mean a jack point that any of us level headed people would call a jack point.

Now if you get protested for a 4 ft C section of steel you've welded to the bottom of your car and call a "jack point" that is a different matter entirely.

Subjective I know, but little in life isn't.

R
 
I hope they get this station wagon/automatic tranny stuff straightened out. I have a buddy that's selling his wife's old Accord wagon with an automatic that would be the perfect sleeper for ITA. (lol) People already think my Civic is a wagon!
 
Jetta VR6 wagons in ITS might be a fun sight.

If they would just work out that awd and turbo thing I could use my Passat wagon for a future build.

I kid.

However, the Protege5 and a few other small wagons may make good IT cars...
 
Personally I think it'll be a sad day in the paddock if you get protested for a jack point. And by jack point I mean a jack point that any of us level headed people would call a jack point.

Now if you get protested for a 4 ft C section of steel you've welded to the bottom of your car and call a "jack point" that is a different matter entirely.

Subjective I know, but little in life isn't.

R
[/b]
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Protesting a jack point is just plain silly. Sorry, but here's a little info for you mister...the guy didnt beat you because of his jack point...he plain outdrove you!

It is only a little less silly that we are not allowed to do this mod to our car's. Especially in a class where we can change final drives (to the tune of a grand or two), install LSD's, alter ECU's, coilover's....etc...
Yet we cant remove washer bottles or weld in a little 4" square piece of steel to our jack points... :bash_1_:

All your really doing is adding weight anyways...right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top