Nascar Door Bar Installation Legality

I was thinking exactly what Chip wrote when I first read this.
NASCAR bars are not a requirement. AND, if chosen, the rule doesn't say they must go into the door cavity by any specific amount. Breaking the interior door plane by a half inch meets the definition in the GCR. There ARE other methods of achieving the same ends other than cutting the b pillar.

Lastly, I wouldn't use the fact that "it got through tech" as a cornerstone of any argument. Tech is concerned that the cage meets the minimum requirements of safety, and may, or may not decide to advise on class appropriateness in borderline cases. (Ignoring whether they SHOULD, or Should not).

There have been instances no doubt that things have slipped through tech that weren't legal. In the case of the Merc, I imagine a protest that went to appeals would be the only and best way to get a binding answer.

Me? I wouldn't do it that way, when there are several other methods I can think of in my head right now..
 
Last edited:
And we need to remember that just because one tech guy thinks it's OK, doesn't mean every other tech guy sees it the same way.
 
When I built my 4dr Neon several years ago, I called the National office to ask about going thru the B-pillar. They said "NO". As I could modify the the front doors only & had to leave the B-pillar alone (same as a 2dr). So I built my cage with 3 bars. Top & Bottom bars are almost straight, but my middle bar is a true NASCAR bar with a 'zig' at the rear for the B-pillar. With the bar-to-bar bracing, it made up for the 'zig'. All 3 bars would need to move before the 'zig' would move.:shrug: Just another option.
 
Well, now I have a quest. I will call the national office and get an answer on this. If they say no to B-pillar cutting, I will put there feet to the fire. I will protest each and every car at the runoffs that have this and force the issue. Come the end of september, there will be clarity in the rules. I am guessing that 50+ cars have this done to them. Hell, its how the Pontiac "how to build a Solctice race car" manual tells you how to do it. Pictures and all. Again, thanks for all the input.
Chris H
 
I have not done a roadrace cage in a 4 door with the bars outside the b pillar, but I have done lots of ministock cars. It is stronger and easier to run outside the pillar, but I would ask this: Does the fact that the rear door can no longer be opened have any bearing on this discussion?
 
Josh, the manual can be purchased from any GM dealer under P/N 88958697. Or order online at www.gmperformanceparts.com But be prepared,they cost alot. Look at pg 26. One of the problems with this club is a prep shop like Pheonix will build a batch of cars beyond the rules. They show up at the runoffs as GM's ambassador with a slew of nice new cars. And these indescretions are overlooked. In particular the B-pillar issue and in SS the interior A-pillar trim. These were both clearly illegal several years ago in many cars, but hey, its the runoffs. No tech steward said a thing. 3 or 4 years ago I installed a cage in a Solctice. I was showed a Pheonix national winner as an example. It had both of the mentioned illegalities. I explained to the owner that I would build it how he wanted, but, do not be suprised if you have trouble. He opted for the by the rules version. And once the rules get bent, and enough others have followed suit, the rule either gets ignored or changed. Rules creep this way in this club. The SM dash mount brackets that are welded to the unibody are another perfect example of this. I started modifying them when I saw everyone else doing it. Now most SM's are caged that way. I am pretty sure that was illegal by the letter of the law 5 years ago. Yet it happened and now is accepted. CREEP!
Chris H
 
I understand why there is a debate over whether this is allowed - the letter of the rules isn't 100% clear. But a lot of the objection to allowing B-pillar mods is expressed by ZChris' posts - "It's rules creep." I hate rules creep as much as anyone. I hate that a "full build" now includes multi-thousand dollar ECUs and shocks.

But in this specific case, even if it is "rules creep", my question is, "So what?" Even many of the people who say it shouldn't be allowed concede it's sometimes a better (safer) way to put door bars in a cage. So why object if someone does it? I don't see how the usual reason for objecting to rules creep apply. Rules creep is a problem because it a) allows a modification that previously wasn't allowed, which b) allows a car to go faster (or at least more reliably) and c) forces everyone else to spend money on that modification just to stay even.

But in this case, the b) and c) parts don't apply. The cage isn't going to be any stiffer if the door bars go through the B-pillars. Since it isn't a performance advantage, no one else is forced to modify their existing door bars to keep up. And for the initial cage build, the extra cost of putting the bars in the B-pillars versus not is trivial to nonexistent. All you get from putting the door bars in the B-pillars (where needed) is to have a somewhat safer cage.

So I'll ask, regardless of what you think the rule is now, would anyone object to changing the rule to say "Cutting holes in the B-pillar for the purpose of installing door bars is allowed?" And, if so, why?
 
Like I said in the for sale section, I bent two nascar bar cages around the B pillar but felt that double bends actually reduced the effectiveness of of the nascar bars. If a poll were taken by the ITAC/CRB for member input, I'd be in favor of "through the B pillar on a 4 door car".
Chuck
 
IMO this will keep potentail cars off the track. I was about to start building an ITB 4 door Jetta. My shoulders are about even with the B pillar on my 2 door Golf. They will be behind the B pillar in the 4 door Jetta. I will not race a car without adequately designed door bars - not straight ones, and not S bent ones. I was going to run them through the B pillar just like the Benze shows - with obvious gap between the cage material and B pillar.

At this point I won't proceed with the car.

I'm not a fan of rules creep, but don't see this as such. What I was planning would have reduced chassis rigidity. What am I missing here about potential performance benefits by the interpretation that we can modify the car to fit door bars that perform as intended, rather than look as they need to enable door gutting?

Also, this is a legitimate safety issue IMO.
 
callard said:
Like I said in the for sale section, I bent two nascar bar cages around the B pillar but felt that double bends actually reduced the effectiveness of of the nascar bars. If a poll were taken by the ITAC/CRB for member input, I'd be in favor of "through the B pillar on a 4 door car".
Chuck
Click to expand...

Why only 4 door at that point? If a 2 door car has the B pillar where the bar needs to go to be safe, what is different about the situation?
 
I see rules creep here, though I agree with "Shwah" and others regarding the improved safeness of the through-pillar design.

creep - wise, the change would promote seating positions that allow better weight distribution than could be possible on SOME chassis where the door bars would otherwise interfere with the seat. no matter what, if you write the rule this way, you WILL see people taking advantage of it to move their main hoops back and seats around to improve the corner weights.

maybe if there were a rule controlling main hoop distance from the B pillar, with larger allowances for 4 doors, the effect of this creep would be mitigated.
 
Um. We can put the seat where we want now. Are you saying that we consider using driver safety level as a deterrent to move the seat?

What do those of us with 36" inseams do then?
 
Chip - I just can't see how this a real problem. Can you cite a single car that is so narrow that the reduction of available space caused by keeping the door bars inside the B-pillar (i.e., 1.5 - 1.75 inches) is going to have any effect on how far back you can put the seat? The only constraint that I can see on how far back you can put your seat is the presence of a bulkhead (e.g., Miata , Fiero, del Sol) and the ability to reach the pedals, shifter and steering wheel. Maybe we need to consider eliminating the pedal and shifter modification rules and set a maximum steering wheel dish standard in order to prevent seat location changes? Gotta prevent rules creep, ya know. :D
 
Tom I gave a real example. The Jetta in my garage. My shoulders will be BEHIND the B pillar to sit where I sit in my car. My seat is positioned based on what I need to reach the controls comfortably, and to be as low as possible. It was placed based on using the stock steering wheel - no funky extensions.

If straight door bars were acceptable to me, I could make it work. They are not. Neither are S shaped bars that are just as close to my body, but go into the door. I use bars that are as close to whatever I might hit, or what might hit me, and as far as me as I can put them.

It is not a limitation to be able to build a legal car. It is a limitation to being able to install nascar door bars that do what they are designed to, rather than simply meet the letter of the rule to enable door gutting at the expense of impact peformance - even over simple straght bars. I don't need to do that to get to weight, and in fact used straight bars and have full door on the passenger side.
 
It appears I misinterpreted Chip's objection. I thought he was saying B-pillar holes would somehow let you sit unnaturally far back. I understand that for most 4-doors (and some 2-doors), your normal seating position would leave the main hoop far enough back that you can't install proper NASCAR bars (no s-bends) without going through the B-pillars. I guess I had it backwards. He wants drivers of 4-door cars to sit unnaturally far forward if they want to avail yourself of proper NASCAR bars (i.e., place their main hoop at the b-pillar). :rolleyes: I agree that's a choice you shouldn't have to make.
 
TomL said:
He wants
Click to expand...

I want safety - I'd write in support of this change - it only makes the chassis weaker and improved driver safety. as it is it is illegal, at least as I and other read GCR 9.4.

the creep I foresee is not really all that troublesome, and I was more or less playing devils advocate, BUT allowing tubes to pass through the B pillar or suchlike COULD allow for some interesting seating positions that are NOT about driver comfort. I'm all about driver comfort, I'm 6'3" with a 36" inseam - I get it, and I would never suggest that we try to impair a comfortable seat for a driver.

but I also wouldn't be cool with an IT car moving/blocking (think kids bike pedals) the pedals back to allow for a more rearward seating position, either. basically the same rational.
 
Sorry Chip. Didn't mean an insult - I know you're okay with a change. Just meant that the (not "your") "no b-pillar hole" interpretation has that effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top