Roll Cage and the Heater

2007 GCR page 304 section f

"Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or authorized modifications no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

2007 GCR Page 90 9.4.2.E.3

"In addition, if the two optional braces referred to in item 2 are utiliized they shall be mounted, one on either side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall or front fender wells (see section 9.4.2 section 8)

That's what I'm talking about. I don't feel I am bending any rules and I am for damn sure done bending anymore tubing.


2007 GCR Page 91 E.5

"One (1) bar is recommended in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area"

That's not what I'm talking about and I'm not talking about this anymore.
 
2007 GCR page 304 section f

"Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or authorized modifications no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

2007 GCR Page 90 9.4.2.E.3

"In addition, if the two optional braces referred to in item 2 are utiliized they shall be mounted, one on either side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall or front fender wells (see section 9.4.2 section 8)

That's what I'm talking about. I don't feel I am bending any rules and I am for damn sure done bending anymore tubing.
2007 GCR Page 91 E.5

"One (1) bar is recommended in a horizontal plane between forward cage braces in the dash area"

That's not what I'm talking about and I'm not talking about this anymore.
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
While it is not an item that most people will protest it is illegal to remove/move the blower system. I have seen more than one logbook marked up to have it fixed by the next event. The extra tubes to the firewall or inner fender are optional and can be done in a legal way. Same for the bar across the dash. Not aimed at anybody but if protested you will probably lose.
 
Thank you Steve Eckerich along with the others who follow the rules as written without the torture factor.

I bought a bent/notched roll cage for a Spec Miata which had really nice install instructions including pictures showing where the torch needed to be used to cut metal box members that supported the "A" pillar to the front cowel. I identified the metal parts that need to be cut out, took pictures, sent the pictures to Topeak, received a nice letter saying that the butchering is not consistant with the rules for Spec Miata, IT or Showroom Stock.

That friends is my last word to those who declare butchering the interior of the car is legal using the famous two sentences. :023:
 
Thank you Steve Eckerich along with the others who follow the rules as written without the torture factor.

I bought a bent/notched roll cage for a Spec Miata which had really nice install instructions including pictures showing where the torch needed to be used to cut metal box members that supported the "A" pillar to the front cowel. I identified the metal parts that need to be cut out, took pictures, sent the pictures to Topeak, received a nice letter saying that the butchering is not consistant with the rules for Spec Miata, IT or Showroom Stock.

That friends is my last word to those who declare butchering the interior of the car is legal using the famous two sentences. :023:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Not for nothing David, but your letter, unless it's an official COA rule interpretation, is nothing more than the opinion of one person, and not binding.

Steve,

While I don't doubt that you've seen logbooks w/ those notations in them, they don't mean that the steward in question correctly interpreted the rule. I had a steward tell me I wasn't allow to run more than one tube to a mounting plate because it constituted an additional attachment point. Just because they're stewards and make notes in logbooks doesn't mean that they've correctly interpreted the rules.
 
Scott, pm sent......

Bill, when it comes to rules I'll go with the non tortured version. I understand the SCCA process & who counts & who don't. Your thought process of pushing the rules IMHJ overboard is just the ticket to get IT cars slipped to the same plane as Production cars. Didn't you folks in the NorthEast have a miata cage builder that got his nuts busted maybe 2 years ago for illegal Miata cages. Nuff said. :D
 
Well, I stand corrected.

I thought I was done with this thread but I was wrong.

One man's optional is another man's authorized modification.
 
Scott, pm sent......

Bill, when it comes to rules I'll go with the non tortured version. I understand the SCCA process & who counts & who don't. Your thought process of pushing the rules IMHJ overboard is just the ticket to get IT cars slipped to the same plane as Production cars. Didn't you folks in the NorthEast have a miata cage builder that got his nuts busted maybe 2 years ago for illegal Miata cages. Nuff said. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

David,

I don't know about the NE Miata cage deal, but I'm sure if I ask John he can fill me in. And this isn't about my belief in what conforms to the spirit of the rules, it's about what the rules say you're allowed to do.
 
Well, I stand corrected.

I thought I was done with this thread but I was wrong.

One man's optional is another man's authorized modification.
[/b]
Click to expand...


D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.

Why is this so hard? A safe cage is not hard to build without breaking the rules as written. The only reason there is an interest in doing it different is a perceived advantage in chassis stiffness by attaching to different locations of the chassis.
 
To add to Joe's point reference the section of the GCR shown below.

9.4.1. BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if the car turns over, runs into an obstacle such as a guardrail or catch fence, or is struck by another car. It shall be designed to withstand compression forces from the weight of the car coming down on the rollover structure and to take fore/aft and lateral loads resulting from the car skidding along on its rollover structure.


Working within the rules to use the cage to stiffen your chassis is smart. Torturing the rules in order to provide additional chassis stiffening beyond what is needed for the basic purpose of the roll cage crosses the line. Now tortured interpretation is hard to define but if you find yourself trying to figure out how to justify cutting up the a pillar structure or the blower motor on the passenger side I would say you are flirting with torturing the rule. Remember there is nothing to say the roll cage must be symetrical to protect the driver.
 
D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.

Why is this so hard? A safe cage is not hard to build without breaking the rules as written. The only reason there is an interest in doing it different is a perceived advantage in chassis stiffness by attaching to different locations of the chassis.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Joe,

What prohibited function does it perform?
 
Joe,

What prohibited function does it perform?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Don't waste my time Bill. Splitting hairs is not something I am gonna do with you, read my statement. It is f'in simple build a legal cage and you don't have to screw around with the rules. The cage will be safe and legal and nobody else will end up having to cheat to keep up. Have a nice day cause I won't respond any further to you on this.
 
Folks, why not read the changed in 2006 GCR Glossary definition of "Instrument Panel - A panel, the associated bracket(s), and HVAC ducting components," bla, bla, bla. If it will help please look up the definition of "ducting". Ducting ain't heater radiators, ducting ain't blower motors, & their must be other items that ducting ain't. Using some commone sense don't you think the rule writters were with this rewrite attending to the issue of many of you people butchering OTHER HVAC componets. If they wanted you people to butcher the $hit out of everything associated with the HVAC don't ya think they would have added a few more words.
 
Don't waste my time Bill. Splitting hairs is not something I am gonna do with you, read my statement. It is f'in simple build a legal cage and you don't have to screw around with the rules. The cage will be safe and legal and nobody else will end up having to cheat to keep up. Have a nice day cause I won't respond any further to you on this.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you won't defend your position Joe. I'm not trying to split hairs w/ you. I'm trying to point out that the rule is poorly written (especially given the intent that a lot of people feel that it has). Can you build a cage where you don't have to dork w/ any of that? Sure. Point is, the rule dorked it up by saying that you could remove stuff to install your safety equipment (i.e. cage). As George (where is he btw?) used to say, if it says you can, you bloody well can.
 
Not for nothing David, but your letter, unless it's an official COA rule interpretation, is nothing more than the opinion of one person, and not binding.

Steve,

While I don't doubt that you've seen logbooks w/ those notations in them, they don't mean that the steward in question correctly interpreted the rule. I had a steward tell me I wasn't allow to run more than one tube to a mounting plate because it constituted an additional attachment point. Just because they're stewards and make notes in logbooks doesn't mean that they've correctly interpreted the rules.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I understand your point about opinions as well Bill. I just ask the scrutineer to show me where in the rules what I did was illegal and expect to do the same when I tell someone they are illegal. I have been a national scrutineer for some time and have seen this protested, appealed, and upheld. Times change and so does the opinion at national but I gave an informed opinion--not a guess. It was illegal to modify then and still is unless you have further information I am not aware of. Confirmed with Jeremy last week when I called about another matter. Have fun.
 
I understand your point about opinions as well Bill. I just ask the scrutineer to show me where in the rules what I did was illegal and expect to do the same when I tell someone they are illegal. I have been a national scrutineer for some time and have seen this protested, appealed, and upheld. Times change and so does the opinion at national but I gave an informed opinion--not a guess. It was illegal to modify then and still is unless you have further information I am not aware of. Confirmed with Jeremy last week when I called about another matter. Have fun.
[/b]
Click to expand...

If that's the case Steve, that's good enough for me. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top