Rules change concerning roll cages.

[ninetyfourintegra]

As far as a car that was built in the offseason and has never been teched ever? That's a tough one but, boy, this clarification sure came late in the game for that guy...

 

I am one of the 'offseason builds'. Keith pointed this post too me and I immediately took it to my cage builder, while I am OK, I would have not expected to pass tech if I wasn't.

[tonysenese]

We have been inspecting cars to this rule with a lot of arguing for the last 2 years. There is do doubt the language can be made more clear, and alot of valid points have been made about how cages that are already built should be handled. As a lowly regional scrutineer I will take my guidance from the national board.

 

I think the one thing I have read hear that misses the mark is the statement about the weld being stronger that the tube itself. That is not really true. The weld is harder, thicker and depending on the welder, less uniform, more brittle, and less ductile.

 

If you have ever seen pictures of real cages that have been crashed hard enough to break the cage, it almost always breaks at a weld, not in the middle of a 4 foot bar.

 

The diagonal bar is there to protect the driver in cases where there might be a secondary impact with another car or a stationary object, especially in roll overs. Having had one of those myself, I am glad my diagonal was one piece.

 

Tony Senese

NASA-NE scrutineer

Comp School Instructor

SM #99

[onralz]

Change happens. Two years ago, I sent a picture to JWL regarding how the rear bar should be attached to the floor and rear shock towers on a Mustang. This picture of my car was then used as a "how to do it" picture. At Nationals an official commented on my rear bars and wanted to question it. Talking with JWL he made great points as to why he'd like to see it change (which is being done today ironically) but didn't disqualify me.

 

I looked at it as the "good, better, best" theory. What I did was good, there was the best way to do it which I'm doing for this year. We need to have that approach with grandfathering in cars as well. There's the best way to do the diagonal which is what the rule states, and a good way which most people have already done. What's best is to not have to cut and weld on an existing cage though to make it potentially better. In my case, it was addition so it wasn't a problem.

 

Interpreting rules is tough. Wording them perfectly is tougher. Talk it out with the directors. Send them pictures of what you have. Get documentation of what was determined by those talks. I've also raced with SCCA and you won't get the kind of conversation and open talks with the rule makers there like you will here. Comparing them is frankly not fair. Forget all that crap, and go racing.

[JoeMag]

Boy this grew since yesterday....

 

1. From one of the original points... How can this diagonal bar be required to be one piece of tube when a bolt in one is allowed? That is CLEARLY not one bar and it's not even welded!!!

 

2. I don't think this update was a clarificaiton, it was a change. The rule just defined where the ends of this 'brace' were to be attached, it clearly did not say one continueous piece of tube as other rules state.

 

3. We need onen set of rules to work off of per year. Changes need to happen once per year.

 

btw, I sure hope I didn't weaken my cage because I'm one of the guys who already cut out his dia two piece bar from a car that has not even seen the track yet....

[King Matt]

So every time someone brings a car into NASA for a logbook and can make an argument that their interpretation of a rule, even though not in strict compliance with the written NASA CCRs, is "just as good," "good enough," "better than," or "passed tech when I raced with X," that should be sufficient to get a pass on compliance? According to the logic of the arguments in favor of dropping the new rule here, 270-degree welds, single door bars, no HNRs, ERW tubing, and a laundry list of other non-compliant issues that are allowed elsewhere or used to be legal in NASA, or can be argued to be sufficiently safe should be allowed today because it's "racer-friendly" to do so.

 

I will guarantee that floating rules interpretations like that are not going to fly with NASA, because they are liabilities waiting to happen.

[bmw22]

Edited March 26, 2008 by Guest

[bmw22]

I've been communicating with NASA officials on this matter. If this topic is an issue for you and your car, contact me offline and I'll let you know what NASA says.

 

[email protected]

Edited March 29, 2008 by Guest

[ryan325]

Too late for me. I just built my cage over the winter. My two piece bar kept me from getting a log book my first weekend after passing comp school. I didn't bitch much but it did bum me out a bit. Now my car's cage is cut on and awaiting round two. Oh well I guess.

[swhiteh3]

I'm finished with this thread. His royal highness King Matt can take it from here.

There really is no reason to get whiney about this...

 

Personally, I agree completely with Matt here. Rules get clarified and evolve. It sucks when you get caught out.

 

If it were my call, and I strongly wanted to implement this rule, here's how I'd approach it:

(1) Grandfather all cars with logbooks dated 12/31/08 or before until the 2010 season.

(2) Starting on 1/1/09, in order to get a logbook for a new car, all cars must have either:

a. A continuous piece of tubing making up the diagonal -or-

b. A full "X" in the plane of the main hoop which need not be continuous.

(Of course, both options must be made of the min required tubing size for that car.)

(3) Starting on 1/1/2010, to get an annual tech, cars must meet the above requirement.

 

This would reward competitors who did it right the first time, force existing cars to add a simple "full x" to the main hoop to increase safety on their cars without undue cutting and re-fabrication, and create a system where even 10 years from now a car from another series, say Grand-Am or SVWC, could come race with us by adding a few simple tubes. With a minimum of re-work, this allows all cars to run with us.

 

Of course, then there's the technical argument of whether the "full x" is comparably as strong as the continuous diagonal. In a slightly different way, but I'd argue the full X is STRONGER in a rollover event, which I believe is ultimately what we're talking about, right?

[Keith]

Scott, I think you are missing the point. Rules are rules and no one will debate that. However, changing a rule on March 25th is a little late. ...and regardless of how you frame the "clarification", if the clarification disallows previously legal cars then yes, indeed, it is a rule change.

 

The timing is the real issue here.

[pgipson]

What is most interesting is that all of the comments seem to be made by two types of people, those trying to understand the rule and those those trying to interpret the rule. No comments by anyone that wrote the rule.

[bmw22]

The following is direct quote from Jerry Kunzman on this topic I just recieved in an email:

 

"Tell them that our intent is not to disallow those diagonals that are properly installed just because the horizontal intersects it. Technically, it doesn't conform to the letter of the rules, but we will let it go.

Again, there has been NO CHANGE in the way we are doing things. The clarification in there is to get cage builders to start installing the diagonal first.

 

You can post that above." Jerry Kunzman 3-28-2008

[Keith]

Cool.

[comatb]

The following is direct quote from Jerry Kunzman on this topic I just recieved in an email:

 

"Tell them that our intent is not to disallow those diagonals that are properly installed just because the horizontal intersects it. Technically, it doesn't conform to the letter of the rules, but we will let it go.

Again, there has been NO CHANGE in the way we are doing things. The clarification in there is to get cage builders to start installing the diagonal first.

 

You can post that above." Jerry Kunzman 3-28-2008

Thanks for posting this definitive statement from Jerry. I and many others were chastised by one particular scrutineer at VIR this past weekend. My cage builder built all his cages with a solid horizontal bar and then added the diagonal because he feels that a side impact is, a) much more likely to happen more often than a roll over and b) to be a more solid hit than a roll over. The overall safety of the driver is improved in his opinion. I agree and yes I have experienced both.

[Bruce L.]

even more definitive, the new 2008.11 version of the rules has new diagrams of the diagonal and shows the one-piece and two-piece designs being allowed, as long as the diagonal is a "straight path".

bruce

[Bruce L.]

this is moot now that the rule has actually now been changed, but, in general, it doesn't matter what the opinion of the cage builder is when the sanctioning body issues rules for construction ... you either comply or play elsewhere, or lobby for change of the rule before you get to the track.

(not trying to be sanctimonious here)

cheers,

bruce

 

 

The following is direct quote from Jerry Kunzman on this topic I just recieved in an email:

 

"Tell them that our intent is not to disallow those diagonals that are properly installed just because the horizontal intersects it. Technically, it doesn't conform to the letter of the rules, but we will let it go.

Again, there has been NO CHANGE in the way we are doing things. The clarification in there is to get cage builders to start installing the diagonal first.

 

You can post that above." Jerry Kunzman 3-28-2008

Thanks for posting this definitive statement from Jerry. I and many others were chastised by one particular scrutineer at VIR this past weekend. My cage builder built all his cages with a solid horizontal bar and then added the diagonal because he feels that a side impact is, a) much more likely to happen more often than a roll over and b) to be a more solid hit than a roll over. The overall safety of the driver is improved in his opinion. I agree and yes I have experienced both.