wic Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 Can we do away with the A-pillar weight penalty? It is not worth the 30 pounds. It has little or no affect on the handling, so why not let everyone do it if they so choose. I am thinking about cutting mine out rather than take on the weight. I'll wait and see what everyone thinks. Maybe we can get that rule changed and I won't have to cut mine out. These cars are getting too heavy as it is. Vic Norcal H-2 #95 civic hatch Quote
Weed Wacker Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 That rule allows for a lot more than just the A-pillar. It just uses the A-pillar as an example. You can tie in every bar in your car to the chassis if you want. If it had no effect on handling then pro-series-built cars would not use it either. Some do so it has to do something. I personally did not use this though since it does not give me the rigidity i want in the place i wanted it. So too thought the 30 lbs was not worth it. I already weigh 2600, i don't need more. Quote
slammed_93_hatch Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Vic, I recently sent in a Rules Request for this penalty to be removed, it was denied. I know of at least 2 or 3 other request of the same nature that have been denied. MY thought process was/is 1.) We are allowed to go through the fire wall to the strut towers with out a weight penalty. 2.) We can have as many "points" in a cage as we want with no penalty. (ie most other classes will limit you to a 6point or 8 point cage, in HC there is no limit.) Both of these above modification do the same thing as gusseting the A and/or B pillars. Yet neither one of them receive a weight penalty. IMO giving a weight penalty to gusseting and not to these other two methods of increasing chassis stiffness is inconsistent, and doesn't make sense. here is the wording from the rule book. 4.9 Roll Cage All cars shall have a NASA CCR-compliant roll cage. Additionally, a) Any number of additional mounting points may be used. b) Any number of additional tubes may be used, even for chassis stiffening. c) Any size mounting plate may be used, subject to material and minimum specifications in the NASA CCR. d) Two (2) forward cage braces per side (total of four (4)) may pass through the firewall and connect at no more than two (2) mounting points in the engine compartment (i.e. strut tower or frame). e) Tubes may be welded at any contact point, or even be “seam welded.” Additional material may be used to connect roll cage tubing to chassis of car. I.E. A pillar bar may have material welded to both itself and the A pillar of the car. f) If modification number 4.9.5 above is utilized, an additional thirty (30) pound weight penalty will apply. g) All tubes that are added shall be inspected for safety reasons. Any tube deemed to be hazardous to the driver must be removed. The reasoning/response i got why it was denied, in general terms, was that if a new/potentially new/interested person in HC see cars with the gusseting they will say/think "OOO wow look at those cars, they all have gusseting, that is expensive and i can't afford to race a car in a series that has gusseting." Basically it will scare people away. I don't agree with that, nor see the logic in it (IE there are already a ton of HC cars with it done, a new comer will see its done and could/would be turned off before he gets to the rule book to see that there is a weight penalty associated with them). But that is the understanding i got on why the penalty is still there. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.