Door Bar Intrusion

tom_sprecher

tom_sprecher

Super Moderator
Here's what I have for passenger door bar. If I keep the existing bar and add a single NASCAR bar at about bumper height between the front and main roll hoop that extends into the door I should be within the rules, right?

Thanks,
 
Actually, the way I read it, you only have to add another tube between the main hoop and the front support. It does NOT need to enter the door cavity unless you want to take advantage of the rule allowing removal of the window glass and mechanism.
 
Originally posted by Geo@Oct 24 2005, 11:41 AM
...unless you want to take advantage of the rule allowing removal of the window glass and mechanism.
[snapback]63374[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

True enough George, but from the looks of his photo, he's already removed the glass and door trim. :P
 
The glass and internals are still there. The aluminum panel has been removed to see what's inside.

The path I take depends on which weighs less. 40" of 1.75 x .095 DOM at 1.679# per foot is 5.6# Now, I have to remove the window, electric motor and regulator, the .060" aluminum panel and weigh all that. Then add my guess of the weight of the steel inside door panel that would be cut out to that total. If its more than 5.6# I'll do it.

Otherwise, I run a bar some distance under the existing one.
 
Tom--That's what I am doing. Weighing the components and hoping to make it a net weight loss with the new tube going into the door.

I think it will be fine, but how much door inner strcture to remove is the question. I'd like to retain the inner door handle, but it may go too in the interst of weight.
 
I find it very interesting that, thus far, I've heard NO mention of what was the SAFER choice...

All about weight and performance, I guess... :rolleyes:
 
***I find it very interesting that, thus far, I've heard NO mention of what was the SAFER choice... All about weight and performance, I guess...***


Come on Darin, this thread has a few responses & the other thread has 6 pages of responses. Do ya want to take all the fun out of building driver side protection in a roll cage by building the side protection so that the driver has the max protection.

Back to a comment I made within the six page thread. IMHJ the new IT side protection rule should be the exact same words as the GT & Production rule for side protection. The purpose of the side protection/rule (& the roll cage) is to provide max safety for the driver. Jeremy passed on to the BoD from our e-mail conversations that it was suggested that the IT side protection rule be the exact same written rule as the GT & Production side protection rule.

Let the harpoons fly.............. ;)
 
I think just complying with the two bar rule is safe enough. My point is that since I have to add another bar I was hoping to get rid of the passenger door internals and reduce the OA weight at the same time.

A straight bar mounted parallel to the exisiting bar I can do myself. A curved bar that intrudes into the door I have to farm out which makes for a whole lot more $ and hassle. If the weight is not much different or I get too lazy I'll do a parallel bar.

The multi-page thread on the door bars seemed to concentrate on if X bars complied with the rule and if parallel bars was the safer design.

Like my father told me over 25 yeras ago when I was a younger man full of hell fire and ideas: If you can't change the system, don't spend your energy trying. Instead, figure out a way to make it work for you. You'll end up happier and better off in the long run.

I use that advice just about everyday.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 25 2005, 07:15 PM
IMHJ the new IT side protection rule should be the exact same words as the GT & Production rule for side protection.
[snapback]63491[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Well, I think the IT cage rules should NOT comply with the GT and Production, and should rather comply with the Touring rules... THOSE were actually designed around street/production cars, not one-off, purpose built race-cars... AND, they are the most modern set of cage rules (most recently updated) that we have...

HOWEVER... it's not an ITAC matter... It's up the the CRB to deal with this... and they are working on it, so your time would be better spent worrying about what THEY are thinking, not me or the ITAC... ;)

Enjoy...
 
***If you can't change the system, don't spend your energy trying. Instead, figure out a way to make it work for you. You'll end up happier and better off in the long run.***

Tom, your father sounds like a very wise man. :023:

Darin, don't fall all over yourself with all your great wisdom. Street/production cars or purpose built race-cars has nothing to do with side protection. Your response to my post is just like responses from the CRB. I post about SIDE PROTECTION & you respond about CAGES. KEEP in mind I didn't say anything about CAGE rules, I specified SIDE PROTECTION. The GT, Production, Touring & IT cars all have a front hoop, a main hoop & are required to have TWO side protection tubes (or more) on each side. Using a bit of common sense one would presume that if the driver safety side protection rule/fabrication as written is good for GT & Production it would also be good for Touring & IT.

Also Darin I don't worry about the politics the BoD, CRB or the ITAC is thinking or doing. Been there done that ain't going there again, thank you. ;)
 
David, you say you are not talking about CAGES, and be that what it may, anything involing the cage structure falls under the cage unbrella, and that is the responsibility of the CRB.

Big picture thinking says that there should be a strategy that sets a "path" for a car to go thru as it moves from one category to another.

Counter to that is the fact that street cars, (the starting point) weigh more, and often travel faster than many full tilt "race cars" do.

So, on one hand it seems that a cage could be added on to over it's lifetime as it went from category to category, but the needs of the different categories aren't linear, unfortunately.

Of course, the rules have been modded over the years as needs changed, and there are some issues that exist.

It is my understanding that the CRB is aware of the issues, and a big picture review is in the not too distant future.

My suggestion is that, within the SCCA, the CRB holds responsibility for the cage and side protection rules, and you should expect them to respond to your queries.
 
Jake, you are correct the side protection falls under the umbrella of the roll cage rule. My post to Darin falls under the SIDE PROTECTION sector of the umbrella. I will repeat for you that each car of each 4 classes stated in the post has a front hoop & a main hoop & is required to have two side protection tubes. If two side protection tubes per the GT at what ever weight, Touring at 3600 pounds & Production at 2300 pounds rule protects those drivers it will protect IT drivers at 2600 pounds & less.

I have a pretty good idea of what politics which group plays with. I was not asking Darin to do anything. Darin made a comment about SAFER choice relative to side protection, I made a comment about side protection being the exact same rule for GT, Production, Touring & IT & the next thing that is happening is ya all are telling me about the political setup of the SCCA. Been there done that in 2001 IIRC with someone you most likely know really well from the North East & his friends on the CRB.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Oct 25 2005, 02:15 PM
Back to a comment I made within the six page thread. IMHJ the new IT side protection rule should be the exact same words as the GT & Production rule for side protection. The purpose of the side protection/rule (& the roll cage) is to provide max safety for the driver. Jeremy passed on to the BoD from our e-mail conversations that it was suggested that the IT side protection rule be the exact same written rule as the GT & Production side protection rule.
[snapback]63491[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I think GT & Prod should be written the same as IT which is IMHO the best set of cage rules in the GRC & Category Specs.

[edit] Make that side protection rules - just for David [/edit]
 
David is expressing a very good point that cage rules should be more in line between the catagories. The CRB knows this and I am sure it is on the agenda. The fact that this is not within the scope of the ITAC is not a reason not to discuss it on this forum.
 
Hey! This was supposed to be about my car and my side protection. If you guys don't play nice I'm taking my thread and going home. :P

Thanks for the replies. Hope to see you guys at the ARRC. Along with Sandy and Fletcher I'm the guy that usually parks you guys. Maybe I'll finally wear my offical Atlanta Region SARRC Representative name badge so I can be identified. Or maybe not, that way if I screw up you won't know who to blame. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top