Jacking pads legal?
- Thread starter seattle7
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
A tech guy who knows his stuff....impressive!
I like the idea but fixed jack points such as described have some potentially nasty side-effects. A friend had very similar points on his car - tube extensions that ran thru the floor/rockers to provide a definitive jack point. The tubes didn't extend past the rockers to keep them from snagging on crew member body parts or other items that protruded from the pavement. HOWEVER, during a rather vigorous kerb jumping session in Phoenix, one of these jack points grabbed rather firmly to a kerb and popped the car neatly on its roof at about 100 mph 
Just food for thought...
Just food for thought...
I too stand corrected as to how the plate is positioned. The new picture is specific (rag under plate). However, what happens when the floor is pushed up could become an issue to some. Also, if I read the rule correctly, the cross brace/forward seat mounting point can only be modified so as to install alternate mounting rails.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, it might be an issue to some, but they need to read the rule book. If it isn't attached, it isn't attached, whether it's touching, pushing or jamming into the stock surface.
mbuskuhl
New member
Which is why I took this pic:
Here's the other side:
[/b]
Bringing back an old post...I'm going to add jack points, my rockers and undercarriage are beat up from the jack.
Passenger side will be easy, going to drop a tube straight down, cut a hole in the floorboard and have it stick out 1/2" on the underside. It will only be welded to the cage.
Driver side I don't have figured out and and need some advice. I have Nascar bars. If I go straight down I would have to cut through the door sill, then the undercarriage and notch the bottom of the door, I am thinking this may weaken the car too much ? Yes, no? In order to get a tube to the floorboard, I would have to make a 90 degree bend with a tube - think 6" tube, 90 degree bend, 6" down. I'm not sure that would support the car? Other concerns would be that tube would get slammed into the seat and possibly me in a side impact. Another option was to run an additional bar (straight) from rear to front and then have a tube come off of it for a jack point - obviously added weight but I do have a good amount of ballast already.
Here is an older picture of my Nascar bars..
EDIT: I recieved a PM about the legality of cutting a hole in the floorboard. To clarify, my post is about how to best add a jacking point like the above to the Nascar bar side.
9.1.3.f states "Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted." The cage is required saftey equipment, one could argue the floorboard was required to be cut for the installation of this tube on the roll cage. Note, I also said the tube is only welded to the cage and nothing more. Either way, through the floorboard or with plate like the above pics, the same end result is accomplished. Jacking points will not make me go any faster, nor will they provide any other performance benefit.
Back on topic, any suggestions on adding a jacking point to the Nascar bar?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, you are correct that body work is cut all the time in the effort to accesss required weld areas when installing roll cages. I just added pass door bars to my car, and the front and rear hoop on the pass side were never designed to facilitate the installation of what the new rule required. So, I needed to open up a large section of the rear quarter, as well as two subsequent panels within. Then, of course, I rewelded those back in place, grinding them smooth and painting them as I went. And, if you need to cut a hole in your floor, and you wish to remain legal, then you'll need to do the same.
The picture shown is a great solution, and is perfectly legal.
On NASCAR bar equiped cages, I imagine just a little creativity will be needed. I'd start on a vertical section, angling down, and bending once inside the rocker box section, terminating with a pad. I'd triangulate it with another tube attached to the lower bar. And remember, these aren't required tubes, so you have considerable design freedomg, and can use whatever materials you find best suit your needs.
If I run the A or B pillar tube through the floor (and plate) welding the circumference of the tube to the interior plate and use the bottom open end of that tube under the car as a jacking point (adapting my jack accordingly), I think I am legal.
I also think I can weld a plate to the bottom of the tube and not need to adapt the jack.
I also think I can weld a plate to the bottom of the tube and not need to adapt the jack.
Speed Raycer
New member
I might be missing something, but if your pads already are welded to the floor, why do you have to do anything? Just jack it up under the pad and call it a day.
Under the bolt in cage rules, there's already provisions for pads underneith the floor... haven't looked at them much but maybe there's wording that would apply to your idea.
Personally, legal jacking points isn't as big of a deal as legal reinforced jackSTAND points.
Under the bolt in cage rules, there's already provisions for pads underneith the floor... haven't looked at them much but maybe there's wording that would apply to your idea.
Personally, legal jacking points isn't as big of a deal as legal reinforced jackSTAND points.
bldn10
New member
"The cage is required saftey equipment, one could argue the floorboard was required to be cut for the installation of this tube on the roll cage."
Mark, please get this kind of thinking out of your mind because it will only lead you astray. That tube serves no cage/safety purpose and is solely for a jacking point, so you can't bootstrap the hole in the floor as required to install the cage.
FWIW I favor the allowance of jacking points. Geez, we can have an after-market stand-alone computer but not a little ole plate to make jacking safer for us and our cars.
Mark, please get this kind of thinking out of your mind because it will only lead you astray. That tube serves no cage/safety purpose and is solely for a jacking point, so you can't bootstrap the hole in the floor as required to install the cage.
FWIW I favor the allowance of jacking points. Geez, we can have an after-market stand-alone computer but not a little ole plate to make jacking safer for us and our cars.
mbuskuhl
New member
It appears the common consensus (from this thread) of running a tube off your door bars to the floorboard is fine for a jacking point, so long as 1) it is not attached (welded) at the bottom and 2) it does not penetrate the floorboard.
My argument is gray I'll admit that, but it does have some legitimacy. It's a loophole in the rule that was not intended. It does absolutely nothing for performance and in fact could be argued as a disadvantage with the added weight.
The twisted interpretation to cut a hole in the floorboard does not cross over into the performance category, whereas those rules are black and white and should be treated as such. If you can create a valid argument by taking advantage of the wording of a rule to accomplish a non-performance and necessary task, by all means do it. Doing so for performance enhancement is crossing the line.
If you want to open a can of worms on the rules, bring back the 2nd gen rear camber link debate.
bldn10
New member
Mark, you again pointed out the exact kind of common but incorrect thinking I'm talking about. The GCR does not generally talk about performance or non-performance. An argument that a mod does not offer a performance advantage has no validity whatsoever if the rules don't say you can do it. The rules do refer to prohibited and "any other" functions but those references are not limited to performance functions. Illogical sometimes but we just have to grin and bear it. 
mbuskuhl
New member
Agreed Bill. My point was simply that I felt the words in the GCR pertaining to roll cages and modifications could be argued in favor of cutting a hole in the floorboard from the wording I posted earlier. Since I felt this could be argued in favor, I only brought up the performance/non-performance to further make a a point that this was not any competitive advantage. On a purely legal level, you are right that does not matter.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the rules say you can make modifications to install the cage (required safety equipment). This tube is part of the cage and does not violate any other rules (additional attachment points). The number of tubes and how you use them is open. Did the GCR intend for jacking points? No. Is there a loophole to accomplish? Yes. Am I putting competitors at a disadvantage? No. The wording of the rules allow for unintended consequences. Am I missing something that prohibits this? I think our only sticking point is cutting the floorboard as common consensus of adding these tubes is agreed as okay.
Anyways, I had no intentions into getting into a rule debate. All I'm saying is cutting the floorboard has a valid argument. A lot of other things going on do not. By the way, I have not done the jacking points yet. That is for this weekend, there is still time to change plans.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
It allows cutting of the dash, to facilitate the instalation, it doesn't make any references to cutting holes and leaving them cut in the floor or bodywork.
If you attach your mirror to the cage with a tube weled on, is the mirror a cage component? The jacking point serves no purpose that the cage serves. Does it make you safer?
While I agree that the concept is harmless, and I would never dream of protesting it, it is, to my reading, clearly not a legal modification, and I'd avoid it myself. I don't think that your logic is well founded, and that the GCR allows cutting of holes in this manner. Thats just my take.