So where's the March FasTrack?

zracre,

The GCR weight for the cage is 2170. .095 is legal; add 100 pounds and it is not. You are right, it would not need to go to 1 3/4", just replace the whole thing with .120 tubing :)

C. Minimum tubing sizes for (all Showroom Stock, Touring
and Improved Touring Category auto-mobiles registered
after June 1, 1994) for all required roll cage elements (All
dimensions in inches):
Up to 1500 lbs. 1.375 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1501-2200 lbs. 1.500 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
2201-3000 lbs. 1.500 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.625 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.750 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy

D. For purposes of determining tubing sizes, the vehicle weight
is as raced without fuel and driver. The minus tolerance
for wall thickness should not be less than .010” below the
nominal thickness. Improved Touring roll cage tubing sizes
are to be calculated based on the published vehicle weight
minus 180 lbs.
Volkswagen
Golf III
(93-97))
4 Cyl
SOHC
82.5 x 92.8 /
1984
10 97.3 14 3.45, 1.94, 1.29,
0.97, 0.80 or 3.45,
1.94, 1.37, 1.03,
0.85
(F)257 Disc
®227 Disc
2350

if your cage is 1.5X.095 it needs to come out anyways...unless it weighs less than 2200#if its over 2200# it should have 1.5X.120...
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
if your cage is 1.5X.095 it needs to come out anyways...unless it weighs less than 2200#if its over 2200# it should have 1.5X.120...
[/b]
Click to expand...

Spec Weight 2350 = Dry weight 2170 = 1.5 x .095

Spec Weight 2450 = Dry weight 2270 = 1.5 x .120

Dave posted while I was typing.
 
In regards to the passenger side driver restraint system recommendation, do we now need to request a change in the rules to allow us to cut holes in the dash to access the dash bar as a means of securing the front portion of the restraining net? Since many dash bars are now behind the dash I think we would need allowances to get to it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I installed two of these nets (one for my head and one for my sholders) in my car last year and I ran a mount through one of the AC register holes in the factory dash pad. Actually the location of the dash bar in my car required the removal of these AC registers and their duct work anyway.

Seems to me that since you can clearance the dash for the cage the installation of such a mount to the cage is a given. But I have been wrong before. You DON'T want to put a mount like this on the factory dash board.

I'll post some pic's next week.
 
A couple of pretty interesting little tid-bits in there.

-I'm cool with the new padding; I've been needing to do that anyways.

-I don't quite understand "the right side net", but it's only recommended so I won't worry about it.

-Again, I'm going to have to continue to wait to buy a H&N restraint system (stupid, I know). I want an Isaac, but I don't want to spend that much money on something for it to be found illegal less than a year later. So I guess I'll continue to wait.

-"The window net shall be equipped with a quick-release device and when released it shall fall down, thus not having to be flipped up on the roof." That'll bite some people, but it's the proper way of doing it.

- The classification of the 1995-2001 Acura Integra LS as limited prep FP. Interesting. Is the 1990-1993 Integra classed in LP FP too? I'll have to look at that.

- Can we lock the spherical bushing thread now? Good to see an answer, whether agreed with or not.
 
Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow[/b]
Click to expand...

I'd be more than happy to get some use out of my sawzall tool with your car!

As nicely as Dave put it, he's got a valid point and it makes sense that the 100 lbs can't easily be added.
 
Dave,

Will you replace my 1 1/2" cage tubes with 1 3/4"?

Will you take apart the car and put it back together again?

Dave Zaslow
[/b]
Click to expand...


Dave,

The fact that it was mentioned by an ITAC member or two, that 2350# was ~100# under the process weight for the Golf III in ITB, it was a gamble for anyone to build a new car w/ 1.5" x 0.095" tubing, especially in light of the fact that we were told by the ITAC that all the currently classified cars were being run through the new classification process.

I know this issue has come up w.r.t. the talks of moving the 1st gen. RX7 and the AW11 MR2 from ITA to ITB. I suspect that it may come up again in the future (although, I hope the classes should be pretty stable after the recent 'process application'. I understand both sides of the issue. I'm also not really in favor of making 'grandfathering' type exceptions (especially if it has to do w/ standards that were supposedly defined for safety reasons. The lawsuit implications of that are HUGE!).

In cases like these, I see a couple of options.

1) Use an SIR to reduce the hp so that it fits the performance envelope for a weight that would not require a new cage.

2) Raise the weight, and require a new cage

3) Move it to a higher class (or don't move it down), and subsequently reduce the weight to fit a lower lb/hp ratio

4) Do nothing and say "Oh well, you guys get a weight break".

5) Raise the weight, but 'grandfather' the cage (see earlier law suit comment).

I agree that worrying about 50# is probably not worth the effort, but 100# is significant (IMHO). Given the lb/hp ratio, that 100# is going to have a greater impact, the larger the ratio.
 
By the way what if you have a Hans or other brand that is now certified but was made before the certification procees. would the approval be retroactive or do you need to buy a current model.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Retroactive certification for the HANS is available for $75 IIRC. Basically the price of the sticker.
 
{EDIT}

I was a whole page late to the tube size conversation. It's been covered but I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't actually thought of that issue re: the +/-100# for the MkIII Golf.

Bigger question - why do I not remember anything from the ITAC'ers about the math saying that it should be higher, anyway? Am I getting completely senile or is my selective hearing (aka spousal deafness) working on the boards, too?

K
 
{EDIT}

I was a whole page late to the tube size conversation. It's been covered but I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't actually thought of that issue re: the +/-100# for the MkIII Golf.

Bigger question - why do I not remember anything from the ITAC'ers about the math saying that it should be higher, anyway? Am I getting completely senile or is my selective hearing (aka spousal deafness) working on the boards, too?

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

I think that may be because it was moved prior to the formal process being put in place. If you go back through the New Beetle thread (I'm pretty sure it came up there), you can probably find it.
 
A couple of pretty interesting little tid-bits in there.

-I'm cool with the new padding; I've been needing to do that anyways.

-I don't quite understand "the right side net", but it's only recommended so I won't worry about it.

-Again, I'm going to have to continue to wait to buy a H&N restraint system (stupid, I know). I want an Isaac, but I don't want to spend that much money on something for it to be found illegal less than a year later. So I guess I'll continue to wait.

-"The window net shall be equipped with a quick-release device and when released it shall fall down, thus not having to be flipped up on the roof." That'll bite some people, but it's the proper way of doing it.

- The classification of the 1995-2001 Acura Integra LS as limited prep FP. Interesting. Is the 1990-1993 Integra classed in LP FP too? I'll have to look at that.

- Can we lock the spherical bushing thread now? Good to see an answer, whether agreed with or not.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh, this is great! Now, thanks to the confusion evident about our rules direction, we now can add a whole 'nuther group in the H+N debate: the guys who really want to do something safer, and can afford to improve their safety, but can't afford to throw away nearly a grand (who can?) on the wrong piece of equipment, and so will consequently be running around without ANY safety improvement (for H+N restraint).

:018: That's gotta be one of the worst unintended rules-making consequences I've ever seen (though, admittedly, I'm still relatively new to the joy of the rulebook).

As for me, of course I've got an ISAAC, and seems like I'll have to expect to have a compliant H+N device for next year - whether it's a HANS or my 38.1 "performance-meeting" ISAAC remains to be seen - but the idea that SCCA would expect me to take off a proven safety device and run without it makes me incredibly steamed!!! Idiots@!!!
 
Just to put the H&N thing in perspective, some of you may recall that since the Charlotte Observer newpaper began keeping records in the early '90s about 20 drivers per year, on average, die in racing accidents. A couple of weeks ago the Observer published the 2005 count: 22. No improvement post Earnhardt. (About half of all racing fatalities are head and neck injuries.)

The problem the amateur sanctioning bodies are seeing is home-made designs showing up at the track. Yeah, we're talkin' duct tape and clothes line here--and the word is that it's happening in the SCCA.

"Don't try this at home," as the saying goes. It sends the legal department into a panic.
 
They theorectically could cover that with saying products that have performed and passed the SFI sled testing requirements, without getting into all the other garbage that came along with it courtesy of "consultants" tied to HANS.
 
Gregg, I have held off writing a letter......as calling them all bozos probably wouldn't help.

But, what ARE we going to do about this??
My quiet behind the scenes questions have met pretty firm responses.
 
Can someone tell me what this is about?

Improved Touring

Item 1. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section k to 17.1.4.D.10 to read as follows:

k. If so equipped, the rolling door lock mechanism may be deactivated by unplugging the components.

Thanks,

Dave Z
 
They theorectically could cover that with saying products that have performed and passed the SFI sled testing requirements, without getting into all the other garbage that came along with it courtesy of "consultants" tied to HANS.
[/b]
Click to expand...
That's the obvious solution.

Gregg, I have held off writing a letter......as calling them all bozos probably wouldn't help.

But, what ARE we going to do about this??
My quiet behind the scenes questions have met pretty firm responses.
[/b]
Click to expand...
A thoughtful and polite letter for the record might help. I wouldn't get too excited however. All that has happened so far is that the CRB has floated a bad idea past the BoD.
 
Greg, do you have a link to this article? I can't seem to find it. I only see references to it. Even then, I am reading some numbers that sort of show what I suspected. I just wanted to investigate what you're implying by your post. This is not to say one device is better than the other, but my curiousity was stimulated to find out just where deaths occur in racing.

In 2002, out of 260 killed since 1990 (they don't count "youth karts", mud racing, racing schools), 19 were killed in NASCAR events. 17 of those were at small tracks where they sanction races but leave safety to the small track operators.

In 2002, out of 33 deaths found by the Observer, 29 were at small tracks (do they mean small Friday and Saturday night oval tracks?)

Out of the average of 22 a year, 14 die in crashes (this was in 2002, I believe the averages are still the same). 3 die from medical problems on the track. It doesn't talk about the other 5.

Out of the 2002 total of 260 deaths since 1990, 204 were drivers, 29 were spectators, 24 were workers or crew, and 3 were journalists.

Are enough people including those Friday and Saturday night racers wearing ANY head restraint device for the statistics to start changing yet? I wish we could see those stats separated by sanctioning bodies which require a head restraint. Then we could get a view as to the type of injuries that are most common. Do you have any of those numbers Greg? (especially curious about side impacts and rotational injuries)
 
Can someone tell me what this is about?

Improved Touring

Item 1. Effective 11/1/06: Add new section k to 17.1.4.D.10 to read as follows:

k. If so equipped, the rolling door lock mechanism may be deactivated by unplugging the components.

Thanks,

Dave Z
[/b]
Click to expand...

Some cars have auto locks that lock the car when it reaches a certain speed. Like 15 MPH. It is a safety hazard in a race car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top