SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences
Thread Starter
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, VA
SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences
Differences between SCCA and NASA rollcage rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some differences between SCCA IT and NASA HC rollcage rules:
Diagonal in main hoop.
BOTH require it to be in plane of main hoop.
NASA requires diagonal to go from driver's side high to passenger side low. It must be attached within 12" from corner of main hoop behind driver head.
SCCA on requires diagonal in plane of main hoop. Direction not specified.
Rear Supports to main hoop.
BOTH have many of the same requirements.
NASA in addition REQUIRES that the uprights not be more than 15 degrees to the left or right of STRAIGHT back as viewed from the top looking straight down.
SCCA has no such requirement.
Contact Points
SCCA allows no more than eight points of contact, and are quite specific about these.
NASA HC allows as many contact points as desired as well as stitch welding of cage to body, with a weight penalty (Don't take a knife to a gun fight! )
NASCAR Door Bars.
SCCA defines a NASCAR door bar as at least one bar extending into the door cavity.
NASA defines NASCAR door bar as what you think of when you look at a NASCAR car. At least two horizontal bars with vertical connecting bars extending into the door cavity.
BOTH allow removal of interior driver door parts if NASCAR door bars are present. But remember the definitions.
Passenger door bar.
SCCA has no requirement.
NASA HC requires at least one bar, and allows removal of PASSENGER door guts under certain conditions. (Remember that gun fight thing.)
These are just some things to consider when we go to annual tech. See the rules for that actual wording on this stuff.
There are also differences in seat rules and window net rules, if you care to discuss..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some differences between SCCA IT and NASA HC rollcage rules:
Diagonal in main hoop.
BOTH require it to be in plane of main hoop.
NASA requires diagonal to go from driver's side high to passenger side low. It must be attached within 12" from corner of main hoop behind driver head.
SCCA on requires diagonal in plane of main hoop. Direction not specified.
Rear Supports to main hoop.
BOTH have many of the same requirements.
NASA in addition REQUIRES that the uprights not be more than 15 degrees to the left or right of STRAIGHT back as viewed from the top looking straight down.
SCCA has no such requirement.
Contact Points
SCCA allows no more than eight points of contact, and are quite specific about these.
NASA HC allows as many contact points as desired as well as stitch welding of cage to body, with a weight penalty (Don't take a knife to a gun fight! )
NASCAR Door Bars.
SCCA defines a NASCAR door bar as at least one bar extending into the door cavity.
NASA defines NASCAR door bar as what you think of when you look at a NASCAR car. At least two horizontal bars with vertical connecting bars extending into the door cavity.
BOTH allow removal of interior driver door parts if NASCAR door bars are present. But remember the definitions.
Passenger door bar.
SCCA has no requirement.
NASA HC requires at least one bar, and allows removal of PASSENGER door guts under certain conditions. (Remember that gun fight thing.)
These are just some things to consider when we go to annual tech. See the rules for that actual wording on this stuff.
There are also differences in seat rules and window net rules, if you care to discuss..
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,846
Likes: 1
From: I started it
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Grumpy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Diagonal in main hoop.
BOTH require it to be in plane of main hoop.
NASA requires diagonal to go from driver's side high to passenger side low. It must be attached within 12" from corner of main hoop behind driver head.
SCCA on requires diagonal in plane of main hoop. Direction not specified.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Jim, maybe you can solve this riddle for me. I'm speaking about left hand drive cars here.
Many times when I see vintage race cars (and even some of the current stuff over in Europe), the diagonal starts at the passenger side at the top, and extends to the floor at the bottom behind the driver. This has *never* made any sense to me, and vintage or otherwise, I don't understand how anyone would do this.
I mean, the head you're trying to protect is clear on the other side of the car. What gives?
Diagonal in main hoop.
BOTH require it to be in plane of main hoop.
NASA requires diagonal to go from driver's side high to passenger side low. It must be attached within 12" from corner of main hoop behind driver head.
SCCA on requires diagonal in plane of main hoop. Direction not specified.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Jim, maybe you can solve this riddle for me. I'm speaking about left hand drive cars here.
Many times when I see vintage race cars (and even some of the current stuff over in Europe), the diagonal starts at the passenger side at the top, and extends to the floor at the bottom behind the driver. This has *never* made any sense to me, and vintage or otherwise, I don't understand how anyone would do this.
I mean, the head you're trying to protect is clear on the other side of the car. What gives?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
From: cali
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (krshultz)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krshultz »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
(and even some of the current stuff over in Europe), the diagonal starts at the passenger side at the top, and extends to the floor at the bottom behind the driver. This has *never* made any sense to me, and vintage or otherwise, I don't understand how anyone would do this.
I mean, the head you're trying to protect is clear on the other side of the car. What gives?</TD></TR></TABLE>
the thing you need to remeber when looking at euro cages is that there philosophy to cage building is VERY different from the typical US setup, from what i have gathered.
here it is in a nut shell,
Euro's say, its not the crash that kills you its the sudden stop. So they build a cage that will absorbe and compress the impact to a certian point and nothing futher. In effect taking some of the "sudden stop" out for the driver.
USA says, build an extremly rigid and tuff structure that won't give an inch.
edit- i know that doesn't directly answer your question, but it might help you understand alittler bit more in the direction they are going.
there was a link to a great web site that disscused these two different philosophies on cage building, i don't know were it went though.
(and even some of the current stuff over in Europe), the diagonal starts at the passenger side at the top, and extends to the floor at the bottom behind the driver. This has *never* made any sense to me, and vintage or otherwise, I don't understand how anyone would do this.
I mean, the head you're trying to protect is clear on the other side of the car. What gives?</TD></TR></TABLE>
the thing you need to remeber when looking at euro cages is that there philosophy to cage building is VERY different from the typical US setup, from what i have gathered.
here it is in a nut shell,
Euro's say, its not the crash that kills you its the sudden stop. So they build a cage that will absorbe and compress the impact to a certian point and nothing futher. In effect taking some of the "sudden stop" out for the driver.
USA says, build an extremly rigid and tuff structure that won't give an inch.
edit- i know that doesn't directly answer your question, but it might help you understand alittler bit more in the direction they are going.
there was a link to a great web site that disscused these two different philosophies on cage building, i don't know were it went though.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
From: North Las Vegas, NV, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
It appears that there are no conflicting specs between the two series. More like, one side quantifies a specific item, while the other does not. Is this correct?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Grumpy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There are also differences in seat rules and window net rules, if you care to discuss..</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, please!
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Grumpy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There are also differences in seat rules and window net rules, if you care to discuss..</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, please!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,448
Likes: 0
From: Morgantown, wv, usa
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (FormulaIntegra)
There are also several other rule differances. Off the top of my head:
If the car was sold with 16" wheels you have to use 16" wheels in IT. Can't use 15"
You can NOT take out the heater core in IT (you can in HC)
You can NOT use piggy back A/F or VTEC controllers in IT (you can in HC)
If the car was sold with 16" wheels you have to use 16" wheels in IT. Can't use 15"
You can NOT take out the heater core in IT (you can in HC)
You can NOT use piggy back A/F or VTEC controllers in IT (you can in HC)
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 30,826
Likes: 0
From: RIP Craig Jones
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (577HondaPrelude)
Differences in rules for powersteering, windsheild washer bottle, rear wiper removal (ok in HC not in IT) and lightweight batteries.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,931
Likes: 0
From: formerly elgorey, VIRginia
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (.RJ)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by "Subject" »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences </TD></TR></TABLE>
Trending Topics
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: Baltic, CT, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (slammed_93_hatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Euro's say, its not the crash that kills you its the sudden stop. So they build a cage that will absorbe and compress the impact to a certian point and nothing futher. In effect taking some of the "sudden stop" out for the driver.
USA says, build an extremly rigid and tuff structure that won't give an inch.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not saying one is right and another is wrong, there is validity to both.
Being originally introduced to motorsport through oval racing. The rigid and tough structure that doesn't budge an inch creates one heck of a sudden stop. Here in the Northeast the local NASCAR tracks run Modifieds. This is NASCAR's only open wheel series. These cars are fast and would qualify in the top 10 at a Nextel Cup race at NHIS. In the 80s and early 90s many drivers were killed due to the sudden stop. Research at the time cited the fact that the cars were built SO rigid that there was no deformation upon impact and the negative acceleration induced by impacting a large immoveable wall was the cause. The cars that these drivers were in would be entirely salvageable. Replacement of some suspension components/bumper/ nerf bar and *maybe* a trip to the frame shop and the car could be perfect the next week.
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.?
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?
Euro's say, its not the crash that kills you its the sudden stop. So they build a cage that will absorbe and compress the impact to a certian point and nothing futher. In effect taking some of the "sudden stop" out for the driver.
USA says, build an extremly rigid and tuff structure that won't give an inch.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not saying one is right and another is wrong, there is validity to both.
Being originally introduced to motorsport through oval racing. The rigid and tough structure that doesn't budge an inch creates one heck of a sudden stop. Here in the Northeast the local NASCAR tracks run Modifieds. This is NASCAR's only open wheel series. These cars are fast and would qualify in the top 10 at a Nextel Cup race at NHIS. In the 80s and early 90s many drivers were killed due to the sudden stop. Research at the time cited the fact that the cars were built SO rigid that there was no deformation upon impact and the negative acceleration induced by impacting a large immoveable wall was the cause. The cars that these drivers were in would be entirely salvageable. Replacement of some suspension components/bumper/ nerf bar and *maybe* a trip to the frame shop and the car could be perfect the next week.
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.?
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
From: Montreal, Canada
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (DBurke)
My FIA cage doesn't have a main hoop diagonal in the plane of the main hoop. I guess I can't run with SCCA or NASA... Is there a rule whereby non-compliant cages are evaluated on a case by case basis for safety?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
From: cali
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (DBurke)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DBurke »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Not saying one is right and another is wrong, there is validity to both.QUOTE]
exactly, i think the give in the USA system is but entirly on the belts. which may need more "give".
[QUOTE=DBurke].
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.?
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think the crumple zones, ect are eextremly important in IT, HC, and the likes.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Civic44 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My FIA cage doesn't have a main hoop diagonal in the plane of the main hoop. I guess I can't run with SCCA or NASA... Is there a rule whereby non-compliant cages are evaluated on a case by case basis for safety?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can't speak for anything concerning SCCA, but in Nasa there are provision for cages that meet the FIA standards. I would guess there is in the SCCA too
Not saying one is right and another is wrong, there is validity to both.QUOTE]
exactly, i think the give in the USA system is but entirly on the belts. which may need more "give".
[QUOTE=DBurke].
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.?
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think the crumple zones, ect are eextremly important in IT, HC, and the likes.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Civic44 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My FIA cage doesn't have a main hoop diagonal in the plane of the main hoop. I guess I can't run with SCCA or NASA... Is there a rule whereby non-compliant cages are evaluated on a case by case basis for safety?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can't speak for anything concerning SCCA, but in Nasa there are provision for cages that meet the FIA standards. I would guess there is in the SCCA too
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
From: Springfield, Va, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Civic44)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Civic44 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My FIA cage doesn't have a main hoop diagonal in the plane of the main hoop. I guess I can't run with SCCA or NASA... Is there a rule whereby non-compliant cages are evaluated on a case by case basis for safety?</TD></TR></TABLE>
From the NASA CCR
"Roll Cage
(See diagram at end of section)
15.5.1 Purpose
The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the occupant in case of a rollover or a collision. It must be able to withstand the weight of the car landing on the roof. These rules apply to all classes, unless otherwise superseded by the class rules. <u>Cars homologated by, or built to the specifications of, SCCA, IMSA, and Grand AM must conform to these rules, or may conform to their respective current class rules for roll cage requirements. It is the responsibility of the driver to have these (non-NASA) rules in his/her possession.</u>"
There is no mention of FIA in the Roll Cage section of the CCR. If one of the organizations listed allows FIA cages, that might let them in, but I'm not sure.
From the NASA CCR
"Roll Cage
(See diagram at end of section)
15.5.1 Purpose
The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the occupant in case of a rollover or a collision. It must be able to withstand the weight of the car landing on the roof. These rules apply to all classes, unless otherwise superseded by the class rules. <u>Cars homologated by, or built to the specifications of, SCCA, IMSA, and Grand AM must conform to these rules, or may conform to their respective current class rules for roll cage requirements. It is the responsibility of the driver to have these (non-NASA) rules in his/her possession.</u>"
There is no mention of FIA in the Roll Cage section of the CCR. If one of the organizations listed allows FIA cages, that might let them in, but I'm not sure.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
From: the rec center, usa
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (DBurke)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DBurke »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? </TD></TR></TABLE>
from a safety standpoint, absolutely
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.? </TD></TR></TABLE>
My opinion is that an IT legal cage is unlikely to do this. Since you are not allowed go thru the firewall, all of the front crumple zone remains as the mfgr designed it. It might be possible to dork up the rear crumple zone but I dont recall seeing any cars that had. I know of a few that take the rear legs pretty far back to offer some protection to the gas tank. That may affect the rear crumple zone, but protecting the gas tank is a pretty worthy goal too.
The problem really happens in the world of tube frame cars. Stock cars, in particular, were being built with completly rigid structures all the way out to the radiator, leaving nothing in front to absorb energy. This is one of the reasons oval guys prefer to back the car into the wall.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
It might. The IT rules sorta do by prohibiting the cage from going thru the firewall. You could accomplish a similar thing for the rear of the car by requiring the cage to end forward of rear axle (or something like that).
I think the IT rules require you leave factory door bars in but I could be wrong about that. I dont have a GCR handy
joel
It does bring up a good question, is there a point where a car is too stiff? </TD></TR></TABLE>
from a safety standpoint, absolutely
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Can this point be reached in production car based racing, IT, HC etc.? </TD></TR></TABLE>
My opinion is that an IT legal cage is unlikely to do this. Since you are not allowed go thru the firewall, all of the front crumple zone remains as the mfgr designed it. It might be possible to dork up the rear crumple zone but I dont recall seeing any cars that had. I know of a few that take the rear legs pretty far back to offer some protection to the gas tank. That may affect the rear crumple zone, but protecting the gas tank is a pretty worthy goal too.
The problem really happens in the world of tube frame cars. Stock cars, in particular, were being built with completly rigid structures all the way out to the radiator, leaving nothing in front to absorb energy. This is one of the reasons oval guys prefer to back the car into the wall.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Is it appropritate to say the safety systems that are built into prduction cars that we can't remove, crumple zones etc., saving racing drivers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
It might. The IT rules sorta do by prohibiting the cage from going thru the firewall. You could accomplish a similar thing for the rear of the car by requiring the cage to end forward of rear axle (or something like that).
I think the IT rules require you leave factory door bars in but I could be wrong about that. I dont have a GCR handy
joel
Thread Starter
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, VA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Geezer)
Cars built to FIA specs will most likely be acceptable. I say most likely to cover my butt to deal with cars on an individual basis.
The diagonal in the plane of the main hoop is to prevent DISTORION on the main hoop. As such eithor direction seems to prevent distortion. NASA however specifies direction. FIA rules have several optional ways of preventing distortion of the main hoop.
Just as an aside, FIA specifically does not include the "X" rear suppoert system for the main cage.
It depends on your definition of conflicting. If you stitch weld the cage it is NOT legal in SCCA IT.
You can have a cage that "complies " with SCCA and not "comply" with NASA. It can comply with NASA and be illegal in SCCA. SCCA approved "X" supported cages are NOT FIA compliant.
NASA makes allowances for SOME other designs to be presented for acceptability.
SCCA allows engineering papers to "allow" other designs.
WHAT'S MY POINT???
Read the rules. If you build a car to the MAX of one sanctions's rules, it may not be acceptable to another sanction.
The diagonal in the plane of the main hoop is to prevent DISTORION on the main hoop. As such eithor direction seems to prevent distortion. NASA however specifies direction. FIA rules have several optional ways of preventing distortion of the main hoop.
Just as an aside, FIA specifically does not include the "X" rear suppoert system for the main cage.
It depends on your definition of conflicting. If you stitch weld the cage it is NOT legal in SCCA IT.
You can have a cage that "complies " with SCCA and not "comply" with NASA. It can comply with NASA and be illegal in SCCA. SCCA approved "X" supported cages are NOT FIA compliant.
NASA makes allowances for SOME other designs to be presented for acceptability.
SCCA allows engineering papers to "allow" other designs.
WHAT'S MY POINT???
Read the rules. If you build a car to the MAX of one sanctions's rules, it may not be acceptable to another sanction.
Thread Starter
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, VA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
A couple of other safety rules that might be interesting.
NASA requires the window net to drop down. SCCA does not.
NASA requires the net to be changed periodically. SCCA does not.
NASA requires seats complying to 8885-1999 specs for seat bracing to be changed after five years per FIA rules. SCCA does not.
AND CHECK THIS OUT!!!!
NASA has sepcific rules about driver exit times from the race car. The driver MUST demonstrate this on request. SCCA does not.
NASA requires the window net to drop down. SCCA does not.
NASA requires the net to be changed periodically. SCCA does not.
NASA requires seats complying to 8885-1999 specs for seat bracing to be changed after five years per FIA rules. SCCA does not.
AND CHECK THIS OUT!!!!
NASA has sepcific rules about driver exit times from the race car. The driver MUST demonstrate this on request. SCCA does not.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
From: North Las Vegas, NV, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Grumpy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It depends on your definition of conflicting. If you stitch weld the cage it is NOT legal in SCCA IT.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What exactly is stitch welding a cage? I understand stitching the shell/body. Do you mean welds not continuous around the circumference of the tubing, rather more like a dotted line?
If this is the case, it is not legal in NASA, either.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
What exactly is stitch welding a cage? I understand stitching the shell/body. Do you mean welds not continuous around the circumference of the tubing, rather more like a dotted line?
If this is the case, it is not legal in NASA, either.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
From: west, mich, usa
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
Thanks for the discussion items here since I plan to run some HC and ITB next year. The following is part of a post I had on the NASA forums and did not really get a good response in my opinion.
*********************
The NASA CCR states
""NASCAR Style" means to NASCAR specification with regard to configuration. For example, the two required bars should be parallel with respect to each other, and contain the appropriate vertical support tubes. See NASCAR rules for more information."
This does not say 'must' be parallel. It does not say how many vertical support tubes, how far apart etc., etc.
Referring to another sanctioning bodies rules seems to be unnecessarily vague.
****************
I have a decent idea of what I need to do but do not want to tow my car a few hundred miles and be told my vertical support is not too few or improperly spaced etc.
Any thoughts on spacing/number etc?
*********************
The NASA CCR states
""NASCAR Style" means to NASCAR specification with regard to configuration. For example, the two required bars should be parallel with respect to each other, and contain the appropriate vertical support tubes. See NASCAR rules for more information."
This does not say 'must' be parallel. It does not say how many vertical support tubes, how far apart etc., etc.
Referring to another sanctioning bodies rules seems to be unnecessarily vague.
****************
I have a decent idea of what I need to do but do not want to tow my car a few hundred miles and be told my vertical support is not too few or improperly spaced etc.
Any thoughts on spacing/number etc?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,323
Likes: 0
From: Valley Forge, PA, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Geezer)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">or may conform to their respective current class rules for roll cage requirements. It is the responsibility of the driver to have these (non-NASA) rules in his/her possession.</u>"</TD></TR></TABLE>
Back to Jerry's point. To me, this line in the rules clearly states that if the car is legal in its class in one of the listed sanctioning bodies, it is legal for NASA, provided the driver has the other sanctioning body's rule book with them.
Back to Jerry's point. To me, this line in the rules clearly states that if the car is legal in its class in one of the listed sanctioning bodies, it is legal for NASA, provided the driver has the other sanctioning body's rule book with them.
Thread Starter
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, VA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (speedracer33)
According to NASA Supreme HQ, other designs MAY be acceptable. The "X" design was specifically discussed with Jerry and the decision was that cars with this configuration are not acceptable.
The SCCA is vague on the "X" design. Nowhere does it specifically allow it, whereas FIA specifically DISALLOWS it.
Since this was discussed with him several months ago, he allowed additional time for compliance. According to NASA World Supreme HQ, cars seeking logbooks for 2005 must be in compliance.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The rule you should be quoting is this:
15.5.11.A Rear Braces - Exceptions
On cars where the rear window/bulkhead prohibits the installation of rear braces
(Porsche 914, Pontiac Fiero, etc.) the main hoop must be attached to the body by plates
welded to the cage and bolted to the stock shoulder harness mounting location. There
must also be a diagonal bar connecting the top of the main hoop to the lower front
passenger side mounting point (“Petty bar”). Some cars built for racing in other
recognized sanctioning bodies may be granted a waiver of this rule, however they must
show proof of compliance with the current published rules for their class.
This is where it specifically refers to the main hoop uprights and says "may" be granted a waiver. The "X" was not granted a waiver.
The following was given to the ECHC Director on October 20, 2004:
Roll Cage Clarification
October 20, 2004
• It is the intention of the rules that ALL race cars comply with NASA CCR 15.5.11 design for roll cage rear brace construction. Other designs MAY be approved on an individual basis. Cars with rear hoop supports with more than the approved fifteen degree tolerance off ninety degrees straight back are NOT in compliance with the NASA CCR.
15.5.11 Rear Braces
The main hoop must have two (2) braces extending to the rear. The braces shall be attached as near as possible to the top of the main hoop, and no more than six (6) inches below the top. The braces must not contain any bends. There must be at least 30 degrees between the plane of the main hoop and the plane of the rear braces.
The main hoop rear braces shall be installed to form no more than a one hundred five (105) degree angle or no less than a seventy-five (75) degree angle with the main hoop when viewed from the top. The main hoop braces may be mounted at the rear shock mounts or suspension pickup points (providing that the braces remain in compliance with all other sections of the CCR). They may go through any rear bulkheads provided the bulkhead is sealed around the cage braces.
• If your car has a current logbook from another racing sanction, the cage design of that other racing sanction MAY be acceptable for participation in a NASA sanctioned event. It the responsibility of the entrant to prove compliance with the other sanction’s rules. This can be accomplished by providing both a current logbook with cage approval as well as the current rule book of the racing sanction. These will be CONSIDERED on an individual basis.
15.5.11.A Rear Braces - Exceptions
On cars where the rear window/bulkhead prohibits the installation of rear braces
(Porsche 914, Pontiac Fiero, etc.) the main hoop must be attached to the body by plates
welded to the cage and bolted to the stock shoulder harness mounting location. There
must also be a diagonal bar connecting the top of the main hoop to the lower front
passenger side mounting point (“Petty bar”). Some cars built for racing in other recognized sanctioning bodies may be granted a waiver of this rule, however they must show proof of compliance with the current published rules for their class.
• As stated, it is the intention of NASA that ALL cars be in compliance with the NASA CCR roll cage rear brace design. Cars accepted for participation from other racing sanctions will be REQUIRED to comply with the NASA CCR roll cage design. These cars will be given a period of time to comply with the NASA CCR 15.5.11, after which time they will not be accepted for participation.
Chris Cobetto
NASA-Virginia Director
Modified by Grumpy at 3:20 PM 12/8/2004
The SCCA is vague on the "X" design. Nowhere does it specifically allow it, whereas FIA specifically DISALLOWS it.
Since this was discussed with him several months ago, he allowed additional time for compliance. According to NASA World Supreme HQ, cars seeking logbooks for 2005 must be in compliance.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The rule you should be quoting is this:
15.5.11.A Rear Braces - Exceptions
On cars where the rear window/bulkhead prohibits the installation of rear braces
(Porsche 914, Pontiac Fiero, etc.) the main hoop must be attached to the body by plates
welded to the cage and bolted to the stock shoulder harness mounting location. There
must also be a diagonal bar connecting the top of the main hoop to the lower front
passenger side mounting point (“Petty bar”). Some cars built for racing in other
recognized sanctioning bodies may be granted a waiver of this rule, however they must
show proof of compliance with the current published rules for their class.
This is where it specifically refers to the main hoop uprights and says "may" be granted a waiver. The "X" was not granted a waiver.
The following was given to the ECHC Director on October 20, 2004:
Roll Cage Clarification
October 20, 2004
• It is the intention of the rules that ALL race cars comply with NASA CCR 15.5.11 design for roll cage rear brace construction. Other designs MAY be approved on an individual basis. Cars with rear hoop supports with more than the approved fifteen degree tolerance off ninety degrees straight back are NOT in compliance with the NASA CCR.
15.5.11 Rear Braces
The main hoop must have two (2) braces extending to the rear. The braces shall be attached as near as possible to the top of the main hoop, and no more than six (6) inches below the top. The braces must not contain any bends. There must be at least 30 degrees between the plane of the main hoop and the plane of the rear braces.
The main hoop rear braces shall be installed to form no more than a one hundred five (105) degree angle or no less than a seventy-five (75) degree angle with the main hoop when viewed from the top. The main hoop braces may be mounted at the rear shock mounts or suspension pickup points (providing that the braces remain in compliance with all other sections of the CCR). They may go through any rear bulkheads provided the bulkhead is sealed around the cage braces.
• If your car has a current logbook from another racing sanction, the cage design of that other racing sanction MAY be acceptable for participation in a NASA sanctioned event. It the responsibility of the entrant to prove compliance with the other sanction’s rules. This can be accomplished by providing both a current logbook with cage approval as well as the current rule book of the racing sanction. These will be CONSIDERED on an individual basis.
15.5.11.A Rear Braces - Exceptions
On cars where the rear window/bulkhead prohibits the installation of rear braces
(Porsche 914, Pontiac Fiero, etc.) the main hoop must be attached to the body by plates
welded to the cage and bolted to the stock shoulder harness mounting location. There
must also be a diagonal bar connecting the top of the main hoop to the lower front
passenger side mounting point (“Petty bar”). Some cars built for racing in other recognized sanctioning bodies may be granted a waiver of this rule, however they must show proof of compliance with the current published rules for their class.
• As stated, it is the intention of NASA that ALL cars be in compliance with the NASA CCR roll cage rear brace design. Cars accepted for participation from other racing sanctions will be REQUIRED to comply with the NASA CCR roll cage design. These cars will be given a period of time to comply with the NASA CCR 15.5.11, after which time they will not be accepted for participation.
Chris Cobetto
NASA-Virginia Director
Modified by Grumpy at 3:20 PM 12/8/2004
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,323
Likes: 0
From: Valley Forge, PA, USA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Grumpy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't shoot the messenger.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
My aim isn't so good, just because I'm not trying to shoot the messenger doesn't mean he won't get hit!
</TD></TR></TABLE>
My aim isn't so good, just because I'm not trying to shoot the messenger doesn't mean he won't get hit!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
From: richmond, va, 23233
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Grumpy)
not having a clue about any of this, my question is, if the car has been log-booked by NASA-va for the last 4 years, any reason to think that it will not this year......(i think my car has what is in effect an autpower bolt-in cage modified only by welding it in and adding NASCAR door bars on the driver's side.....
Stephen, "i can't see my race car for the dust and kid toys piled on top of it" Harper
Stephen, "i can't see my race car for the dust and kid toys piled on top of it" Harper
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
From: Fairfax, Va, Fairfax
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Geezer)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">From the NASA CCR
"Roll Cage
(See diagram at end of section)
15.5.1 Purpose
The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the occupant in case of a rollover or a collision. It must be able to withstand the weight of the car landing on the roof. These rules apply to all classes, unless otherwise superseded by the class rules. <u>Cars homologated by, or built to the specifications of, SCCA, IMSA, and Grand AM must conform to these rules, or may conform to their respective current class rules for roll cage requirements. It is the responsibility of the driver to have these (non-NASA) rules in his/her possession.</u>"
There is no mention of FIA in the Roll Cage section of the CCR. If one of the organizations listed allows FIA cages, that might let them in, but I'm not sure. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Jerry,
Unless things have changed IMSA uses FIA rules regarding any and all saftey regulations.
Regards,
Jon P. Kofod
"Roll Cage
(See diagram at end of section)
15.5.1 Purpose
The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the occupant in case of a rollover or a collision. It must be able to withstand the weight of the car landing on the roof. These rules apply to all classes, unless otherwise superseded by the class rules. <u>Cars homologated by, or built to the specifications of, SCCA, IMSA, and Grand AM must conform to these rules, or may conform to their respective current class rules for roll cage requirements. It is the responsibility of the driver to have these (non-NASA) rules in his/her possession.</u>"
There is no mention of FIA in the Roll Cage section of the CCR. If one of the organizations listed allows FIA cages, that might let them in, but I'm not sure. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Jerry,
Unless things have changed IMSA uses FIA rules regarding any and all saftey regulations.
Regards,
Jon P. Kofod
Thread Starter
New User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke, VA
Re: SCCA IT vs. NASA HC roll cage rule differences (Dented Rx7)
If your car is in compliance with current NASA rules, it will not have any problem in tech. If some safety items had been overlooked in the past, for whatever reason or misunderstanding, they should be corrected.
Most autopower rollcages are both NASA ans SCCA compliant.
IMSA uses FIA.
Modified by Grumpy at 6:45 PM 12/8/2004
Most autopower rollcages are both NASA ans SCCA compliant.
IMSA uses FIA.
Modified by Grumpy at 6:45 PM 12/8/2004