http://www.scca.com/_Filelibra...s.pdf - link to rulebook. From the "Touring" section - I would assume this includes IT as well as the T1/T2 cars.

Page 122 -

"6. Side Protection

Two side protection tubes (door bars) are mandatory on each side of the car. NASCAR-style side protection is required on the driver's side and optional on the passenger side"

Is this new? Would Kirk's new cage not be legal? This is a bit confusing to me as I'm trying to figure out what I want done with the cage - It will be going to Piper pretty soon.

 

I believe it becomes effective 2007.

 

It was in the 2005 GCR

 

Last time I read it, IT rules stated that the roll cage must conform to "showroom stock" guidelines in the GCR. Not the "touring" guidelines...

 

Yup, just did a refresher... http://www.scca.org

Showroom Stock specs...NASCAR optional...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RexRacer19 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Last time I read it, IT rules stated that the roll cage must conform to "showroom stock" guidelines in the GCR. Not the "touring" guidelines...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yep.. I believe there is a section that clearly states that all IT cars follow SS rules as far as construction of cage, a touring cage would be completely different.

2006 rule states that passanger side needs 2 forward and aft bars, the old wording only stated the need for one. Nascar or not, the choice is yours.

As for Production the X pattern bars will not pass tech!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> From the "Touring" section - I would assume this includes IT as well as the T1/T2 cars.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

that would be your wrong assumption.

 

Thanks

 

Now, does anyone know how these specs are going to be affected when SSB-C become T3-4?

 

I asked that question the other day. Inital answer was "it will have to be updated" but have yet to hear anything final.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

</TD></TR></TABLE>

I believe that cage needs more driver protection down low.

 

While we are on the subject... (because I am trying to do research for a cage for the AMS car)

Why is the x design on the side not allowed in SCCA? Is there a question of its performance, or some other long term rule?

I have been looking at WRC cars, and other touring cars, and I was surprised that looking at prodrive cage designs for the Subaru WRC cars.. would not pass an SCCA roadrace tech..


Yes its a model, but it is the best picture of an entire prodrive cage i can look at, and meets the notes I made looking at one at one of the auto shows. The "issues" with the SCCA rule here are of course the x design on the side, and no main hoop.

When I look at the rollover protection though, the honeycombed design of the braces surrounding driver and passenger, The design and placement look pretty well thought out.

This next example (also from a model, this time of an Evo, but I cant speak for its accuracy because i haven't seen one of the Mitsubishi WRC cars in person) looks more in line with SCCA specs.. no x brace on the door, and a full main hoop, but still has a lot of the honeycomb design surrounding the passenger compartment.



Is there a philosophical difference between rally cages and a roadrace cage other than protection of 2 vs 1 person, and the chances of a side impact. (though I cant see where there is structural difference to a large degree between a rock/mountianside/tree and a wall/car/and still possible trees.)

The reason this means a bit to me in terms of combining is that I would like to be able to enter the car in SPO, get an SCCA logbook, but also have protection for a navigator if we take the car to Targa Newfoundland or the Nevada Open Road Challenge.

Jon K (sorry about the semi-hijack)
http://www.seat-time.com

 

jon its a lot more then that, FIA cages like the one you pictured encompase alot more then just one section. If you look you will see that there is almost no "main hoop". and the SCCA would accept one of those cage designs if you had a FIA log book

 

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of speculation on cage design on HT? (and in general)

Has anyone ever seen any crash testing done on various cage designs to determine what really is good or bad? I see all these cage posts where people say X and Y isn't good about this and that, and I always have trouble understanding how 99% of the cages we see pictures of wouldn't protect the driver just fine. I don't have anything to backup that statement and I'm definitely not an engineer. I do know my cage is quite a bit "simpler" than most I see on here and it has always passed SCCA/NASA tech without question. I'm also not saying there's *too much* you can do to a cage, the more the better I guess, I'm just more curious about actual real-world crash data.

For that matter, has anyone ever witnessed a crash where a cage failed or didn't protect 100% *because* of bad cage design? (let's hope not)

 

I guess thats what I am sorta getting at... What makes a good cage and why? What designs give the most protection, etc..

When I look at a cage ina car I look at welds, gussets, where it ties into the chassis, how close it is to the body..(for stiffness of course)

BUt now looking at a bunch of cages there are a bunch of different approaches.. they would probably all work but what works best..

NASCAR door bars are good, for both side impact protection and driver room, but there was a bit of discussion a couple years ago about NASCAR car designs transferring too much energy to the driver.. how much of that had to do with the cage, or where it attached..

On the cage failure notes.. Jinx Jordan had one come apart in a multiple rollover crash at Savannah a couple years ago, I know when he built another car he really had a different approach to the cage. Two NASCAR racecars failed at Bristol, though the circumstances were about as bad as they could be. (head on into end of wall, crossover gate caved in.)

The speculation probably comes from lack of the data like this.. Different sanctioning bodies have different cage rules, probably developed over time as incidents happened, things are relatively safe, but are they as safe as they could be?

Jon K

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SMSP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe that cage needs more driver protection down low.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Can you elaborate on your thinking, Dave?

If you look at the WRC cage structures, you'll see the roots of what Competition Cages did with our most recent piece. We actually got most of the design features from the FIA-spec cage for the Group N Polo rally car...



...thinking that the factory program probably invested some time and energy in the design, and the cars are similar in construction.

As far as the IT rules go, it is indeed the case that they must meet the Showroom Stock rules, in term of material specification and design. Note though that there are indeed proposed changs for 2007 (mentioned in the Sep 2005 FasTrack - http://www.scca.com/_FileLibra...k.pdf ). The primary change, in terms of required features, is that "two (2) side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops..." will be mandatory (if approved).

We think that it might well matter, given this, how X-style door bars are built. Ours looked like this before the taco gussets went on:



The thinking here is that a traditional X, made with one continuous tube and one that is interrupted where the cross, means that there is only ONE tube connecting front to rear, at the point at which they intersect. I am not a tech inspector.

Also, it's a little academic to this conversation but don't get too committed to preconceived notions of what "NASCAR-sytle door bars" are - ...one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connec tht emain hoop to the front hoop" (GCR, p. 163). There are no requirements for most of the features that we typically think of when someone says "NASCAR style."

You can't tell very well from the pics but our new design features a slightly pyramidic structure, where the point of the X pokes into the space formerly occupied by the door panel pocket. Technically, it meests the definition above, although we didn't care, really. I left all of the door structure intact, on the theory that crushable structure is never bad.

K

 

I think where Dave is going, is that a rally style side protection is good, quite good, if you consider they are planning to hit trees.

However, picture yourself sideways, on the racing line shortly after the exit point of a blind corner. The next car through comes flying thorugh the corner (ignoring the flags in this hypothetical situation)and dives for the brake pedal.

His nose plants, and he clobbers you square in the door. Will his nose have any chance to go under your door bar? What if its a radical (or other xSR)?
We have a door bar at the floor level, just in case.
my door bars: http://images.miller-motorspor...1.JPG

Marcus, hoping that never happens.

 

only things i have seen that made me go "ouch that could have been bad". Were traditional style door bars that come on autopower and kirk (i think) bolt in cages. They just don't offer enough protection and in some cases none. (think about how low the single door bar is, and if nothing else is put in then you just counting on the door sheet metal in some cases to keep the car out of your lap, i think newer cars all have at least one bar in the for added safety). And the other is an autopower bolt in bar that was just that bolted in, a Maita went off in a high-speed corner around 90mp or so, and flip. The drivers side front hoop just collapsed, and came down a bit. The driver was ok though just a bit shook up.

I have driver side door bars similar too kirks, but modified and they intrude fully into the door, be for i go w2w it i will have it gusseted(sp) like kirks. I feel that this is stronger then the traditional nascar door bars. Some say they don't feel it provides enough protection, but i feel it is better.

On some of the old roll cage posts there are very very good sites that discuss roll cage design. I read up alot about FIA stuff, and they take a different approach then a "usa" age does. They want to build a collapsible structure around you, that will absorb alot of energy, while keeping you safe, (ie not letting the roof collapse on you or the door cave in on you ect). Were as "usa" cages build a super strong box around you and try to make it indestructible, and not give much. While i think this is very hard especially in a production based race car, it doesn't really make much sense to me for nascar type cars either. Because its never the crash that kills you, its the sudden stop.

 

I have (had) similar door bars to Kirks, but I also have an extra bar that runs along the rocker panel from the main hoop to the A pillar bar.

 

Kind of like this?...



I am a fan of this style door bar setup. (obviously...) I feel that it provides protection in the right areas for the driver and makes entry and exit a little easier. The X can be pushed out (and should IMO) to both give the driver more room, and the pyramid shape is very strong. Also when designed right, the "outsides" of the X connect to adjoining tubes and create a load path for the foces to get absorbed into.

 

bingo. very nice...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mtm68 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think where Dave is going, is that a rally style side protection is good, quite good, if you consider they are planning to hit trees.

However, picture yourself sideways, on the racing line shortly after the exit point of a blind corner. The next car through comes flying thorugh the corner (ignoring the flags in this hypothetical situation)and dives for the brake pedal.

His nose plants, and he clobbers you square in the door. Will his nose have any chance to go under your door bar? What if its a radical (or other xSR)?
We have a door bar at the floor level, just in case.
my door bars: http://images.miller-motorspor...1.JPG

Marcus, hoping that never happens.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yep.

Here's my old car

 

Thats what I really want done - but my concern is that it wont be IT legal since the interior door trim panel will need to be removed to accomodate it.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RexRacer19 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Kind of like this?...



</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Thats what I really want done - but my concern is that it wont be IT legal since the interior door trim panel will need to be removed to accomodate it.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

didn't kirk address this concern with the defenition of "nascar style door bars".

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

didn't kirk address this concern with the defenition of "nascar style door bars".</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am not a tech inspector.</TD></TR></TABLE>