Got my NASA vehicle logbook done today. spent all day re-installing my cage, seat, harness today (i took it all out recently to use the car for street and to pull the carpet out). barely made it. Well, not totally done, but I needed to get a logbook for my car/cage before I leave the country on Monday and the new DOM-only rule comes into effect. I already have a SCCA logbook, but needed to make sure I get a NASA logbook for future HC participation. I brought my car to Ken Myers at IOPORTracing for tech.

Basically, the main issue Ken had was the seatback brace, or lack of it. I mounted my MOMO Start seat to my stock seat rails which allow me to slide the seat back and forth to get out and in of the car. otherwise with a locked seatback brace, it'd be almost impossible to get in/out without a removable steering wheel without having somone else being able to remove the pin in the seatback brace. The seat does have an FIA certification, however, Ken's main issue was that the rules for seat mounting state "to manufacturers instruction or according to FIA standards" otherwise it needs a seatback brace. Since there are no manufacturers instructions for my seat, and the FIA standard is a bit obscure (nobody knew what it was) and does not include the use the sliding rails, he believed the seat WITH A SLIDING RAIL required a seatback brace. He even called up Jerry K. for his judgement, as Ken "the tech inspector" is only a police enforcer, and it seemed by overhearing their conversation Jerry was just as ambiguous over the rules concerning rails. But due to apparent convincing by Ken, they both agreed unless I gave specific proof, I will require a seat back brace while racing.

Ken explained his main problem with factory seat rails is that they are typically spring loaded and the g forced in a collision can (and have) overcome the spring force of the lock mechanism in the rail with fatal consequences.

im not sharing this because i really disagree with Ken. just passing along what I learned about NASA's ruling on seatback braces, specifically for FIA seats mounted on sliding rails.

Also, Ken seemed to disagree with my logic in placing the fire bottle to the vertical of the main hoop on the passenger side. it is clearly not within reach of the driver within the seat, but there on purpose. because if there is a fire, we both agree that the first priority of the driver is to get out of the car. now, once the person is out of the car, and there is a fire, I personally am not comfortable reaching INSIDE the cockpit thru a window to reach the bottle, and prefer it to be nearer to the window, which is where I placed it. Ken understood my logic, but still preferred that it be bolted within reach, preferably along the center channel and bolted down with a TWO STRAP bracket (instead of the one strap bracket included). well, i tried to convince him, but the rules say within reach of the driver (SCCA doesnt specify location).

just giving you all a heads up on what to expect and preparing a properly "safe" NASA spec vehicle. I still got my logbook. and in discussion with ken and some poking around, my cage might be already made of DOM.... ill have to check when I take it apart again and check the inside of the tubing for a seam.




[Modified by Tyson, 4:05 AM 3/1/2003]

 

Does you seat have a FIA 8855-1999 certification sticker on it? If it does no brace should be used.

Grumpy

 

I very strongly agree with grumpy. FIA seats are not designed to have seat back braces. I feel it hurts the integrity of the seat. As far as the sliders go, I wouldn't have them but I've seen a lot of Endurance GT cars with them (Daytona, Sebring, and LeMan type cars). You probably need to put a removable wheel in the car anyway.
As far as firebottle mounting goes. Low and straped down good. There was a driver killed at Pocono last year. It is suspected that he was hit in the head by his firebottle.

 

I have sat in a couple different kind of cars. My car came with a Kirky solid mounted to the stock mounting points. It is now mounted on a sliding rail to the stock mounting points. I have also sat in cars with proper mounts attached to the roll cage with a seat back brace. There is a world of difference. The stock mouning points stink and sliders are flimsy. When Shugg went off into the trees at Summit, his seat almost came out of the stock mounting points. (Granted that was in a Rustang ) Never skimp on safety gear. Before I race this car, it is going to Robinson Racing for a seat mount and brace!


[Modified by SPiFF, 12:28 PM 3/1/2003]

 

I wonder if this has anything to do with Jerry looking for a French interpretor, as was posted on the NASA national listserv?

It seems like the manufacturer's "specifications" end at the bolt holes in the seat, whether they are bottom or side mount. I have a hard time imagining that RECARO or any other company is going to get in the business of designing (or specifying the design for) seat mounts.

As far as the FIA is concerned, App J, Art 253 indicates:

"ARTICLE 16 : SEATS, ATTACHMENTS AND SUPPORTS If the original seat attachments or supports are changed, the new parts must either be approved for that application by the seat manufacturer or must comply with the following specifications (see drawing 253-52): 1) Supports must be attached to the shell/chassis via at least mounting points per seat using bolts with a minimum diameter of 8 mm and counterplates, according to the drawing. The minimum area of contact between support, shell/chassis and counterplate is 40 cm2 for each mounting point. If quick release systems are used, they must be capable of withstanding vertical and horizontal forces of 18000 N, applied non-simultaneously. If rails for adjusting the seat are used, they must be those originally supplied with the homologated car or with the seat. 2) The seat must be attached to the supports via 4 mounting points, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear of the seat, using bolts with a minimum diameter of 8 mm and reinforcements integrated into the seat. Each mounting point must be capable of withstanding a force of 15000 N applied in any direction. 3) The minimum thickness of the supports and counterplates is 3 mm for steel and 5 mm for light alloy materials. The minimum longitudinal dimension of each support is 6 cm. All the occupants' seats must be either original, modified only through the addition of accessories with a registered trademark, or homologated by the EEC, the FMVSS or the FIA (8855/1992 or 8855/1999 standards), and not modified. In all these cases, a headrest must be present for each occupant."

(From the English version of the FIA web site, bold added for emphasis)

Have fun!

Kirk

EDIT - this should not be construed as a slap of any kind on NASA or anyone else. I think it is comendable that they are looking to the FIA for specifications.


[Modified by Knestis, 5:47 PM 3/1/2003]

 

Wow, thanks kirk for coming thru. I read thru the original 8855-1999 standard, but didnt find Art 253. So, assuming "supplied with homologated car" means stock seat rail, then properly linking my seat to the stock rail is OK. but what does it mean "homologated car", I checked their list of homologated cars, and it doesnt have anything recent except engine codes.


[Modified by Tyson, 10:54 AM 3/1/2003]

 

Kirk,
Could you provide the link for the english version of the FIA site? I wasn't able to find it when I search before.

My car is set up with the intention of running enduros. Along those lines, I mounted the seat using the Sparco/Momo FIA approved slider. It is mounted to the car using using 2"X1" tubing spanning the rail & tranny tunnel & 8mm bolts. I do have a seatback brace because it is required. I did pose this question about a year & 1/2 ago on the NASA list. @ the time, someone stated that there wasn't info available in regards to the mounting of the seat (required) in the test, esp. in regards to sliders.

Having typed the above, the reason we went that route when building the car was for IMO safety. Our logic is that those things are better than adding padding to the seat for the height diff. between my co-driver & myself, which is approx. 6". It was felt that the amount of padding needed would not give adequet (sp) protection for lateral impacts. In addition, all the padding on the back, would compress towards the rear on rear impacts, etc. This would lead to slack belts & all the bad things that result from that on the resulting 2* impact.

Your thoughts & opinions are welcome.

added in edit: BTW, the stock seat mounting is very flimsy! It def. should be replaced.


[Modified by civicrr, 11:06 AM 3/1/2003]

 

http://www.fia.com/regle/appjsomm.htm

its my opinion that i dont think my stock seat rails are flimsy at all.

 

As cool as I think it is that NASA is looking to the FIA standards, the entire process that is applied in France is based on homologation - the submission and inspection of cars and parts, to define accepted specifications. This process costs the manufacturers $$, so not all cars get listed, by the way. The FIA then publishes (and sells) homologation papers for each car (or engine, like in Formula 3) in each "Group".

Group N is the philosophical international cousing to IT but they use an age-eligibility system like Showroom Stock - cars drop off the list when they are 7(?) years old. The only Hondas listed in GrN are:

CIVIC 3 DOOR SIR.II (EG6) 1596cc
CIVIC 3 DOOR SiR (EK4) 1596 cc
INTEGRA TYPE-R (DC2) European 1797.2cc
CIVIC TYPE R (EP3) 1998.2 cc

Notice that a 1990 CRX Si is NOT on that list? The FIA rule falls to bits at that point so it is up to NASA to decide how to address the issue. An FIA-homogated seat slider will still be OK - I think that much is clear - but how about the OEM part?

K

 

Email conversation Jerry and I had concerning this. Seems as if the requirement for documentation that specifies no seatback brace to be used totally ignores the FIA certification in the first place according to their rules. But he's the rulemaker so what more can you do. Anyone wanna contact MOMO design team and see if they will verify that a seatback brace cannot be used? not I...

-----------------------


Tyson,

I believe that you are correct about the use of the stock seat rails, per
FIA verbiage. However, if you re-read the NASA CCR "FIA seat rule
exception," your car will not pass with out a seatback support, as per the
CCR.

As for the 5-year rule, it is not written in the CCR. Neither are a bunch
of the rules we are discussing. If we allow you to use a product such as
that seat, under the guise of the FIA guidelines, then you must comply with
all of those guidelines. Those guidelines mandate a seat replacement, every
5-years. Additionally, just because you must follow those guidelines by
FIA, does not preclude you from also conforming to the NASA CCR.

To reiterate, nowhere does it say that the seat may be used without bracing;
not in the FIA 8855-1999, nor any docs that you could find either. You are
making that inference from the testing that was done (and even that is an
assumption; nevertheless a good one, I believe).

The bottom line (so far) is that your configuration doesn't meet the NASA
rules.

I will allow the stock seat rails, providing that the use of said rails
falls completely within the rules listed in FIA 8855-1999 AND Article 253,
Article 16, found in Apendix J of the FIA code; and providing that the
proper seat back bracing is used, per the CCR.

I can understand your objection. I would suggest purchasing, or designing
an adjustable seat support, that meets the NASA rules, and installing per
the manufacturer's specifications (if applicable).

Again, I am still researching this, but in your case, I find that without
the proper documentation to show that what you have should not be used
without a brace, then you must install one.

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyson Lee [mailto:tysonlee@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:41 PM
To: Jerry Kunzman; ken@IOPortRacing.com
Cc: rflaherty@drivenasa.com; jlindsey@drivenasa.com
Subject: RE: Logbook tech inspection

Please provide documentation showing that either:

1) The manufacturer of YOUR seat specifically states that no seat back
support (or brace) should not be used.
2) The FIA specification that seats manufactured and installed per FIA
8855-1999 should not be used without a brace or support.

Jerry, I think that since the seat was designed and tested and certified
with bottom seat mounting, then the addition of a seatback brace is an
untested modification to the design of the seat. So on its own, mounted by
the bottom, as listed in the official FIA list, the seat is mounted
properly. There are no specific manufacturers instructions given for seats.
I've contacted the retailer who sold me the seat and he verifies there is
no instructions with the seat. We can only go by FIA standards. And there
isnt going to be any specific instructions to not use something (seatback
brace) that was not intended to be used with the seat. Asking to provide
such documentation is not realistic. The seat received the 8855-1999
certification without a seatback brace. It is stitched on the seat, I
suppose thats my documentation.

FIA app J, article 253 states the necessary construction of alternate seat
attachment and supports. "If rails for adjusting the seat are used, they
must be those originally supplied with the homologated car or with the
seat." Vehicles are tested for crashworthiness and at minimum must pass a
35mph frontal and offset impact tests. I can only infer that the seat rails
are suitable. Part of the test is the chest should pass a less than 70g
acceleration. If you do quick math, 70g = 700 N/kg, given half the weight
for just the upper body of a full figured male is 220 lbs is 110 lbs = 50kg.
F = ma = 50 kg x 700 N/kg = 35,000 N. Stock seat rails should be designed
to meet at minimum, I can only hope in good faith they are designed with
much greater safety margins.

Im not too concerned about the age of the seat. It's production date is
also stitched on the seat. Is NASA mandating the 5 year rule on seats
anyway? I dont see that in the CCR. Or, are you suggesting that after 5
years, an FIA seat can still be used with a seatback brace? Im a little
confused why you mentioned that in your last comment.

Tyson

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jerry Kunzman" <jerry@nasaproracing.com>
Reply-To: <jerry@nasaproracing.com>
To: <ken@IOPortRacing.com>,"'Tyson Lee'" <tysonlee@hotmail.com>
CC: "Ryan Flaherty \(E-mail\)" <rflaherty@drivenasa.com>,"John Lindsey
\(E-mail\)" <jlindsey@drivenasa.com>
Subject: RE: Logbook tech inspection
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:30:43 -0800

Tyson,

I am still researching this. The FIA rules are very in depth, so this may
take some time. The problem is likely not found within the rail system your
using per se, but rather the lack of a seat back support (brace).


However, where does is specify that the FIA seat need not have a seat back
brace? The NASA rules only specify "An exception shall be made for those
seats that the manufacturer specifies that no seatback brace should be used,
and carries an(d) (typo) FIA approval rating 8855-1999 that certifies the
seat for use without a seatback brace."

Please provide documentation showing that either:

1) The manufacturer of YOUR seat specifically states that no seat back
support (or brace) should not be used.
2) The FIA specification that seats manufactured and installed per FIA
8855-1999 should not be used without a brace or support.

Jerry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Myers [mailto:ken@IOPortRacing.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: 'Tyson Lee'
> Cc: Jerry Kunzman
> Subject: RE: Logbook tech inspection
>
>
> Tyson,
>
> As a policeman for NASA, I have written the ticket and now
> you must go to
> court to correct it. Using this analogy, Jerry is the judge.
> I have cc'd him
> on this. Please take all other matter up with him.
>
> I am not trying to blow you off, but I totally disagree with
> the concept of
> seats on rails without seat back braces. However, if Jerry
> rules in your
> favor, that is how it will be enforced in the future.
>
> One other question...how do we know that your setup is done
> in accordance to
> the FIA standards...and that it will withstand the forces indicated?
>
> Ken Myers
> Visit our Web site at http://www.IOPortRacing.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyson Lee [mailto:tysonlee@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:53 AM
> To: support@ioportracing.com
> Subject: Logbook tech inspection
>
>
> Hello Ken. Thanks for your time yesterday issuing my
> logbook. Concerning
> the use of stock seat rails and seatback brace, I found the
> FIA standard for
> the seat, 8855-1999. You can read the English version in the
> later half of
> the document. http://www.fia.com/regle/REG_TEC/Normes/normes-a.htm
>
> More specfically, Article 253 of App. J, all the way at the
> end to Article
> 16. addresses the use of seat rails.
> http://www.fia.com/regle/appjsomm.htm
> It states:
>
> "ARTICLE 16 : SEATS, ATTACHMENTS AND SUPPORTS If the original seat
> attachments or supports are changed, the new parts must
> either be approved
> for that application by the seat manufacturer or must comply with the
> following specifications (see drawing 253-52): 1) Supports
> must be attached
> to the shell/chassis via at least mounting points per seat
> using bolts with
> a minimum diameter of 8 mm and counterplates, according to
> the drawing. The
> minimum area of contact between support, shell/chassis and
> counterplate is
> 40 cm2 for each mounting point. If quick release systems are
> used, they must
> be capable of withstanding vertical and horizontal forces of 18000 N,
> applied non-simultaneously.
>
> ****If rails for adjusting the seat are used, they must be
> those originally
> supplied with the homologated car or with the seat.****
>
> 2) The seat must be attached to the supports via 4 mounting
> points, 2 at the
> front and 2 at the rear of the seat, using bolts with a
> minimum diameter of
> 8 mm and reinforcements integrated into the seat. Each
> mounting point must
> be capable of withstanding a force of 15000 N applied in any
> direction. 3)
> The minimum thickness of the supports and counterplates is 3
> mm for steel
> and 5 mm for light alloy materials. The minimum longitudinal
> dimension of
> each support is 6 cm. All the occupants' seats must be either
> original,
> modified only through the addition of accessories with a registered
> trademark, or homologated by the EEC, the FMVSS or the FIA
> (8855/1992 or
> 8855/1999 standards), and not modified. In all these cases, a
> headrest must
> be present for each occupant." (**** added for attention)
>
> As for meeting manufacturers instruction, my MOMO Start 1 VTR
> seat is listed
> in the FIA list of approved seats by "bottom support" only.
> Therefore, I
> believe mounting the seat from the bottom is the only
> approved and tested
> method of attachment to the chassis.
> http://www.fia.com/regle/Reg_tec/lis...oved_seats.pdf
>
> So, in light of the specific FIA standard, does this change
> your enforcement
> of NASA CCR 15.5.22 "An exception shall be made for those
> seats that the
> manufacturer specifies that no seatback brace should be used,
> and carries
> an(d) (typo) FIA approval rating 8855-1999 that certifies the
> seat for use
> without a seatback brace." There is no otherwise specific
> rules within NASA
> to enforce the non-use of seat rails without a seatback brace.
>
> Please let me know if I'm wrong in my following and
> interpreting of the
> rules. Feel free to forward this information to Jerry K. Thank you.
>
>
> Tyson

 

I have spoken to Ken amany times before..

Personally I think for the average guy he is a bit too strict with the rules.. I personally couldnt get a car thru him first time because he wants it to be perfect since his name is on it.. understandable I suppose...

 

I kind of think that someone is missing the underlying precepts of the homologation process. When the rules say that "2) The seat must be attached to the supports via 4 mounting points, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear of the seat, using bolts with a minimum diameter of 8 mm and reinforcements integrated into the seat." AND a seat has the required homologation tag...

A. The seat has been homologated, based on its design and conformation with that specific requirement (among others), and...

B. Failure to mount the seat exactly according to the rule OR the parameters designed into the seat (as defined by the mounting holes and their locations) is contrary to regulations. Four mounting bolts means four mounting bolts, not "at least four mounting bolts." A back brace is outside of the mounting allowed by FIA, even if someone stateside thinks it is safer.

You don't need to contact the manufacturers. They will tell you to use the mounting holes provided. If you ask them to tell you to specifically NOT use additional mounts they will look at you like you are an idiot and mutter things in Italian.

You DO need to get in touch with ACCUS (the US FIA affiliate). They should be able to clarify what FIA intends. Now, if NASA wants to say, "we don't care what FIA specifies," that is certainly within its right but, at least as I understand it, they are allowing the "FIA exemption" based on FIA rules.

I feel strongly about this issue, having worked in the safety equipment business for a while. FIA-spec bottom- and side-mount seats are NOT intended to have a rigid mounting point right behind the driver's spinal column - they are designed to have predetermined amounts of flex to absorb kinetic energy. What part of your body will absorb that energy if the mount is pointing at your T2 vertabra?

Kirk

EDIT - I hope that it is not germain to the situation that one of IOPort's most popular products is an adjustable seat brace.



[Modified by Knestis, 12:27 AM 3/2/2003]

 

this is basically how i feel NASA/Jerry/CCR is saying. the rules state that the exception for seatback brace requires BOTH an FIA certification AND a document saying the seatback brace specifically should not be used for the seat. the second requirement is basically unfeasible, kinda what you described above when asking for such document, and thus pretty much ignores the FIA certification of the seat as designed and tested. so why bother with the "exception".

in summary, screw it if it has a FIA tag, it needs a seatback brace unless it has specific document that says the brace shouldnt be used (which really isnt applicable).




[Modified by Tyson, 5:17 PM 3/1/2003]

 

Postscript from the RECARO site: "FIA homologation only valid when used with Recaro adapter." Use any other mounting system and they are no longer FIA legal.

K

 

Not to get off track, but what is the purpose of a logbook? What information is logged?

 

lets not talk about logbooks specifically on this thread. please start another thread.

 

I was refering to the oem mount not the oem rails. To keep this in perspective, I am comparing it to the 1X2 tubing I used & other structures that I have seen in other race cars eg mounts attached to the rollcage.

In my work as a fireman, I have seen many seatbacks bend & reclining mech. fail. I honestly can't recall any seat tracks allowing fore/aft movement.

added in edit: thanks for the link


[Modified by civicrr, 10:09 PM 3/1/2003]

 

If you don't visit improvedtouring.com take a look at the related information available at http://www.gatm.com/cars/nx2000/scca2.pdf

K

 

Since it looks like the seat brace issue has been thoroughly investigated (and thanks for the information, BTW!), I'll comment on the fire bottle issue. Tyson, I agree with you completely that your #1 job as the driver is to get the hell out of the car ASAP in the event of a car fire. If you can quickly exit the car without any fire suppression, do it. As I understand it, the express purpose of a fire bottle in the car is ONLY to help you exit the car in the event that you cannot do so without fire suppression. Any removable fire bottle (I won't discuss complete fire systems here since they are out of the scope of your question) will be essentially useless for extinguishing a fire due to their limited capacity. That's what corner worker bottles are for.
So IMHO, if you mount a bottle where you can reach it, 9 times out of 10 nobody is going to use it (driver usually won't need it, corner workers have their own big ones). However, if you mount a bottle out of reach, nobody will ever use it (driver can't reach it, corner workers still don't need it). The only exception might be small carburetor fires or similar small fires where there's time to get out, pull the bottle, pop the hood, have a , and put out the fire. In those cases, safety is less of an issue vs. saving the car.


[Modified by travis, 10:57 AM 3/2/2003]