prodracing.com

Unofficial SCCA Production Racing Forum
It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:08 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:54 am
Posts: 2036
David,
while I do not disagree whatsoever with the driver/owner holding the final responsibility in regard to safety and prep, does tech not have a line item to check the safety items of the car in regard to the specs?
I recall when I logbooked my STU car, my tech guy paged through the rulebook and checked anything that fit the STU guidelines on safety. We then went through the entire STU ruleset line by line for performance/technical issues to ensure the car met rules. (He was also building an STU car and some of the minutia came up while he was doing the basic logbook tech). I would certainly call that above and beyond the minimum, but I'd say he did a very thorough job of looking over the car. STU didn't need a scattershield, but it did require driveshaft hoops and he checked.

Just curious where the line is drawn between teched and non-teched safety items are... I would personally think that a new-build car in a class that required a scattershield would be checked for it when being issued a logbook.. but a car that was built 10+ yrs ago might have been overlooked at the time and not checked during an annual.

_________________
Matt Blehm
Houston Region
EP 1st Gen RX7
STU Scion FR-S


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:34 am
Posts: 2949
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Matt, you are correct, STU does not require a scatter shield. There are many items under 9. Cars and Equipment which are not called/spelled out within a class specification. We as members are required/expected to have a grasp of the GCR. If I remember correctly when I did drivers school the written test had many questions from throughout the GCR.

_________________
Have Fun ; )

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
F Prod #14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:55 am
Posts: 163
My FP Miata was raced for many years and almost exclusively at Majors and the Runoffs. And started on the front row at the Runoffs with no shield. And then at some point it was added to the logbook to install a shield by the next event. So my Miata has one and it has to have it.

A guy in Australia posted about his Nissan having a starter solenoid short or some sort of electrical problem and the starter engaged at 7K during a race. He said if he had been on the other side (forget if the car was LHD or RHD) he could have lost has feet as it was a huge explosion.

Keep in mind it is against the rules to have two logbooks for the same car. So if the car started as an IT car it will likely have the same basic logbook forever. And never really be fully reinspected for its new class. Having raced my ex ITS car a lot in STL and EP I can say its never been looked at really. Annuals are pretty much check the belt dates and the battery hold downs and kill switch and brake lights. I have 4 cars I have raced this year and thats pretty much all they ever do. I have tried to keep it legal but I have ignored the rear straps for the stock glass because I have always been about a week away from doing a new rear hatch in Lexan. The STL rules are so much clearer than the Production rules. STL allows stock glass to be used with the stock method to hold it in. I am doing a new hatch now and it will be Lexan and bolted in. And legal for EP if they ever check it. I actually have the new hatch in the floor of the shop so I think it will actually be this week. (I always think that though)

When I was in College a couple of friends and I thought it might be fun to run at a local dirt track as we could actually afford it. (We never did) So we got the rule books ( Pamphlets really) Local dirt tracks have their own rules for local classes and its amazing how basic the rules can be. But one track had a really cool provision. They made you park the car at impound for 15 minutes after a qualifying session each day. And you opened the hood and anyone else could look at and measure things. And ANYTHING that was easily visible and measureable had to be protested right damn then. Or shut up. The only things that could be protested or inspected after the race were things that would involve disassembly or things like fuel or compression ratio. But you could not get busted for a spoiler or trick shocks or whatever as long as you could see them. No gotcha moments at impound or losing a race because someone noticed that a certain little thing on your car was not done right and they were waiting for the right moment to get you DQ'ed.

_________________
Rob Garrison

FP Mazda Miata
EP 1989 RX7
IT7 RX7
2nd Gen STL RX7


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:18 am
Posts: 114
Location: Topeka, Ks
This rule needs to be updated to at least include B-Spec and possibly ST to be among the classes omitted from this rule. I don't see where ST is exempt.

I will volunteer to submit a letter to the CRB if I can get some good input on how this rule should be written/updated with all classes in mind.
rharris at scca dot com

_________________
Rick Harris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:54 am
Posts: 2036
Since ST* has engine and transmission limits well in excess of OEM design, ST should certainly not be exempt of the requirement if LP prod is included. B Spec and IT are no big deal. Touring maybe...
but hey, that's this armchair quarterback and my opinion based on engine and drivetrain allowances..

_________________
Matt Blehm
Houston Region
EP 1st Gen RX7
STU Scion FR-S


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:34 am
Posts: 2949
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
EP8 wrote:
This rule needs to be updated to at least include B-Spec and possibly ST to be among the classes omitted from this rule. I don't see where ST is exempt.


Rick, quoted below is part of the rule. What classes would be included under "Touring"? I reasoned ST classes to fall under "Touring".

"9.3.40. SCATTERSHIELDS/CHAIN GUARDS
The installation of scattershields or explosion-proof bell housings shall be required on all cars (except Spec Miata, Touring and Improved Touring) where the failure of the clutch or flywheel could create a hazard to the driver."

_________________
Have Fun ; )

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
F Prod #14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:18 am
Posts: 114
Location: Topeka, Ks
Touring is T1, T2, T3, and T4

Super Touring is STU and STL.

Two completely different categories.

_________________
Rick Harris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:34 am
Posts: 2949
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
EP8 wrote:
Touring is T1, T2, T3, and T4
Super Touring is STU and STL.
Two completely different categories.


Understand, thank you.

_________________
Have Fun ; )

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
F Prod #14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 919
If you expect to be torn down at the Runoffs then make sure you have at least a 1/4 inch thick piece of aluminum plate in order to comply. If a tech inspector challenges you on whether it is adequate then you will have until your next event to come up with a higher tech version of your first approach, which is after all a relatively flat piece of aluminum. I think you can handle it.

_________________
HP National Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 108
Who carries the burden of proof that it's a hazard to the driver? And what's the basis for that clearly-subjective opinion?

And if reasonable people disagree, upon what basis will that subjective opinion be resolved?

After all, as I tried to describe above, failure of the flywheel or clutch is "never not" a hazard to the driver. It goes beyond just human body parts within the plane of the spinning assembly (despite that not being the technical definition of the reg). After all, is someone going to argue that fuel lines, or oil lines, or electrical wiring or any number of other systems that exist within that plane, if compromised, would not present a hazard to the driver (or anyone else within blast radius)?

It's inconsistent "enforcement" of nebulous, subjective regs like that that can turn an event into a total unenjoyable farce. Anyone watch the "B-Spec needs a fire system" embarrasing debacle at the SEDiv Majors this year...?

See y'all in Virginia.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group