SCCAForums.com

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

re: PPS: When we're lobbying for things like replacement trunk lids to allow more of our cars to get closer to their minimum weight, this negates some of those efforts. Maybe the min weights are wrong, but again, that doesn't make this rule more right. Aside from that, I think the underlying insult that I referred to above is probably motivating folks against this more than the weight. It's a shame that a fairly small community like ours has to use rules like this to get people to be safe. I really think a softer approach would have been as effective, maybe more. You've actually motivated some folks (who possibly feel the same insult) to try to run the seat you're trying to eliminate, because the hole in the rule is that wide. Doesn't that say something?

Yes.  It says they like to take risks with their life.  But the good news is that (like Mark says above) folks that DO want to be safe can do so at no penalty to those that wish to be unsafe.  And that means the rule works.

The folks that DO want to be safe were, and are. Now they're just strapping on ballast.

The folks that like to take risks with their life are still doing so, maybe with heavier seats, maybe with the same crappy setup and ballast. I highly doubt they did much outside of spend the bare minimum to get their seat to the minimum weight. Maybe a couple folks were touched by the rule and somewhere down the road it saves a life. If so, then it's more good than bad. Knowing autocrossers, I'm pretty sure most of them just bolted some scrap to whatever they already had, safe or not.

It's the cheap guys who build bad mounts, not the light guys.

At the Packwood Tour two years ago a car rolled over and the driver almost lost he life when the custom-fabbed seat mount broke and his seat went backwards (he was saved by his harness bar taking some of the energy).  That seat bracket was not done "cheaply".  It was good welding but used too thin/too weak  (aluminum) and a poor structural design (butt-welded "T").  I'd bet that most solo tech inspectors would have passed it easily.  Only when you really understand the mechanical engineering do you understand the issue.  The OE mount would have worked better (similar design but thicker, heavier steel).

It's a shame this rule wouldn't have applied to that driver, at all, if it's the same one we discussed before.

I can't imagine this broken mount cost more than an OTS unit from a name brand. Either way, let's say a week prior to the incident, you talk to this guy and tell him his 17# setup needs to now weigh 20#. Do you think he rips his setup apart, trashes his current mounts, and has new ones built? Or does he just bolt 3# of weight to the bottom of the seat? I'm pretty sure his existing mount meets his own personal risk profile. He'd probably argue with you a bit and then grudgingly strap on some weight. Same outcome.

Howdy,

rnoll98:

The folks that DO want to be safe were, and are. Now they're just strapping on ballast.

Randy, that's just crap.  Do you really think there were no folks out there who were putting in passenger seats (in particular) in a half assed manner thinking "nobody will ever ride in that seat and the weight savings is more important".  Or, if that one is too obvious, thinking "Its just autocross, I'm not going to get in a wreck, so I'd rather save the weight".

I know 100% for sure there were people doing both of those things because I talked to them.

Now, I agree with you that someone that's already done that might just strap on some weights and call it a day out of laziness, but the _next_ guy that needs to start from scratch and mount a seat isn't going to have the motivation to save weight that the guy above did.  So he may well decide to mount the seat in a safer / more secure manner and/or buy a better or cheaper seat that weighs a little more.

What exactly is wrong with having a rule that allows an inexpensive seat with a decent mount to be used without suffering a penalty?

If SM's issue is that the minimum weights are stupidly low, why don't you spend all this time and energy fixing _that underlying problem_, rather than ranting and raving about something that amounts to a 10 lb difference?

Mark

marka:

I've got some of those AL mounts for a Sparco (at least, I think they're AL).  They certainly weigh more than a sheet metal screw.

Which was covered in the rule regardless of weight, which is a part of the rule I totally support--encourage folks to use the stock mounting points. I guess folks could still use sheet metal screws to attach the seat to their custom butt-welded bracket.

(oh... I'm cheap.  My seat mount cost $0, since I made it out of scrap.  And I'll put it up against any AL side-mount setup I've ever seen.  I fully expect the seat to fail long before the mount does.  So not all cheap guys are bad... :-)

I'm sure there's lots of guys like you. You, like I, fall into the "already safe" category. The rule doesn't do a thing for you, unless you were less than 20#, then you get penalized.

Do you think there were folks who were planning on spending money on an AL Sparco mount who, now given the additional weight allowance, have decided to save money and butt-weld their own bracket together out of hardware store parts? If they can't be light, they might as well be cheap, seems kinda silly to spend money on the high quality stuff if you still have to add ballast to it, no? Is it possible this rule could increase the number of custom mounts?

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

The folks that DO want to be safe were, and are. Now they're just strapping on ballast.

Randy, that's just crap.  Do you really think there were no folks out there who were putting in passenger seats (in particular) in a half assed manner thinking "nobody will ever ride in that seat and the weight savings is more important".  Or, if that one is too obvious, thinking "Its just autocross, I'm not going to get in a wreck, so I'd rather save the weight".

Are these folks now going to spend the necessary money to put in a safe mount, or are they going to half-ass something that meets the letter of the rule? Has this rule just made all the half-assers out there see the light and change their ways? So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

If SM's issue is that the minimum weights are stupidly low, why don't you spend all this time and energy fixing _that underlying problem_, rather than ranting and raving about something that amounts to a 10 lb difference?

Kinda sounds like the issue folks were faced with when they winged out this gem. Go for the low-hanging fruit and avoid the larger problem? In all seriousness, we continue to adress weights in SM on multiple fronts, that you can see in the proposals on the board right now. Trying to get a 3000# car to get as light as possible so it can compete with an 1800# car whom you don't want to make add ballast is a tall order. If we had six or seven classes to group cars for our category, it would be much easier. One of the ways to help is to try and give more weight-saving allowances while maintaining the spirit of the class. As I said before, this undermines those attempts.

Howdy,

rnoll98:

I'm sure there's lots of guys like you. You, like I, fall into the "already safe" category. The rule doesn't do a thing for you, unless you were less than 20#, then you get penalized.

No, it means I don't have a disadvantage compared to some kart seat mounting with tinfoil monkey.

Do you think there were folks who were planning on spending money on an AL Sparco mount who, now given the additional weight allowance, have decided to save money and butt-weld their own bracket together out of hardware store parts? If they can't be light, they might as well be cheap, seems kinda silly to spend money on the high quality stuff if you still have to add ballast to it, no? Is it possible this rule could increase the number of custom mounts?

Honestly, if someone is going to be comfortable welding up their own bracket, they aren't going to pay the stupid amounts of money those folks charge for their fixed mount brackets anyway, so this seems like a bit of a spurious argument.

Also... If you aren't an idiot, there's absolutely nothing wrong with buttwelding something.  From the little bit Andy mentioned, it sounds like a pro shop did the work anyway, in which case good luck trying to make _that_ better.

Mark

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

The folks that DO want to be safe were, and are. Now they're just strapping on ballast.

Randy, that's just crap.  Do you really think there were no folks out there who were putting in passenger seats (in particular) in a half assed manner thinking "nobody will ever ride in that seat and the weight savings is more important".  Or, if that one is too obvious, thinking "Its just autocross, I'm not going to get in a wreck, so I'd rather save the weight".

Same seat with same craptastic mount with a 5 lb lead weight bolted to it now that there is this new, fantastic, safe rule.

actor:

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

 

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

 

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

Personally, I am glad there was a protest at the event. It gives legitimacy to our series if somone in 7th place is going to protest you. Sorry it had to be you Bill. It also put in motion a clarification that is needed IMO.

Chris

CHRISFP78:

actor:

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

 

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

 

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

Personally, I am glad there was a protest at the event. It gives legitimacy to our series if somone in 7th place is going to protest you. Sorry it had to be you Bill. It also put in motion a clarification that is needed IMO.

Chris

Yes, it is needed; of course, a complete re-think/re-write would be even better. 

And yeah, it wasn't much fun spending 3 hrs., getting the seats and ballast weighed, missing lunch and being late for my work assignment (Safety, no less! ) 'cause of this nut-job, but if it is for the greater good...

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

I'm sure there's lots of guys like you. You, like I, fall into the "already safe" category. The rule doesn't do a thing for you, unless you were less than 20#, then you get penalized.

No, it means I don't have a disadvantage compared to some kart seat mounting with tinfoil monkey.

Do you think there were folks who were planning on spending money on an AL Sparco mount who, now given the additional weight allowance, have decided to save money and butt-weld their own bracket together out of hardware store parts? If they can't be light, they might as well be cheap, seems kinda silly to spend money on the high quality stuff if you still have to add ballast to it, no? Is it possible this rule could increase the number of custom mounts?

Honestly, if someone is going to be comfortable welding up their own bracket, they aren't going to pay the stupid amounts of money those folks charge for their fixed mount brackets anyway, so this seems like a bit of a spurious argument.

Howdy Mark,

I don't mean to drag this out, and I'm not even feeling heated over it. I think this discussion is good for everyone. I appreciate you and Andy continuing the discussion.

Isn't your quote above pointing to the root of the problem? People WERE comfortable with their setups. The SEB wasn't. So apparently the judgement of the competitor was somehow flawed. Why should the SEB now be more comfortable with their judgement? Because the rule is so open, there are a multitude of paths a competitor can take to meet the letter of the rule. The SEB is banking on them all taking the path that bolts the seat more securely to the car. I'd argue the vast majority are going to take the cheapest path, assuming they already met the non-weight requirements, and that means doing NOTHING to the mounts, and finding a way to add ballast.

The poor dude Andy referenced was probably comfortable with his bracket. I don't see how this rule would make him do anything other than strap ballast to his seat, assuming he was even under 20# to begin with. Even if this guy was in SP, I don't think the rule would make him any safer.

This rule banks on people choosing the more expensive and more time consuming path to get to the letter of the rule. That right there goes against most autoxer's core values. :)

actor:

CHRISFP78:

actor:

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

 

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

 

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

Personally, I am glad there was a protest at the event. It gives legitimacy to our series if somone in 7th place is going to protest you. Sorry it had to be you Bill. It also put in motion a clarification that is needed IMO.

Chris

Yes, it is needed; of course, a complete re-think/re-write would be even better. 

And yeah, it wasn't much fun spending 3 hrs., getting the seats and ballast weighed, missing lunch and being late for my work assignment (Safety, no less! ) 'cause of this nut-job, but if it is for the greater good...

Ah man, you missed lunch!!!  That totally sucks. We worked hard to have a good lunch for everyone at that event. I think the series owes you a lunch.

Chris

Howdy,

rnoll98:

Isn't your quote above pointing to the root of the problem? People WERE comfortable with their setups. The SEB wasn't. So apparently the judgement of the competitor was somehow flawed. Why should the SEB now be more comfortable with their judgement? Because the rule is so open, there are a multitude of paths a competitor can take to meet the letter of the rule. The SEB is banking on them all taking the path that bolts the seat more securely to the car. I'd argue the vast majority are going to take the cheapest path, assuming they already met the non-weight requirements, and that means doing NOTHING to the mounts, and finding a way to add ballast.

The poor dude Andy referenced was probably comfortable with his bracket. I don't see how this rule would make him do anything other than strap ballast to his seat, assuming he was even under 20# to begin with. Even if this guy was in SP, I don't think the rule would make him any safer.

This rule banks on people choosing the more expensive and more time consuming path to get to the letter of the rule. That right there goes against most autoxer's core values. :)

Again, I think you're missing the point of the rule.  The rule exists to _allow_ a safe seat mounting without a disadvantage to someone that wants to be a tinfoil monkey.  We all agree that it doesn't require a safely mounted seat.  We all agree that it'd be better if we had a way to require a safely mounted seat.

However, we don't have a way.

So the SEB seems to have decided that allowing a very competitive person who wants to have a good seat mount to have that mount without being at a disadvantage was a step in the right direction.

I agree with that.

I also think, despite Steve H's opinion, that the rule helps to limit preperation costs (yes, for folks that didn't already have seats, etc.).  I don't see how thats a bad thing either.

You guys come up with a way to get the same culture & training that club racing uses for its scrutineers (or whatever they call them) and I'll be right there with you waving the flag.  But you seem to want to write a rule to _require_ a safe seat mount and I don't think we have the ability to do that.  Heck, the GCR doesn't have rules that spell out what a safe mount is, and they've been playing this game for years!  And, unlike club racing, we don't have the tech program in place to address it that way.

Would it be better to have a rule requiring a safe seat & mount?  Of course!  WE ALL AGREE ON THAT.  This rule doesn't do that, or even attempt to do that.  This rule attempts to make it so that you can build a proper seat/mount and not give up an advantage to a tinfoil monkey.

Mark

Howdy Mark,

Everything you said makes sense. We agree on the rule's intent. We agree on the rule's shortcomings. Like I said before, put the minimum at 15#, where you can run a reasonably priced OTS seat, with safe OTS mounts, using OTS hardware, without ballast, and I think most critics would suddenly vanish. It's really that simple.

Howdy,

rnoll98:

Howdy Mark,

Everything you said makes sense. We agree on the rule's intent. We agree on the rule's shortcomings. Like I said before, put the minimum at 15#, where you can run a reasonably priced OTS seat, with safe OTS mounts, using OTS hardware, without ballast, and I think most critics would suddenly vanish. It's really that simple.

Here's a FWIW regarding weights...

I've got two different seats & mounts in my camaro.

(I'm a cheap SOB, btw. :-)

driver: Corbeau Forza (upholstered tubular steel) with an OTS Corbeau slider mount.  Total weight was ~25 lbs (I don't know the exact # because I looked at it and said "enough!").

passenger: Old Cobra seat I've had forever.  Also upholstered tubular steel.  Fixed mount brackets that I made, with the intention to be as light as possible without killing someone.  They were made from 3/4" rectangular steel tubing, with a spacer (also steel) at the back.  Together, both bracket sides might have weighed a couple lbs.  Total seat weight with mount was 18.7 lbs or so.  I welded in a 1&3/4" rectangular steel tube at the back of the mount that connected the two sides.  Total weight now is 20.3 lbs, not including nuts for the factory studs.

I've also got a Sparco Rev seat with Sparco steel side mount brackets laying around.  Brackets are pretty minimal, but I didn't weigh them separately... I guess I could if you really wanted me to.  21.67 lbs.

I think 20 lbs does a darn good job.  I think hitting 15 lbs would require a big money non-fiberglass FIA approved (so you theoretically didn't need a backbrace) seat*.

And, just like how stupidly low minimum weights in SM suck, I'd rather have the weight set slightly above (my passenger seat setup, that I've had to modify) than slightly below (i.e. spend a bunch of money, then ballast).

Mark

* Yes, I know about the nice & light & cheap AL seats you can buy.  Yes, I feel they're completely unsafe in a wreck without a well built backbrace.

edit:  And if your cheap OTS seat with cheap OTS mounts comes in less than 20 lbs (which I doubt, particular with sliders), its not gonna be by much.  So buy a couple bucks worth of stick on wheel weights and everyone is a happy camper.

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

Howdy Mark,

Everything you said makes sense. We agree on the rule's intent. We agree on the rule's shortcomings. Like I said before, put the minimum at 15#, where you can run a reasonably priced OTS seat, with safe OTS mounts, using OTS hardware, without ballast, and I think most critics would suddenly vanish. It's really that simple.

edit:  And if your cheap OTS seat with cheap OTS mounts comes in less than 20 lbs (which I doubt, particular with sliders), its not gonna be by much.  So buy a couple bucks worth of stick on wheel weights and everyone is a happy camper.

Sparco Ultra, fiberglass, FIA, sub-$500 (bought my pair for $450 never mounted), 12.9# per Sparco. Add Sparco AL brackets, probably 15-16#. Same seats that are in Strelneiks' car. He was under weight. McKee was under weight with some other brand seat. I'm under weight. This isn't an abnormality, and I'm not the only guy affected, or the only one who thought this was silly. Apparently me, Steve, you, and Andy are the only ones with too much time on our hands tho. :)

actor:

CHRISFP78:

actor:

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

 

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

 

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

Personally, I am glad there was a protest at the event. It gives legitimacy to our series if somone in 7th place is going to protest you. Sorry it had to be you Bill. It also put in motion a clarification that is needed IMO.

Chris

Yes, it is needed; of course, a complete re-think/re-write would be even better. 

And yeah, it wasn't much fun spending 3 hrs., getting the seats and ballast weighed, missing lunch and being late for my work assignment (Safety, no less! ) 'cause of this nut-job, but if it is for the greater good...

Bill, I think your characterization of the protestor as a "Jerk" and a "Nut job" is unfair.  The protest was well founded, and while your seat met the letter of the law, the PC determined that it did not meet the spirit or intent of the rule.  He never conducted himself in any manner other than genuine and never brought personality into the issue.  I do hope the SEB re-writes the rule.  I think having an SEB member on the PC was fortunate and I hope that he is able to convey what we all want to the rest of the SEB.     

So enforcement of safety is a concern, is it?

M. Accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals may utilize substitute covers
of unrestricted origin, shape, and size, provided they meet the
following requirements: covers must be securely attached, provide
a non-slip surface, not interfere with each other’s operation,
and must be deemed safe at Tech Inspection.

H. Fuel lines and pumps are unrestricted except as specified herein,
as long as they do not pose a safety hazard. Fuel lines may be
no larger than 1/2" i.d. and may only connect to the original fuel
tank or allowed fuel cell. They may be no longer than necessary
for reasonable and safe installation, and may serve no other
purpose. A single fuel feed line may be used. A single fuel
return line may be used, and a fitting for connecting it may be
added at or near the top of the fuel tank. This does not authorize
“cool-cans”.

 Weird how nobody has beat those two horses to death...