SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

How is it you get so exercised over the "missuse" of this rule but not others?  The "any induction" rule does specifically allow aftermarket ECUs and FI.  The alternate bushing material rules doesn't specifically allow offset bushings.  Are people not then "missusing" these rules?

15.8.C starts with:

Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any

materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.

Offset bushings may be used.

Seems pretty explicit to me.

15.10.C says:

Carburetors, fuel injection, and intake manifolds are unrestricted,

[...]

and 15.9.A says:

Any ignition setting, adjustment, or system may be used

[...]

Seems pretty explicit as well.

Now, if you bolt on a supercharger and call it an "intake" I expect you'd have a trip to the protest shed. 

 

The point is; the rule as its is written lets in Bill's seat mount and balast.  Its the "unintended consequences" of the rule.  If you didn't want that to happen, you should have written a more explicit rule.  Its the nature of competition that competitors will push the limits of the rules.  And there is no way to restrict that. 

Anybody that looked at Bill's ballast plate & flimsy metal strap and called it a "seat mount" wouldn't be speaking the same english as anyone else I know.

Mark

Steve Hoelscher:

I agree, you aren't willing to change your mind in any way.  You want it your way or no way.  You are so dead set on your way you can't even admit how poorly this rule is written.

I'm not dead set on anything, I'm not even in the class, nor do I plan to be... really I could give two craps...  I think the rule accomplishes more than it hurts, it gives people the chance to make proper seat mounts without sacrificing added weight.  The same rule in STS work for our car, so it make at least one car safer, Hollis did the same thing, so there are two improved cars...  So again, here is it is in plan lack and white --->  I'll concede that this rule may not be the end all to safety, but until someone else can come up with a better rule that can be written, this rule change is for the better.  Is it going to make EVER seat and mount better, no, but if it only makes one better, it is an improvement in my eyes.

Steve Hoelscher:

How is it you get so exercised over the "missuse" of this rule but not others?  The "any induction" rule does specifically allow aftermarket ECUs and FI.  The alternate bushing material rules doesn't specifically allow offset bushings.  Are people not then "missusing" these rules?

I'm not in other threads about those issues, if I was maybe I would be 'so exercised' about them....

BTW - the rule specifically allows offset bushings...

2008 Rulebook 15.8.C:

C. Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.  Offset bushings may be used. In a replacement bushing the amount of metal relative to the amount of non-metallic material may not be increased. This does.......

 

Steve Hoelscher:

The point is; the rule as its is written lets in Bill's seat mount and balast.  Its the "unintended consequences" of the rule.  If you didn't want that to happen, you should have written a more explicit rule.  Its the nature of competition that competitors will push the limits of the rules.  And there is no way to restrict that. 

I never said that it wasn't meeting the letter of the rule, I'm saying that it isn't meeting the intent of the rule, therefore, I understand why he would ge protested over it, and I also understand why a protest commit would rule in the favor of the protester.  If he would have spent an extra 10 minutes to remove the seat and attach it the mount or rail he wouldn't have had the problem.

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / Redshift Motorsports STS prepared '89 Civic Si -- teamundercoatracing.com

Dipping my toes back in the pool of acid...

The three sheetrock screws are not going to pass muster of "securely mounted" and if you use one of those screws to hold your "seat ballast" it also then won't be securely mounted.  I realize that the perception is that a typical solo tech inspector is an idotic ape, second lowest in intelligence only to a typical SEB member, but somehow, tech has been keeping people from getting killed by loose batteries all these years...

As far as the guy wanting to attempt "suicide by seat" by mounting his seat with 4-1/4" hardware grade bolts and no back up washers, that's where the problem is with any rule.   But, I think, in reality, darwin is warning those people quite nicely already by letting the seat mounts tear and fail quietly.  Throughout the rule book, across all the categories, we allow fabrication of much more important parts than seat mounts without specifying exact building techniques.  In P&M, there is no seat mounting spec and somehow, entrants aren't flinging out of thier cars at every turn, causing untold damage and carnage.

I'm not comfortable at all specifying exact seat mounting specs in the book.  If we start down that slope, the book will be 1000 pages before long...

DaveW

(Not official)

 

marka:

Once again, the rule allows someone to have a safe mount, without incurring a penalty to someone that has an unsafe one. ...

Mark

this is the part I don't understand.  At no point are unsafe seats allowed by the rules.  If you're 'incurring a penalty' to an unsafe seat, protest the unsafe mounting.  I don't see why we are forcing a penalty on the people who have safely and lightly mounted their seats.

marka:

Anybody that looked at Bill's ballast plate & flimsy metal strap and called it a "seat mount" wouldn't be speaking the same english as anyone else I know.

Mark

A quick question:  Why does the ballast have to be part of the seat mount?

What I'm seeing is a manufacturered seat that is underweight and therefore to the seat is added ballast to make minimum legal weight and it has nothing to do with making the seat any safer......  And, I would venture so far as to say that the seat is safe as-is (and, yes, I've seen it first-hand and in fact used to co-drive with him so I'm familiar with his car).  His kart seat was very securely fastened by the way....but no headrest, of course.  The only reason the weight is not bolted to the seat, as Bill said earlier in this thread, he would not want to compromise the fibre structure of the seat itself in order to attach the ballast.  So in order to make his ballast for the seat legal would it be better to bolt the weight on the seat itself ... and thus make it legal ... and thus become a safety issue?  Doesn't sound like a good solution.

Is this any different than ballasting a Prepared car to make weight?  The ballast in a Prepared car is not part of the original car.  Should this be any different?

Last question:  Is this discussion a whole bunch of nit-picking now?  Discussion about weinie protests?   :^)

 

 Cheers,

 Reijo (by the way, I'm not taking any sides on this arguement....don't have a dog in this fight in fact...just saying).

---

AS, 03 S2000/CSP Miata
/Seal Beach, Calif.

Howdy,

47CP:

Dipping my toes back in the pool of acid...

The three sheetrock screws are not going to pass muster of "securely mounted" and if you use one of those screws to hold your "seat ballast" it also then won't be securely mounted.  I realize that the perception is that a typical solo tech inspector is an idotic ape, second lowest in intelligence only to a typical SEB member, but somehow, tech has been keeping people from getting killed by loose batteries all these years...

The typical tech inspector might, if you're lucky, do the same type of check they do on the battery.  I.e. they'll grab it and see if it moves a lot.  I've done it, I bet anyone that works at tech has done it.

Three sheetrock screws through the bottom of the seat into the floorpan will pass that kinda check.

What they won't pass is having to support 200 lbs getting stopped at 3g (or whatever it is when you hit something, probably higher).  The only way you're going to "test" that is with a real crash.  Otherwise you're depending on the tech inspector being able to analyze the safety of the mount without any type of testing to speak of.

I.e. just like we do with rollbars.  And I think writing the rollbar design specs (multiple pages in the book) is fairly easy in comparison to writing a seat mounting guide that will need to work with most any car, particularly in SM and lower where you can't demand that the car be modified.

Mark

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is.

Randy, you can never build a safe seat mount as light as I can make an unsafe one.  I don't care how much money you spend.

Three sheetrock screws weigh what... a couple ounces?

Mark

RTFR ;) Your example was taken care of before we even got to the weight portion thanks to the stock mounting points piece.

Ok then, rephrase my answer to "How much do four holes & four nuts weigh"?

Do the holes in your seat line up with your stock holes in your chassis? In my car I'd need a bracket because the stock points are further apart than the seat is wide/long. Are you starting to see how the "stock mounting pionts" actually requires much more than you're assuming?

---

Randy Noll

ReijoAS:

A quick question:  Why does the ballast have to be part of the seat mount?

Because the rule says the seat including the mount hardware must weigh at least 20 pounds.  Not the seat can weigh whatever you want it to, then you can add ballast to the car wherever you want to make up the difference.

2008 Rulebook 15.2:

F. The driver and front passenger seats may be replaced, with the
following restrictions: The seating surface must be fully upholstered.
The top of the seat, or an attached headrest, may not be
below the center of the driver’s head. The seat, including mounting
hardware, must weigh at least 20 pounds and must be attached
using the standard body mounting holes/studs. Additional
mounting points may be added. Cars may have no fewer
than the standard number of seats. The seat tracks are considered
part of the seat and may be substituted. Alternate seat
tracks may serve no other purpose. The standard seat belts may
be removed to facilitate the installation of alternate restraints
complying with safety requirements.

ReijoAS:

The only reason the weight is not bolted to the seat, as Bill said earlier in this thread, he would not want to compromise the fibre structure of the seat itself in order to attach the ballast.  So in order to make his ballast for the seat legal would it be better to bolt the weight on the seat itself ... and thus make it legal ... and thus become a safety issue?  Doesn't sound like a good solution.

Hence the talk of attaching it to the mount/slide system, or finding a way to add more weight to the seat with compromising the seat (drilling holes isn't the only way to add weight).

ReijoAS:

Is this any different than ballasting a Prepared car to make weight?  The ballast in a Prepared car is not part of the original car.  Should this be any different?

Yes, because you aren't allowed to put weight wherever you want.  If that was the case their would be no incentive to make the seat mount safer... no one would change their mount at all, they would just add the additional weight wherever they wanted in the car (which is what Bill did in a MINOR way).  Is Bill's car the worst example of what could happen if his "mount" was allowed?  No, but if his "mount" was legal then as long as you attached a "sandwich plate" from the seat to the ballast you would be legal... this isn't what this rule is meant to accomplish.

ReijoAS:

Last question:  Is this discussion a whole bunch of nit-picking now?  Discussion about weinie protests?   :^)

Call it what you like, I'm sure you could find a list of less "illegal" things which people were protested for....  so why even risk the protest when you can just spend another 10 minutes and mount the extra weight on the mounts to your already secure seat/mount?

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / Redshift Motorsports STS prepared '89 Civic Si -- teamundercoatracing.com

Howdy,

ReijoAS:

marka:

Anybody that looked at Bill's ballast plate & flimsy metal strap and called it a "seat mount" wouldn't be speaking the same english as anyone else I know.

Mark

A quick question:  Why does the ballast have to be part of the seat mount?

Because, by the letter of the rule, the seat & its mounting hardware together need to weigh 20 lbs.  There is no allowance for a seat/mount to weigh 15 lbs, as long as there's a 5 lb ballast plate somewhere in the car.

 

What I'm seeing is a manufacturered seat that is underweight and therefore to the seat is added ballast to make minimum legal weight and it has nothing to do with making the seat any safer......  And, I would venture so far as to say that the seat is safe as-is (and, yes, I've seen it first-hand and in fact used to co-drive with him so I'm familiar with his car).

I don't disagree with any of that, but that's not what the rule allows.  And the reason it matters is that before long people will be using the same logic to mount their seat ballast weight wherever it will do the most good for their particular car. Bill happens to have his mounted very close to his seat & seat mount, but it won't stay that way as people seek to gain the most competitive advantage they can get.

 

His kart seat was very securely fastened by the way....but no headrest, of course.  The only reason the weight is not bolted to the seat, as Bill said earlier in this thread, he would not want to compromise the fibre structure of the seat itself in order to attach the ballast.  So in order to make his ballast for the seat legal would it be better to bolt the weight on the seat itself ... and thus make it legal ... and thus become a safety issue?  Doesn't sound like a good solution.

I agree.  If I were him, I'd bolt the ballast plate under the car up through the floorpan (to get the weight as low as possible), through the seat mount.  Of course, not having seen his particular seat mounting setup in enough detail, I'm assuming he has a seat mount somewhere that would work with, but other options like that would also work.

We're no longer talking about ways to make the mount safe, of course.  We're talking about ways to meet the letter of the rule.  Again, we care about that because if you use the definition that Bill is using, the ballast can be bolted anywhere in the car and the rule doesn't allow that. 

 

Is this any different than ballasting a Prepared car to make weight?  The ballast in a Prepared car is not part of the original car.  Should this be any different?

17.11.E explicitly allows ballast to be added to meet minimum weight.  SP in general, and the new seat rule in particular, doesn't have an equivilent allowance.

 

Last question:  Is this discussion a whole bunch of nit-picking now?  Discussion about weinie protests?   :^)

Yes, its nit picking.  So is loosing a protest because your car weighs a pound under the minimum.  :-)

Mark

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

What advantage? In the case I described, all I did was spend more money, we weigh the same. Cost is not a competitive advantage. Weight is.

Randy, you can never build a safe seat mount as light as I can make an unsafe one.  I don't care how much money you spend.

Three sheetrock screws weigh what... a couple ounces?

Mark

RTFR ;) Your example was taken care of before we even got to the weight portion thanks to the stock mounting points piece.

Ok then, rephrase my answer to "How much do four holes & four nuts weigh"?

Do the holes in your seat line up with your stock holes in your chassis? In my car I'd need a bracket because the stock points are further apart than the seat is wide/long. Are you starting to see how the "stock mounting pionts" actually requires much more than you're assuming?

Yes, they will.  I have a hammer and a sawzall both, and together they'll solve most any problem like that.

FWIW, I have more issues (generally speaking) with requiring the use of stock mounting points than I do with the weight rules for precisely this reason.  Though, just like seat mount ballast, it should be easy enough to adapt to to stay compliant.

Mark

What's wrong with using this from the SCCA GCR:

9.3.40. SEATS

The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. In cars where the seat is upright the back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure. The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 (lateral, bottom, etc). Passenger seat back - if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.

A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver’s head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests satisfy this requirement.

The head rest on non-integral seats shall have a minimum area of thirty-six (36) square inches and be padded with a minimum of one inch thick padding. It is strongly recommended that padding meet SFI spec 45.2 or FIA Sports Car Head Rest Material. The head rest shall be capable of withstanding a force of two-hundred (200) lbs. in a rearward direction. The head rest support shall be such that it continues rearward or upward from the top edge in a way that the driver’s helmet can not hook over the pad.

FIA technical list No. 12: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9767C9AE903568D9C1257434003C6A56/$FILE/L12_Approved_seats.pdf?Openelement

The rule would read something like, "If non-stock seats are used, they must comply with GCR 9.3.40."

I can't imagine we need anything more rigorous than road racers do.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

What's wrong with using this from the SCCA GCR:

9.3.40. SEATS

The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. In cars where the seat is upright the back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure. The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 (lateral, bottom, etc). Passenger seat back - if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.

A system of head rest to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver’s head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles. Racing seats with integral headrests satisfy this requirement.

The head rest on non-integral seats shall have a minimum area of thirty-six (36) square inches and be padded with a minimum of one inch thick padding. It is strongly recommended that padding meet SFI spec 45.2 or FIA Sports Car Head Rest Material. The head rest shall be capable of withstanding a force of two-hundred (200) lbs. in a rearward direction. The head rest support shall be such that it continues rearward or upward from the top edge in a way that the driver’s helmet can not hook over the pad.

FIA technical list No. 12: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/9767C9AE903568D9C1257434003C6A56/$FILE/L12_Approved_seats.pdf?Openelement

The rule would read something like, "If non-stock seats are used, they must comply with GCR 9.3.40."

I can't imagine we need anything more rigorous than road racers do.

 

But then all the people with their cheap, heavy, non fia approved seats would complain because they would have to install roll cages to bolt their seat backs to.  Clearly we don't care about actually being safe just as long as *I* don't have to give up any weight to someone who has a more expensive seat.

Marshall Grice:

 

But then all the people with their cheap, heavy, non fia approved seats would complain because they would have to install roll cages to bolt their seat backs to.  Clearly we don't care about actually being safe just as long as *I* don't have to give up any weight to someone who has a more expensive seat.

And the back seats of all of those car will become useless for street use, not to mention the extra cost of installing a roll cage....  that being said, I wouldn't have a problem at all with a similarly written rule for Solo that would include reclining seats, no need for a roll bar/cage, and seat that aren't really expensive due to it needing a "label" on it. 

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / Redshift Motorsports STS prepared '89 Civic Si -- teamundercoatracing.com

Do you guys think someone is going to really install a $1000 cage just so they can save $200 on seats?

The most probable direction would just be to sell the non-FIA seat and upgrade. You could even phase it in somehow, or give warning now that it's coming.

---

Randy Noll

actor:

Charlie Davis:

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.     

 

 

I think my comments are VERY accurate;

1. The protester has a history of throwing paper at your local  events while not being in compliance himself (yes, I checked with Mazda; the placement of his non-oem washer bottle allowing him to use a strut tower brace is mounted in a non-standard placement - illegal.)

2. How is it that the protestee never looked at my car, yet made a bee-line to the bottom of my seat?  Makes you wonder, no? 

3. Why didn't he talk to me first, like all gentlemen in our sport do?  Hell, @ the ProSoloFinale I've talked to people saying please fix "X" by the end of the week (Nationals).

4. "Valid"? There was NO performance advantage to the placement of my ballast; there was NO safety hazard to the placement of the ballast or the "detachment" of it. The rule, as written, does NOT specify what method must be used to meet the 20lbs. min. weight. Actually, the ballast was technically attached to it's mounting point ('though definitely loose)  until the grid person, at the instruction of the protester, pulled it loose. The protestee's comment to me when I asked him, "are you really going to protest this?" was, "You national types should know better."  Yeah, a real nice attitude.

5. Despite your explaining that his 'sense of humor is just that way' regarding his posts on the Bay Area message board, the guy already had a bee in his butt about me and my car before I ever got to the event.

 

Charlie, I accepted the ruling of the PC, but that doesn't make it the final and only word, nor does it excuse the actions and attitude of the protester.
 

Respectfully,
 

Bill

 

 

1)  Mike's history of protesting is exactly ONE protest prior to this one.  He was protested for removing his convertible top in STS2, an update/backdate allowed in SP and not allowed in ST.  He counterprotested the competitor's roll bar, which was also illegal.  Mike's factory manual shows that at least one model of Miata had a washer bottle in the location where his is.  NOT illegal.

2)  Mike stated that numerous competitors in the class thought your seat was illegal, but didn't want to protest. 

3)  I've seen gentlemen discuss problems they have with each others' cars at local events, but protesting is much more the norm at Divisionals, National Tours and Nationals.  It's our mechanism, and I don't think less of someone who uses the mechanism.

4)  I believe the intent of the rule to be twofold.  1)  The guy with megabucks who can go out and buy $1500/ea. seats that are ultralight should not have an advantage over the guy who can't justify $3000 for a pair of ultralight seats. 2)  The mounting should be substantial and safe.  I don't believe the intent (including the allowance for additional mounting points) is to allow you to make an ultralight mounting system, then ballast it with a weight bolted elsewhere, even if it is attached by some flimsy piece of perforated metal.  I'm not sure that brief exchange qualifies someone as a jerk or nutjob.  OTOH, your counterprotest was quite a lot of BS...  I almost asked the PC to consider "vexatious protest" against you, but dropped it as it was pretty obvious that mine was a minority viewpoint...

5)  I just have to disagree that Mike had a bee in his butt about you and your car.

I think we should just drop it at this point.  Let's see how the SPAC and SEB change the wording and see if we can all live with it.

 

---

Charlie Davis
Old age and treachery...

Charlie Davis wrote: "4)  I believe the intent of the rule to be twofold.  1)  The guy with megabucks who can go out and buy $1500/ea. seats that are ultralight should not have an advantage over the guy who can't justify $3000 for a pair of ultralight seats. "

 Charlie,

 The intent to control costs was not part of the proposed rule change when it was sent out for member comment. As Randy and Steve pointed out, this type of cost restriction rule sets a dangerous precedent for the class. Following your cost control logic, this path could lead us next to wheel weight restrictions, flywheel/clutch weights, shock absorber weights, etc.

 The reason I drive a CSP car is that it is a THRILL to drive around autocross courses and provides performance that equals $100,000 cars for a a quarter of that price. Rules that add weight and limit performance/response/control will definitely make my car less exciting to drive and lead me to exit this class.

Please do not encourage this type of cost control measures for SP. Maybe suggest them for ST or some other class. Or, create a class with a $5,000 claiming rule. Just let me spent some money. God knows our economy needs our contirbutions. What is wrong with being concerned with the economy and trying to help fellow citizens?  Down with heavy seats!

 For the record, I did sent my negative viewpoint when this rule was sent out for member comment.

 George Doganis