SCCAForums.com

jtmcinder:

I have seen a velcro-mounted seat in SM, albeit at a regional event and with no plan to ever have a passenger.  The "reason" given was that it allowed him to install/remove his water-chest (for the intercooler), which was in the passenger-side foot-well.

- Jtoby

 

hehe....shoulda known there'd be one out there somewhere.

 On that same note, maybe we should not leave the velcro idea totally behind.  Who's to say that a tightly-fitting velcro suit (ala Dave Letterman) couldn't work?  I think you would have to make sure that the car be mandated to have full carpeting so he/she would have something to "adhere" to.   :^)

 Reijo

Steve, I'm sure you can get a FasTrak clarification that allows you to mount your seat as needed in your x1/9 or vw. What would you propose for a rule that mandates a safer seat, but doesn't increase the burden on tech or require a specialized training for tech? I'm really curious, because I can't think of one.

Do I really need to spell it out that "velcro" is short for "sub-standard and unsafe installation method"? Consider it spelled out.

solo-x:

Steve, I'm sure you can get a FasTrak clarification that allows you to mount your seat as needed in your x1/9 or vw. What would you propose for a rule that mandates a safer seat, but doesn't increase the burden on tech or require a specialized training for tech? I'm really curious, because I can't think of one.

Yeah, right...  I already wrote a letter to the SEB during the "member feedback" phase of making this rule.  I pointed out that there are cars that don't have mounting studs/holes.  They failed to acknowledge that fact by amending the original proposal.  So am I to expect they will issue a fastrack clarification acknowledging their oversite now when they could have included it then? 

I wrote a very rough draft of a rule earlier in this thread.  But I am curious; a rule that "doesn't increase the burden on tech"?  Really?  So we pass the buck from the people who are SUPPOSED to be verifying that the cars are safe (that's IS the purpose of tech isn't it?) to the competitors?  And even then its not even if the seat is safe but if its too light?   This makes absolutely no sense at all. 

What's next?  Are we going to be expected to protest our competitors cars for missing lug nuts?  Leaking gas tanks?   What's the differrence in that and having to protest for an unsafe seat?   

boxboy:

So what is disappointing to you?  That we missed it?  That we're bringing it up after we missed it?

-Andy M.

 

The former, not the latter.  And by "we", I also mean your SEB liaisons who should be on the lookout for such things, and also the entire SM community who is usually quick to pickup on new allowances via the ST & SP inherited rules, but not so much on new inherited restrictions.   

--Andy

Off Topic:

Why do the responses/arguments in this thread resemble the loop of songs on my local radio channel????

Andy Hollis:

The former, not the latter.  And by "we", I also mean your SEB liaisons who should be on the lookout for such things, and also the entire SM community who is usually quick to pickup on new allowances via the ST & SP inherited rules, but not so much on new inherited restrictions.   

--Andy

Yeah, well, you get what you pay for sometimes.

 -Andy M.

boxboy:

Yeah, well, you get what you pay for sometimes.

Yep.

And next year I get to complain about the SEB again like everyone else.  

--Andy 

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

You completely missed the points being made here.  My seat was mounted in a more safe fashion than is dictated by the new rule.  The seat AND mounting hardware weighed 11 lbs.   To be compliant with the rule, I would have to add 9 lbs and COMPROMISE the seat mounting safety.  And that assumes I can even mount the seat legally AT ALL.  The way the rule is written, I can't mount a seat in the car legally, no matter how I do it.

While I agree that you'd need to add 9 lbs, I and others think you're 100% wrong w/regards to seat mounting.  You're making an assumption regarding that, based on a reading of the rule that I frankly think is motivated more by dislike of the rule than any sort of rational reading of the rule. 

 

The point here is that the rule doesn't achieve the desired result, assuming the desired result is to improve safety.  By your own admission, it only removes the incentive to making shortcuts.  The CSP Miata guys noted how easy it would be to defeat that purpose.  Are they going to do that?  Hopefully not, but you see how badly the rule is executed by how easily it's intended purpose can be defeated.

The rule should mandate safety, not weight. 

Write the rule Steve.  Nobody else (including the folks who do the GCR) seem to be able to do it.  And while you're at it, figure out how you're going to ensure uniform application across all regions.

When you do that, I'll fully support you.

Mark 

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

Second, if you assume I can legally use the OE seat tracks, that raises the seating position about 3 inches in the car.  Unless I can run the seat tracks through my hip bones, there really isn't a work around.  If the seat is mounted 3 inches higher my head protrudes 3 inches above the car's targa roof.  This practically garantees a severe or fatal injury if the car rolls over.  If the seat is mounted as I had it, the driver is safely restrained under the targa bar, which is the strongest part of the chassis. 

The new rule makes the car/driver less safe, not more. 

So what you're saying, reading between the lines, is that you cut the OE seat tracks out of the car.  Exactly what SP rule allows you to do that?

If you didn't, explain why you can't install a seat at _exactly_ the same height as your other one. 

You don't need to like the weight.  I can respect that.  But your argument that you can't mount a seat safely with this rule is absurd.

Mark 

marka:

So what you're saying, reading between the lines, is that you cut the OE seat tracks out of the car.  Exactly what SP rule allows you to do that?

No.  I did not cut the OE seat tracks out of the car.

marka:

 

If you didn't, explain why you can't install a seat at _exactly_ the same height as your other one. 

 I can respect that.  But your argument that you can't mount a seat safely with this rule is absurd.

No its not absurd.  You make a laundry list of assumptions.   If we had a car sitting in front of us I could show you the problem. My seat was contoured to fit between the OE seat tracks.  If you fit the mate off the OE seat to the tracks in the floor, then they would protrude through the space occupied by my hip bones.  I did a lot of engineering to get as low as I did.   Without the mates to the tracks, I can sit between the rails, with the mates to the tracks, I have to sit on top of them.  The difference is 3+ inches in seating position height.  Why don't I get the benefit of your doubt?   You assume I can't therefore I am guilty?  I know the facts and you don't have ANY idea what the facts are and you assume I am BSing here?   Gee thanks.  I appreciate your character assesment.

And I aint buyin' your interpretation of the rule.  The rule is poorly written.  If they meant to include welded in seat tracks, why didn't they add them to the list?

Howdy, 

Steve Hoelscher:

No its not absurd.  You make a laundry list of assumptions.   If we had a car sitting in front of us I could show you the problem. My seat was contoured to fit between the OE seat tracks.  If you fit the mate off the OE seat to the tracks in the floor, then they would protrude through the space occupied by my hip bones.  I did a lot of engineering to get as low as I did.   Without the mates to the tracks, I can sit between the rails, with the mates to the tracks, I have to sit on top of them.  The difference is 3+ inches in seating position height.  Why don't I get the benefit of your doubt?   You assume I can't therefore I am guilty?  I know the facts and you don't have ANY idea what the facts are and you assume I am BSing here?   Gee thanks.  I appreciate your character assesment.

And I aint buyin' your interpretation of the rule.  The rule is poorly written.  If they meant to include welded in seat tracks, why didn't they add them to the list?

They didn't mean to include them.  They meant to include any OEM mounting studs/holes.

You don't have any.

That means that you don't need to worry about that part of the rule, so you can add mounting points as necessary.

YOU are the one assuming you need to mount the seat to the existing seat track.  Nothing in the rule says you need to.  Unless you've done something insane, there's absolutely no reason why your existing seat mounting scheme wouldn't be 100% legal as it sits.  Yes, you need to add some weight, we all agree on that.  But the rule doesn't require you to use your OEM seat tracks as a mounting point, merely any OEM studs/holes that are used for the seat mount.

If they _only_ wanted you to use OEM studs/holes, then perhaps you might have a leg to stand on with your argument, but they explicitly allow you to add additional mounting points.

I fully expect that if we started with the same set of assumptions as to what the rule says, we'd reach the same conclusions.  The problem here (to my perception) is that you don't like the rule, so you're reading it in the most unfriendly way you possibly can, with as far as I can tell no reason for that interpretation.

Mark

(and, from your description, even if they really did mean to include any integral seat rails, you should _still_ be able to fabricate a connection between the welded in portion of the rail and your existing seat without materially altering the height.  Even if you assume they meant to use the welded in rails, there's no requirement that you use the "top slider" that the OEM seat mounts to.)

marka:

That means that you don't need to worry about that part of the rule, so you can add mounting points as necessary.

That's your assumption and I am not betting my dsq on your interpretation.

marka:

YOU are the one assuming you need to mount the seat to the existing seat track.  I(and, from your description, even if they really did mean to include any integral seat rails, you should _still_ be able to fabricate a connection between the welded in portion of the rail and your existing seat without materially altering the height.  Even if you assume they meant to use the welded in rails, there's no requirement that you use the "top slider" that the OEM seat mounts to.)

I am reading the rule the way a PC could.  You cannot predict interpretation.  The SP rules are quite explicit in one philosophy: if it doesn't say you can, you can't.  It only states the studs/holes can be used.  Because it doesn't say I can use the OE tracks instead of studs/holes, I can't.

Its YOUR assumption I can.  If I am reading it in a strict interpretation, you are reading it with an open interpretation.  Why is mine any less credible than yours. 

Bottom line on this:  I had what was probably the safest seat mount in the sport and under this rule, its illegal.  Even if your interpretation is used.  The seat was through bolted on the (very strong) OE tracks with backside load plates and the seat back was bolted to the rear bulkhead, again with load plates.   That had is securely anchored to the strongest parts of the chassis and at both the top and bottom of the seat.  It was VERY secure AND is proteched the driver.

Steve Hoelscher:

...I am reading the rule the way a PC could.  You cannot predict interpretation.  The SP rules are quite explicit in one philosophy: if it doesn't say you can, you can't.  It only states the studs/holes can be used.  Because it doesn't say I can use the OE tracks instead of studs/holes, I can't.

Its YOUR assumption I can.  If I am reading it in a strict interpretation, you are reading it with an open interpretation.  Why is mine any less credible than yours. 

Wrong. Bolding is mine. The rule states that all existing studs or holes must be used. Not that they are the only point to be used. In fact, it specifically allows mounting points in addition to the stock studs or holes.

On the tracks issue. If your OE tracks attach to all the stock holes/studs (zero in your case) and your seat is attached to the tracks, then you've met the requirement.

I made this observation earlier. Your car is actually the best case to take advantage of this new rule. It's not the most restricted by this rule like you make it out.

I suggest you get a clarification for this specific instance based on my reading of the rule.

If challenged by a protest, I'd ask the PC or the protestor to point out all the stock holes/studs that the seat should be attached to. There aren't any? Then you've attached to all of them and are free to add some more attachment points.

For some unknown reason, I feel compelled to throw my hat into the ring as well. I caught wind of this rule only as it was headed to the BOD. I've written my litter of dissent, and I've talked at length with an SPAC member to get a direct response on the nature of the rule.

I still have a big problem with it. If the rule was intended to to be put in place for reasons of -safety-. Then why some half-a**'ed made up requirement? The SCCA has, for many years, implemented industry accepted safety standards, SFI/FIA. If this is really an issue of safety, and of possible protection from litigation, then why in the world wouldn't you implement a rule that incorporates a known, and recognized safety standard? Simply establishing a minimum weight may take away some of the incentive to skimp on seat installation, but it still won't prevent someone from installing a slipshod POS seat that barely meets the letter of the rule, and just bolting a hunk of steel bar to the underside of the seat. All the while stressing the zip ties that hold it to the car even more...

I think that Steve H's 5 minute whip-up rule proposal has more merit than this one. I have a ton of respect for the difficult work that the SEB and SPAC has to do. But this one seems like it really needs to come back to the drawing board before making it to print.

And Steve? I am in total agreement with you about the Targa/Harness rule. PM me, you might be interested in something...

-Josh2 

I got my legal seat in.  Your right, there is no requirement that the seat be safe.  Mine is.  It is the same as the drivers seat, a Cobra Imolo GT.  There are no adjustments for moving it back and forth, and it is still 25#.   Oh well, we already had the seat for local events anyway. 

 I thought my kart seat was cool.  PS it was safe, but the view sucked!

jhadler:

I still have a big problem with it. If the rule was intended to to be put in place for reasons of -safety-. Then why some half-a**'ed made up requirement? The SCCA has, for many years, implemented industry accepted safety standards, SFI/FIA. If this is really an issue of safety, and of possible protection from litigation, then why in the world wouldn't you implement a rule that incorporates a known, and recognized safety standard? Simply establishing a minimum weight may take away some of the incentive to skimp on seat installation, but it still won't prevent someone from installing a slipshod POS seat that barely meets the letter of the rule, and just bolting a hunk of steel bar to the underside of the seat. All the while stressing the zip ties that hold it to the car even more...

 -Josh2 

Well said.  As have other responses; and yet it remains?  I wonder why? 

This horse left the barn with 95% of the folks not seeing it. I don't know how it did, but this thread wasn't even started until it was too late. For anyone wanting to offer up a better suggestion than the current rule, here's some thoughts and info.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207; Seating Systems
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/49cfr571.207.pdf

The gist of it is that the seat must withstand 20x it's own weight being pushed against it from a forward and rearward direction.

Here's some docs outlining how a contracted agency must test the seat for auto makers:
-Laboratory test procedure: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-207-09a.pdf
-Associated data sheets: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-207-09b.pdf

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202; Head restraints (starts at bottom of first page):
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/49cfr571.202.pdf

Here's a site that seems to focus on crash safety that lists many of the FMVSS's: http://www.crash-network.com/Regulations/FMVSS/fmvss.html

If I was looking to increase safety I'd probably mandate that any non-stock seat be FIA (and/or other similar body) approved and require that they meet the above FMVSS No. 207, or are basically "legal for street use in the US". Another direction to go would be to mandate the use of manufacturer's adapters and mounts, but I realize they don't make these for all cars.

I don't see how we could mandate that anyone exceed these standards with an aftermarket setup as long as we allow stock seats, since this is what stock seats need to meet. Stock seats exist that are well under 20# that have met this requirement (Lotus Elise). A rule referencing this standard would at least require that a seat meet some sort of load requirement, which the current rule doesn't even address. I realize this means a 10# FIA seat only needs to support 200#, but that's more than your average driver, and it's approximately 200# more than the current rule mandates. And again, it's all that a stock seat needs to meet to be street legal. Not perfect, but a heck of a lot better.

The headrest standard might be going a little overboard, but a quick read of it does reference heights needing to essentially fit the height of a 95th percentile adult male. Again, leaning on this rule somehow might be better than the current rule's reference to "the center of the drivers' head" which, when it comes down to a protest (or lawsuit), I don't know how they're going to identify the "center". These standards go through the grueling detail of laying out how each measurement is gathered.

Reversing this rule for 2008 is pretty much impossible at this point. The only way I'd see that happening is if some compelling argument was made that this rule makes things less safe, which I don't see. You could have the same velcro-mounted 3# high-back kart seat with attached 20# dumbell banging around the cabin under this rule as you could before it. While the new rule mandates the dumbell, the old one also allowed it.

rnoll98:

velcro-mounted 3# high-back kart seat with attached 20# dumbell banging around the cabin under this rule as you could before it. While the new rule mandates the dumbell, the old one also allowed it.

OMG!  Other than the Velcro, you've just perfectly described my set-up for next year!  How did you do that?!  You must be sending up spies from San Diego!!!! 

The best part of Bill's new seat is how the extra 20 lbs. of ballast moves back and forth on the motorized rail depending on which way the car is turning.

That's just plain cool.