SCCAForums.com

double post, just delete this one

I can understand you wanting a standard height, however, it really makes things difficult.  Seats are different sizes (that is the point of getting one, so it fits you), and they need to provide safety to the driver.

If the rules was to be a certain height (say 48") to accommodate a +/- 7'-3" tall driver then everyone would be forced to purchase a custom build seat because that size isn't readily available.  Now you are going to be complaining about how you need to spend $1k to purchase a seat that you don't need because you are only 6'-4" tall.

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / datatoys.com / Redshift Motorsports STS Civic Si

TeamUndercoatRacing.com

Steve Hoelscher:

This rule is so screwed up.  And yes I wrote a letter outlining all of the issues I found with it.

 First: not all seats mount with "studs/holes".  I drove an SP car for years that didn't use studs or holes to mount the OE seat.  So how am I expected to mount an aftermarket seat in the car?  There is no legal means to mount a seat under this rule!

Second: "seat tracks are considered part of the seat and may be substituted".  REALLY?  When they are welded to the floor as they are in some cars?

What kind of car, just wondering? 

I would think that they could re-word it to say.... "The seat, including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 20 pounds and must be attached using the OE mounting configuration, additional mounting points may be added."

In regards to the seat tracks (which is the current rule), could something be added like, "vehicles with seat tracks permanently attached may not be substituted."

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / datatoys.com / Redshift Motorsports STS Civic Si

TeamUndercoatRacing.com

Mugenlude:

I would think that they could re-word it to say.... "The seat, including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 20 pounds and must be attached using the OE mounting configuration, additional mounting points may be added."

The original mounting points in the floorpan are the only places stressed by the manufacturer to withstand crash-type g-loads.  Seats mounted elsewhere could easily rip through the floorboards.

This rule does not legislate stupidity (heck, SP lets you use a piece of tin-foil for a flywheel, if you want).  But it does allow someone to properly mount a real race seat in a manner as safe as OE, without incurring a performance disadvantage to someone who chooses to cheap-out.

BTW, this horse has left the barn.  The BOD already had their meeting where this was considered.   

--Andy

 

Andy Hollis:

This rule does not legislate stupidity (heck, SP lets you use a piece of tin-foil for a flywheel, if you want).  But it does allow someone to properly mount a real race seat in a manner as safe as OE, without incurring a performance disadvantage to someone who chooses to cheap-out.

BTW, this horse has left the barn.  The BOD already had their meeting where this was considered.   

Excuse me.  The SEB certainly did legislate stupidity.   Now the only legal seat in some cars will be the OE seat.  Which certainly isn't as safe as a properly mounted race seat.  The new rule PROHIBITS the proper mounting of a race seat in some cars. 

You over regulate the seat rule to prevent some idiot from using bungee cords to mount his seat and in the process make people who would otherwise properly mount their seat less safe. 

I am so glad that the SEB is looking out for us. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

If the rules was to be a certain height (say 48") to accommodate a +/- 7'-3" tall driver then everyone would be forced to purchase a custom build seat because that size isn't readily available.  Now you are going to be complaining about how you need to spend $1k to purchase a seat that you don't need because you are only 6'-4" tall.

You go buy a new car, it comes with a certain height seatback.  Probably determined to be fairly safe in design, for most drivers.  We don't get a choice in seatbacks when buying a new car.  I still feel we can have a "minimum" height requirement for a seatback (say, 30" or so) that works for 80 percent of the population.  If the 7'3" driver wants to autox, he/she should want to buy a tall enought seatback to provide the appropriate whiplash protectiion.

 fwiw, I don't think this is a terribly bad rule, just needs a bit of "tweaking".  I like the idea that it may discourage the use of cheap plastic playskool chairs zip tied to seat rails.

I just hope a rule doesn't come out with a minimum weight for wheels, brake rotors, exhaust pipes, tires, shocks. 

We play this sport, get challenged to find ways to improve the technology of design, call it competition, and then find out our efforts are pointless.

Aww heck, I'm just grumpy 'cuz I can't attend Nats this year. 

To the rest of you...have a great time, go safe, and go fast :)

 Don

Steve Hoelscher:

Excuse me.  The SEB certainly did legislate stupidity.   Now the only legal seat in some cars will be the OE seat.  Which certainly isn't as safe as a properly mounted race seat.  The new rule PROHIBITS the proper mounting of a race seat in some cars. 

You over regulate the seat rule to prevent some idiot from using bungee cords to mount his seat and in the process make people who would otherwise properly mount their seat less safe. 

I am so glad that the SEB is looking out for us. 

 
I'm guessing the X1/9 has welded in seat rails.

 The VWs did, too.  The way we mount seats in the VWs is to incorporate the stock mounting points - the welded in seat rails, which are not a hole or a stud. Hmmm.

How do you mount a seat in the X1/9?  Bolt it straight to the floor?  Why would incorporating the stock seat mounts be difficult?  Just asking, never looked at the seat configuration of one of those things.  In a VW, bolting to the floor would result in a way-too-low seat.

"Some" cars - what other cars?  I'd like to look; the intent is to mandate the incorporation of the stock mounting points - I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to mount a race seat in many cars *without* incorporating the stock mounting points. 

 Additional holes may be drilled.  Shrug.  Dunno.  I'm going to lower my seat with a steel seat brace.  I will have brackets which connect my brace to the stock mounts. It'll be safe, legal AND accomplish the desired goal.

Lemmeknow the other cars, curious!

 

 

Iain

 

I'd bank on a PC tossing a protest if the 6'8" driver in his Momo Cup race seat don't meet the letter of the rule. I've seen some of the tall, lanky autocrossers out there drive with their head jammed into the headliner. It's going to be hard to get ANY seat up to that point. The intent of the rule is to prevent kart type seats. Personally, if the seat would be legal for an average (5'9"-5'11") driver, then it's legal IMO.

As for mounting the seats in every car, ST is being told that not all cars can utilize all allowances. Even ones written specifically for that car. Guess that applies to SP too?

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

Iain Mannix:

  Why would incorporating the stock seat mounts be difficult?  Just asking, never looked at the seat configuration of one of those things.  In a VW, bolting to the floor would result in a way-too-low seat.

Incorporating the stock seat mounting points is easy but its impossible to use the "standard body mounting holes/studs" if there aren't any!!!  Because the rule specifically states "mounting holes/studs" it excludes anything that isn't a hole or stud.  Rails welded to the floor are not holes or studs.  Therefore you cannot legally mount anything in place of the OE seat. 

I cannot imagine how the authors could be so short sighted. 

The VWs and X1/9 were what first came to mind because I have mounted seats in both types of cars.  This is just another in a whole line of "safety" related rules that have come in recent years that are so poorly written and make such broad assumptions that they make some cars LESS safe.  The prohibition of the use of a harness/shoulder straps in targa roofed cars, without roll bars, was my previous best example.  I doubt there has been a car produced in the last 30 years that is safer in a rollover than an X1/9 as the targa roof is the strongest part of the chassis.  The driver is safest when held by his harness under the targa bar.  If you remove the shoulder belts, it will permit the driver's torso to fold foreward potentially breaking his neck as the windshield folds back on his head.   The shoulder harness would completely prevent this.  So the SEB's safety rule will potentially kill a driver who would likely have been unhurt otherwise.  Nice job guys.

I have always thought that the weight requirement for seat mounting, in the name of safety, was silly.  A heavy seal/mount can be just as unsafe as a light one.  Why not simply state:  seats must be securely mounted, incorporating (at a minimum) the OE mounting points/method using metal fasteners and brackets (if utilized).    At a minimum the seat must encapsulate the length of the driver's torso from hips to shoulders.  A headrest must be ultilized to limit the movement of the driver's head beyond the seat back. 

That's just my first cut at a rule but I think it would be effective. 

I agree completely with Don: "We play this sport, get challenged to find ways to improve the technology of design, call it competition, and then find out our efforts are pointless."

That sums it up perfectly.  There is now no reward for finding an elegant solution to the problem.  One that is functional, safe, effective and efficient.  I think that the rule as it is currently written is counter to the whole idea of competition.  Unfortunately, I think Don's fears may be realized.  Before this rule there was never a weight specified for anything in SP.  Now that this door has been opened, more such stupidity will escape thought it.  I expect that we will eventually see minimum weights for all kinds of things under the veil of "safety".

Its a sad day for our sport.

 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve Hoelscher:

Incorporating the stock seat mounting points is easy but its impossible to use the "standard body mounting holes/studs" if there aren't any!!!  Because the rule specifically states "mounting holes/studs" it excludes anything that isn't a hole or stud.  Rails welded to the floor are not holes or studs.  Therefore you cannot legally mount anything in place of the OE seat. 

 So, if "/rails" were added to the rule - "standard body mounting holes/studs/rails" - things would be ok?  I agree on that front - "holes/studs" does not cover ALL cars.  "Standard body mounts (holes, studs, welded in rails)" might be the ticket. 

Steve Hoelscher:

  Now that this door has been opened, more such stupidity will escape thought it.  I expect that we will eventually see minimum weights for all kinds of things under the veil of "safety".

Its a sad day for our sport.

Duck, the sky is falling!

I, personally, would have liked to have found a way to mandate seat mounting _safety_ without the weight thing.  It was not found.  The minimum takes a lot of incentive to skimp on mounts - YOU might have mounted your seat safely, but this is the Sports Car Club of America, not the Steve Car Club of Alabama.  

 Heh, could not resist.  Clearly, you disagree, I know you'll write a letter, which is good.  I really do not think we're going to see a proliferation of minimum weights spreading through SP - I can't think of anything which MIGHT benefit through minimum weights.

Whether or not you _agree_ with the minimum weight seat/bracket rule, I'd think you can see it's merit, you can understand the logic behind it.  I can't think of another SP example where it fits, even slightly.

 Will ALL seats be mounted safely from this point forward?  No.  Will tech catch all of the unsafe seats?  Maybe. Will the minimum weight reduce the number of seats which are "mounted" well enough to keep them from moving around the car, and that's all?  Absolutely.  Is it the best solution?  Probably not, but it works well - by forcing the use of standard mounts (I'm sure some SPAC knucklehead will bring up the holes/studs != welded in rails sooner than later), we're forcing people to use parts of the car intended to have seats attached to them, and by implementing the minimum weight, there will be no incentive to use substandard mounting materials. 

 
It'll work out.  Using the stock holes/studs/(rails, hopefully), the variables are reduced to bolts, basically, and bracket quality.  I believe the rule works.  Perfect?  No.  Will it be?  I'll certainly do what I can.

 

 

Iain
 

 

Steve Hoelscher:

Incorporating the stock seat mounting points is easy but its impossible to use the "standard body mounting holes/studs" if there aren't any!!!  Because the rule specifically states "mounting holes/studs" it excludes anything that isn't a hole or stud.  Rails welded to the floor are not holes or studs.  Therefore you cannot legally mount anything in place of the OE seat. 

Steve, I believe you are interpreting this requirement oppositely than you should. It's actually a blessing for cars that don't have holes/studs.

"...and must be attached using the standard body mounting holes/studs. Additional mounting points may be added."

If your car has no holes/studs, a loose seat placed in the car has used ALL the available holes/studs. You are therefore in compliance with this rule. You can still add additional mounting points to your own taste, as the second part of this rule allows.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

Iain Mannix:

 So, if "/rails" were added to the rule - "standard body mounting holes/studs/rails" - things would be ok?  I agree on that front - "holes/studs" does not cover ALL cars.  "Standard body mounts (holes, studs, welded in rails)" might be the ticket. 

I would think so.  So my question is:  Why wasn't this addressed?  I wrote a letter that identified this exact issue.  So now we have the rule in place.  When will it be fixed?  '09?  And what do we do in the interim?

Iain Mannix:

Duck, the sky is falling!

I, personally, would have liked to have found a way to mandate seat mounting _safety_ without the weight thing.  It was not found.  The minimum takes a lot of incentive to skimp on mounts - YOU might have mounted your seat safely, but this is the Sports Car Club of America, not the Steve Car Club of Alabama.  

 Heh, could not resist.  Clearly, you disagree, I know you'll write a letter, which is good.  I really do not think we're going to see a proliferation of minimum weights spreading through SP - I can't think of anything which MIGHT benefit through minimum weights.

Whether or not you _agree_ with the minimum weight seat/bracket rule, I'd think you can see it's merit, you can understand the logic behind it.  I can't think of another SP example where it fits, even slightly.

 

No the sky isn't falling, but the _h_t sure is rising

Yes, I agree that seats needed to be addressed but I was very dissapointed in how it was implemented.  Using the myopic utopian method that is so pervasive throughout the ST_ ruleset is counterproductive.   Note that nowhere in the rule does it say the seat and mounts must be safe or that safety is the desired endpoint.  HELLOOOOO!!!  Is anyone home???

The really sad part is the precedent has been set.  That precedent will allow a future SEB to further reduce innovation under the guise of "fairness" by mandating additional items that cannot weight less than X.  When it happens I get to say I told you so.

modernbeat:

Steve, I believe you are interpreting this requirement oppositely than you should. It's actually a blessing for cars that don't have holes/studs.

"...and must be attached using the standard body mounting holes/studs. Additional mounting points may be added."

If your car has no holes/studs, a loose seat placed in the car has used ALL the available holes/studs. You are therefore in compliance with this rule. You can still add additional mounting points to your own taste, as the second part of this rule allows.

A unique interpretation but I don't think that will fly.

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

Steve Hoelscher:

A unique interpretation but I don't think that will fly.

Really? In that case I'd have the protest committee or the protester point out the studs or holes on the body (not on the top of the moving portion of the seat rails) that they expect me to use to mount the seat. No OEM studs found? No OEM holes found? Seat mounted in a reasonably safe manner? I think it would stand up to any weenie that thought he was a hot-dog.

In a strict intrepretion, that's how the rule reads.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

I don't think it'd fly, either, but if you were to incorporate your mount with the stock rails, then I think you've got a pretty sturdy leg to stand on.  The rule does specify "studs/holes," so if you have none, but decide to incorporate your stock -rails-, I think it'd be fine. 

It should probably have some inclusive language to get the un-studly cars like the X1/9 covered, but that's how I'd do it, if I were not driving a studly car.

 

 

Iain (and I'd write a letter asking for clarification;)
 

Iain Mannix:

 so if you have none, but decide to incorporate your stock -rails-, I think it'd be fine. 

 (and I'd write a letter asking for clarification;)
 

So I put the tracks on the bottom of the seat.  That's still not using OE "studs/holes".  But even if that was acceptable, that would place ANY aftermarket seat so high in the car my head would stick out above the targa bar.  NOW my seat would be safely mounted according to the incredibly safety concious and extremely thoughtful seat mounting rule.  And it would garantee I die in a rollover.  Yeah, that's a great solution!!!!  Thanks alot guys.

I shouldn't have to write a letter asking for a clarification!!!  I wrote a letter advising that the rule as written was faulty.  It was obviously IGNORED! 

 

Iain Mannix:

YOU might have mounted your seat safely, but this is the Sports Car Club of America, not the Steve Car Club of Alabama.  

Incidentally Iain, I am no longer in Alabama but now live in St. Augustine Florida (note the avatar).   OK, so I have to pay a substantial price in safety and performance so some idiot can't zip tie a seat from a Barbie Vette in his CSP Miata?   This is the rub.  My seat is currently as safely mounted as is reasonably achievable.  But because I did it right and the idiot didn't I have to reduce the safety of my seat/mount and make the car less safe because he won't without being forced to?  Yeah, that's nice work.  It appears to me that the SEB/SPAC is too short sighted or lazy to write a proper rule.  What other explanation is there? 

Iain, you know me and worked with me on SPAC stuff.  I know you guys work hard and produce good product but you haven't had much support lately and for that I am truely sorry.  I know there are good intentions behind this but good intentions are worthless.  Results are what matter.  The seat rule is full of good intentions but the results are disgracefull. 

I came up with a rough draft of an effective rule in 5 minutes this morning (see above).  The problem here is you started with the ST rule and you know the old sayting; "garbage in, garbage out". 

So we find out after the fact that the "horse has left the barn".  Before we even find out that the SEB is forewarding the rule to the BoD, the BoD has passed it.  Now that is a fine job of representation.  Ram it down our throats.  Thanks guys....

A safety rule has effectively made my car illegal in the catagory with no means of redress.  I can't achieve a legal configuration and before I find out the rule has gone to the BoD (the final line of redress), its passed.  So I have the choice of either not running the car, running the car illegally or running it in an unsafe configuration that is in compliance with the rule that is supposed to make it safe.  Nice to know SCCA has my best interest in mind...

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

My bad.  I thought Florida was a county in Alabama.

 

 

Iain (serious reply in a while, this work thing keeps bugging me) 

Hey!...Yoo-hoo. Yeah, here in the back. Um....

 

Could someone fill me in on something. What was the deficiency in the old rule that this new rule is trying to correct?  I havent really heard anything regarding the intent of the change. Is it to improve the seat mounting? Improve safety? Get rid of eevill kart seats? Something else? Im just trying to get a broader view as to where this new rule change is leading to.

 

Gavin 

I believe the rule is to stop people from installing unsafe seats (no whiplash-type protection) and seat mounts (light & flimsy piece which break in an accident).

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / datatoys.com / Redshift Motorsports STS Civic Si

TeamUndercoatRacing.com

Steve Hoelscher:

[

A safety rule has effectively made my car illegal in the catagory with no means