SCCAForums.com

It can be very frustrating when your pleas fall upon deaf ears, can't it?  Imagine how committee members feel when the SEB doesn't really care what they think. 

 Note I had nothing to do with this.  I had to resign my SPAC seat in December due to a family illness. I just think it's kind of ironic how a very recent SEB member is griping that the SEB doesn't listen from time to time.  Yes, I realize they can't listen to everyone--I'm just amused by it in a sad way.  I know what volunteering can be like, but it's not an excuse to ignore those trying to help (particularly when they are established folks who have experience in the system). 

Mugenlude:

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).

 
The flimsy seat mounting thing is an interesting one as I really dont see how this change stops that from happening. In the ST* ruling it was said that the weight ruling was to alleviate the weight penalty that one would suffer from "doing it right" and having a more robust mounting method than velcro. This I can see very well. To that end, Ill say something out loud(and maybe I shouldnt) regarding seat mounting and the difference between ST and SP. In my small world Ive seen some pretty cheezy mounting of seats in ST. My impression is that one of the draws of ST is its cheapness comparative to SP, that seems to reflect itself in some of the aspects of building of some of the cars. "Cheap" shouldnt be the overriding reason to do things, but it seems to crop up more in discussions about ST vs SP a lot. That is, if it can be done and be cheap(er) that is a validation of ST over SP. Am I wrong on my assessment ?... Probably. Im only one perspective after all.

Now they tell me that SP isnt a "cheap" class, so again, is this something pervasive in the SP ranks($6000 motons and $3.49 in mounting hardware)? Besides (as mentioned in one of the ST threads) wonky seating mounts be in the realm of tech shouldnt it? I mean, even if this passes it still kinda does anyway....right?

 It doesnt matter to me much as both of my seats and (stock) sliders are over the proposed limits(and mounted rock solid like it should be). Im just kinda curious about this all.

 Gavin
 

Steve Hoelscher:

Andy Hollis:

Steve Hoelscher:

[

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

I thought you sold the SP car, Steve?

Why does that matter?  Does it change any of my arguments? 

OK, so to make Andy happy, remove the word "I/me" and substitute "SCCA member and X1/9 or VW owner". 

How about that?  

It makes a big difference in how you make your arguments.  In one case, you are personally affected.  In the other case, you are trying to make a philosophical argument *for* some unknown person that may or may not be affected.  Especially someone running at the national level with a fully prepped car where this might come into play.  Do you have a specific example in mind of such a car, perhaps running nationals last year or this?  Remember, these are the National Solo Rules.  Regions can do what they want.

I just find it odd that you would so heatedly remark that the rule change had made *your* car illegal, when it did not.  Sorta playing the sympathy card, when none is specifically warranted.

--Andy

I find this newest seat rule ineffective as written. The rule' s goal is to improve safety, but it is quite possible to  end up with an unsafe seat installation(flimsy seat brackets, incorrect hardware, etc.). And the minimum weight? Why? I am very dissappointed with some of my fellow SCCA members and hope that this is not the start of SP rule revisions that keep adding weight in the name of safety.

 George Doganis

I may be one of those "CSP Miatas"  that Steve H. mentioned earlier that this rule is pointed towards, I'm not really sure.

So I'd like to make a couple of things clear:  I can make a kart seat mounted as safely to the floor as many others "Race seat w/race seat mounting rails, bolted to a custom frame that is then mounted to the oem seat mounting holes".  I know, because I've done both types of seats and mounting, and know how safe a not well mounted example of the "Race seat w/race seat mounting...etc." is compared to my well mounted Kart seat mounted to the floor.

 The Kart seat, however, is not safe from a rear impact, because it is so low.  Of course a Kart seat in a Kart is in the same situation, but for some reason, maybe because the S.C.C.A. hates Karts (said half-jokingly), I guess it will be O.K. when some day someone spins, and impacts a solid object backwards (said with the full hope that this never happens - I don't want someone hurt just to prove that I'm right.).  If, however, god-forbid that DOES happen, I imagine a half-way good lawyer will be able to bankrupt the S.C.C.A. and shut it down, as the BoD, knowing that Kart seats are "unsafe", didn't do anything to protect Karters.

 
My point is this:  I, like George, don't get the weight minimum.  I can take a full height seat and mount it to the oem holes and do it safely and not take 20lbs. total to do it; maybe not everyone will be able to figure this out, but why should we have a rule that someone that doesn't have enough intelligence to figure this out will have the same performance as those of us that do?  I thought part of SP is the engineering of our cars?

I understand the well-intention of this rule, but it is half baked, in my opinion.  MAKE THE RULE STATE THAT THE SEAT HAS TO BE SAFELY MOUNTED and leave it at that!  You say that leaves too high a burden on, I don't know, Tech, to interpret and enforce?  Well, adding ballast to a seat to "make it safe" is just as silly.

You want to mandate safety?  THEN MANDATE SAFETY!  A weight minimum will NOT MAKE A SEAT SAFE OR WELL MOUNTED.
 

You want to talk about a half baked rule, make one that says "Your seat must be mounted safely". How in the world does one come up with a definition of "safely"? Crash test the car? Brilliant! Or maybe you propose spelling out how a seat should be mounted?

"Your seat must be mounted safely. Bolts must be of grade 8 or the metric equivalent and brackets must by a minimum of 1/8" thick. Triangulation of brackets is required. Weld in plates must be utilized if factory mount point are not used. All seats must have a minimum of 4 attachement points to the chassis. If bolts are used to attach the seat, they must be 1/2" diameter or greater and torqued to 45lb-ft minimum. If weld in brackets are utilized, a certified welder/fabricator is required to do the work and write off on it's safety. SCCA suggests annealing welded seat brackets after welding is completed....." 

You can't mandate safety when it comes to engineering something like this. You CAN remove incentive to do a shitty job of installing a seat though. That is where the minimum weight req. comes in. If through my best engineering work I can safely install a seat and have it weigh 22lbs, but someone else can do it and have it weigh 5lbs, where is my incentive. If that guy that can do it and have it weigh 5lbs has to ballast his seat up to 20lbs anyhow, then I won't feel too bad having my seat be 2lbs overweight.

Nate - doesn't have a dog in this fight. Yet.

George and Bill,

As I said earlier, and Nate just reiterated, the goal is to remove the incentive for poor mounting.  While it would be nice to be able to just say "securely mounted", we have no effective tech method for monitoring that.  Without a certified tech inspection process like club racing has, its not going to happen.  Local tech people are going to have widely varying opinions on what is "safe", and those same people do tech at national events.

I was the guy that started this kart seat thing when I was in CSP.  I figured at the time that it would last maybe a year or two before the absurdness of it got the rules changed (like Grady's baby seat).  But it didn't.  Since then its just gotten worse.  On both sides of the car and not just the seat itself, but the mounting.  Everyone has jumped on the "lightness" bandwagon. 

What really pushed me over the edge (and yes, I wrote a letter to start all of this process) was viewing the aftermath of the rollover at Packwood last year.  Custom-fabbed aluminum seat brackets broke.  Poor design and construction.  The guy would have died if not for a harness bar that kept the seat from going all the way to the floor.

On the SEB, we get to see all the incident reports.  There are tons of them.  I just got a packet that's about an inch thick.  Sure, many are just "guy trips and falls in paddock".  But there are plenty of serious ones.  So that may help you understand the rulemakers' desire for safety measures.  They know about stuff happening that is not widespread knowledge.  If that disappoints you, well so be it.  I can live with that because I feel its the right thing to do.

--Andy

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.

 In other cars, this is not so. We just had an accident locally, on the public streets with a WRX, freshly installed harness, rolled, and neck was snapped. The 3 point stock belt more than likely would have allowed needed movement to where the driver wouldn't have been instantly killed for wearing a harness without a cage/supporting structure.

If the rules said something like "X1/9 excused" I'm going to have to say the SEB doesn't care because ST was told, as stated earlier, that "Not all cars can take part in all allowances, even when the allowance was made for a specific car."

Good luck with that.

Also, if you keep complaining, the SEB is going to make harnesses illegal because they're not safe without a cage... they've attempted/done 3 takebacks this year in ST already... the more you complain, the more things change.

--kC 

Andy Hollis:

As I said earlier, and Nate just reiterated, the goal is to remove the incentive for poor mounting.  While it would be nice to be able to just say "securely mounted", we have no effective tech method for monitoring that.  Without a certified tech inspection process like club racing has, its not going to happen.  Local tech people are going to have widely varying opinions on what is "safe", and those same people do tech at national events.

So how does mandating a minimum weight fix this?  I would think that most of the bad seat mounts result from ignorance more than maxing out the "lightness" angle.  As Bill and George have noted, how does this fix anything?

And are we only concerned with safely mounted seats at Nationals?  Not at the regional level?  I would bet that we would have the least problem with seat mounts at Nationals.  There is likely a bigger problem at the regional level.

Andy Hollis:

It makes a big difference in how you make your arguments.  In one case, you are personally affected.  In the other case, you are trying to make a philosophical argument *for* some unknown person that may or may not be affected.  Especially someone running at the national level with a fully prepped car where this might come into play. 

Your kidding right?  Are you telling me that you ignored my argument because I no longer own the car I used in my example???  REALLY?   There are other cars with the same issues.  So am I to understand that if a member finds a flaw in a proposal that he must have "standing" to have his point considered?   This is rediculous.

Maybe there comes a time when I want to return to SP in another X1/9?  Do I have to wait until I make that decision, build the car and go to nationals and THEN object?  If I can't run the car at nationals because its illegal then how can I use my car running at nationals as an example????????? 

Andy Hollis:

I was the guy that started this kart seat thing when I was in CSP.  I figured at the time that it would last maybe a year or two before the absurdness of it got the rules changed (like Grady's baby seat).  But it didn't.  Since then its just gotten worse.  On both sides of the car and not just the seat itself, but the mounting.  Everyone has jumped on the "lightness" bandwagon. 

What I find odd is that you lead the charge to create a rule that bans a issue that you were openly promoting.   I am sure that a lot of the reason you see so many seat issues now is because so many members saw an SEB member doing it and figured it was OK.    

Bill, my appologies if you thought you were my target.  You were not. 

George, I agree with your point, I am afraid this will open Pandora's box.  Bad rules written in the name of safety and fairness with trump logic every time. 

Your kidding right?  Are you telling me that you ignored my argument because I no longer own the car I used in my example???  REALLY?   There are other cars with the same issues.  So am I to understand that if a member finds a flaw in a proposal that he must have "standing" to have his point considered?   This is rediculous.

Who cares that I may return some day.

--kC
 

Steve Hoelscher:

Your kidding right?  Are you telling me that you ignored my argument because I no longer own the car I used in my example???  REALLY?   There are other cars with the same issues.  So am I to understand that if a member finds a flaw in a proposal that he must have "standing" to have his point considered?   This is rediculous.

I did not ignore your argument.  I explained why the rule was passed.  You don't agree with that.  Ok, fine.   There is no point debating the issue now.  Its was put out for feedback, received the same, was debated internally again, and then sent to the BOD.  Lots of people don't agree with rules that are passed.  I just found it odd that you were saying something that wasn't true. 

And to further the point, your letter to the SEB, which brought up many of the same points as your note here, *was* given due consideration.  In fact, as you know, I even took it upon myself to correspond directly with you on several of the points to understand your position further.  That's not something that SEB/AC members typically do, but you raised some good points which needed additional explanation.

And before you think that this was something I personally ramrodded through, that is hardly the case.  I am but one vote on the SEB, and I am merely a liaison to the SPAC.  You've already heard from one current SPAC member and an alumnus.  Plenty more of the SEB and SPAC do not participate on these forums.  That's why these discussions here often seem one-sided and incomplete, since they only represent one or two viewpoints, not the complete view of all those voting.  But then, you knew that because you've been on that side of the fence before.

--Andy 

I got to thinking (no jokes please ) about this and I have a question:  How is it going to be enforced?  There has been a lot of discussion over the years about rules that are un-enforceable, so what about the new SP seat rule? 

It only seems logical to me that all seats and mounts will have to be weighed at tech inspection.  So all SP competitors will have to show up at tech with the tools to remove their seats and have them weighed to pass tech. 

Because this rule is written to increase safety, surely we are not going to require that the competitors police a safety rule, are we?   Or maybe the seats get weighed in impound and then only the trophy winning cars?  Do we care if the non-trophy winning cars are safe?

In all of the various catagories that have a weight spec, all cars get weighed.  Even in SP, if a car is running in an SP class under the Improved Touring rule set from Club Racing, it gets weighed. 

So when and how are these seats going to get weighed?  In tech?  In impound?  Under protest?  Surely you wouldn't require a competitor to protest another to get a seat weighed in the name of safety?  And because it requires dissassembly to remove the seat for weighing, will there be a teardown bond? 

Andy Hollis:

I did not ignore your argument.  I explained why the rule was passed.  You don't agree with that.  Ok, fine.   There is no point debating the issue now.  Its was put out for feedback, received the same, was debated internally again, and then sent to the BOD.  Lots of people don't agree with rules that are passed.  I just found it odd that you were saying something that wasn't true. 

I don't recall reading an explanation as to why it passed, only that it did.  I never said anything that wasn't true.  I was stating a hypothecial case and using my former car as an example.  I know that you knew the car was sold.   

Andy Hollis:

And to further the point, your letter to the SEB, which brought up many of the same points as your note here, *was* given due consideration.  In fact, as you know, I even took it upon myself to correspond directly with you on several of the points to understand your position further.  That's not something that SEB/AC members typically do, but you raised some good points which needed additional explanation.

Yes, I remember our correspondence.  It was limited to the seat back height issue.  I appreciated that attention.  From the SEB's actions I can only assume that when I provide an example where  a safety rule has the opposite of the desired effect and the SEB proceeds to implement the rules as is, without addressing the issue, that they are either unwilling to fix the problem or are too lazy to fix the problem.  Which is it?  Either way, it appears to the membership that safety is paid lip service only.   That the SEB isn't williing to take responsibility to see that the problem is actually solved.

Steve Hoelscher:

I got to thinking (no jokes please )

Awww, come on, don't tee them up like that, then throw in an immediate clarification. That's not fair.   

Steve Hoelscher:

about this and I have a question:  How is it going to be enforced?  There has been a lot of discussion over the years about rules that are un-enforceable, so what about the new SP seat rule? 

It only seems logical to me that all seats and mounts will have to be weighed at tech inspection.  So all SP competitors will have to show up at tech with the tools to remove their seats and have them weighed to pass tech. 

Because this rule is written to increase safety, surely we are not going to require that the competitors police a safety rule, are we?   Or maybe the seats get weighed in impound and then only the trophy winning cars?  Do we care if the non-trophy winning cars are safe?

In all of the various catagories that have a weight spec, all cars get weighed.  Even in SP, if a car is running in an SP class under the Improved Touring rule set from Club Racing, it gets weighed. 

So when and how are these seats going to get weighed?  In tech?  In impound?  Under protest?  Surely you wouldn't require a competitor to protest another to get a seat weighed in the name of safety?  And because it requires dissassembly to remove the seat for weighing, will there be a teardown bond? 

Duuude, think longer.  I *know* you know the answer to this.  

Tech's role is to determine safety.  Tight batteries, wheel bearings, loose objects, Italian engineering, etc.  

NO ONE is saying that a seat & bracket under 20# is inherently unsafe.

A 20# seat/bracket is a minimum.  The 20# number was chosen to remove the INCENTIVE to mount a seat unsafely - it, by itself, does NOT mean that a seat or it's mounting is "safe."

You're confusing the _intent_ of the rule and the rule itself - the INTENT is to eliminate unsafe seat types and mounts.  Without _real_ tech inspections (at shops, like the roadracers do every year), it is virtually impossible to write a rule that, if followed, _WILL_ result in a safely mounted seat (and even *with* real tech inspections, I'd doubt it, having seen some truly frightening roadrace cages).  The intent of the rule is to define an acceptable seat & eliminate the draw of cheesy mounts for weight savings. Will it work 100% of the time?  Nope.  Nothing will.

When will they get weighed?  In the event of a protest.  Teardown?  Dunno.  Book time to remove a seat?  .3?  Sure.  Hell, if I get protested for it, I'll do it for FREE, because I'm a pal.

Maybe in Impound.  Remember the year that you had to take your intake manfold off? 

We require competitors to protest to determine all sorts of other things - wheel width, track width, whether or not the cat has been moved .xx, etc - the seat rule won't be any different.

I know, I know, a .5" too-wide wheel is not a safety issue.  The seat _rule_ is not a safety issue; the inspiration behind it may well be, but the rule itself, in black and white, is a simple, easy to enforce rule - a rule which had safety in mind when it was created.  20# or greater, headrest--> middle of head, etc etc etc is the RULE, not a metric to be used in determining _safety_. 

You know that, though.

Iain
 

Iain Mannix:

[

I know, I know, a .5" too-wide wheel is not a safety issue.  The seat _rule_ is not a safety issue; the inspiration behind it may well be, but the rule itself, in black and white, is a simple, easy to enforce rule - a rule which had safety in mind when it was created.  20# or greater, headrest--> middle of head, etc etc etc is the RULE, not a metric to be used in determining _safety_.  

You miss my point.  I know exactly how rules enforcement works and you certainly know that.  But we have created a completely different animal with this rule.  The purpose of tech inspection is to verify that the car is in a safe condition.  So its tech's responsibility to verify that the seat is safe.  So if a tech inspector decides a seat isn't safely mounted what does he do?  Have it weighted?  And if its over 20 lbs, is it then safe only because it meets the 20 lbs rule?  This rule doesn't legislate safely, only that seats weigh 20 lbs.

In every class that has a weight spec, the car gets weighed.  Every car.  So we now have a weight spec that isn't enforced without a protest?  That contradicts estabilished practice.  My point is that I don't see how this rule fixes anything.   Do you want to be the first person to protest the guy ahead of you for his seat weight?  Its the same as yours but you know you had to add a couple of lbs of balast to make weight and you don't see balast on his.   It meets the letter of the rule in every respect but you expect its too light.  So you protest and the seat weighs 19.95 lbs.   Do you think you will catch hell for a weenie protest???  Who is going to volunteer for that abuse?

Do you expect competitors to actually protest other competitors for seat weight or safety? 

I doubt there will be any enforcement other than voluntary compliance.  And how is that any different from what we have now?.

Steve -

There already is a precedent for not weighing things, even when a specific weight is mentioned in the rules. The "no Mhaonaighs" rule (in SM, for example) says that you can only reduce the weight of a piece by 1# when modifying it to get something else to fit.  It is not the case, however, that all parts modified using this allowance are automatically weighed (and compared to a stock piece).  A protest must be lodged.

Stay focused on what matters: e.g., adding weight to the seat without strengthening the mount will make the car more dangerous, not less. 

- Jtoby

jtmcinder:

There already is a precedent for not weighing things, even when a specific weight is mentioned in the rules. The "no Mhaonaighs" rule (in SM, for example) says that you can only reduce the weight of a piece by 1# when modifying it to get something else to fit.  It is not the case, however, that all parts modified using this allowance are automatically weighed (and compared to a stock piece).  A protest must be lodged.

Stay focused on what matters: e.g., adding weight to the seat without strengthening the mount will make the car more dangerous, not less. 

I would dissagree on your use of precedent in this case.   There is no "spec" for the weight of a modified part in SM, there is an allowance for modification.  There is a spec in SP for the weight of a seat.   There is a spec in all of the prepared and mod classes for the weight of the cars.  We weigh the cars in impound.   Are we going to weigh the seats in SP in impound?  Or at tech?

Enforcement is what matters.  You can write any rule you want but if there is no means of enforcement what good is it?   I really do want to know how this rule is enforced.  I REALLY do.  And I am not being facetious.  How does the SEB see this rule being enforced?  Andy?   Is the SEB expecting tech or impound ot weigh seats or are they expecting competitors to police it?  If the SEB is expecting competitors to protest each other's seats as a means of enforcement, there won't be any meaningfull enforcement.  You doubt me?  Who is going to file a protest and spend the $50 to find out if their competitor is cheating to the tune of 5 lbs? 

This issue doesn't directly impact me because I run in Prepared now but I keep seeing stuff coming out like this and I know its only a matter of time before I get burned by it.  The SM rule mentioned above is another one.  You can't change the weight of a part by more than 1 lbs when modifying it?  How do you enforce that?   It places an un-realistic burden on the protestor, the person who has the burden of policing his competitors.  So it goes un-enforced and therefore becomes voluntary.  Same for the seat rule.  Compliance will become voluntary. 

If safety is the ultimate goal, why not publish a seat and mount guideline and state in the front of the rulebook that seats must be safe and securely mounted in compliance with the guidlines.  Then give the tech inspectors the responsibility for ensuring the seat meets the guidlines.   We already do this for other safety related issues.  Roll bar/cage compliance is but one example.  As it is now, tech can't bounce a clearly unsafe seat if it weighs 20 lbs.  So a competitor could duct tape a molded tinfoil turkey roasting pan to the OE mounting studs, cover it with a pillow case and glue a 20 lbs barbell weight to the rim and call that a head rest and it would be legal.  Not safe, but legal. 

So how is this rule going to be enforced?   Lets look at STS where we got this myopic, utopian rule.  Has there been any enforcement in STS?  Any body been protested for seats in STS?  Are there still issues with seat mounts in STS?