SCCAForums.com

I'm not saying it is bad, though if it were a stated objective of the SEB to reduce the cost of entry into SM, then there are (as you say) lots of places we can try and do that.  In the process we'll probably piss off the rest of the people still tolerant of SM rule changes and have no class left. 

We're diverging from the original discussion.  We have a rule going through that is chasing safety by mandating weight.  I don't like that solution, but that's just my opinion. 

-Andy M.

marka:

I mean other than for the existing folks that spent money on expensive seats being jealous that new folks don't need to do that, where exactly is the harm?

Its bad because it sets a dangerous preceedent.  This rule is more about limiting costs than safety.  I always thought that cost were the motivations behind the STS seat rule masquerading as safety.  Limiting the advantage that a competitor can gain from creative solutions to problems is counter to the sport and the SP catagory in particular.  Now that the precendent has been set, what's to stop them from setting weight limits on wheels or shocks.  That would certainly have that same effect. 

marka:

Did you honestly really want to spend an extra $1k to save ten pounds on a seat?  Does anyone really want to do that?  Or do they feel obligated to?

No, but I would like to have that option.  My DSP car was 230 lbs heavier on the left side.  I put a very light seat and mounting scheme in it when I built it to try and correct as much of this imbalance as I could.  It was perfectly safe.  This rule would have added nearly 20 lbs to the driver side of that car and worsened my problem. (Please note the past tense Andy)  I might be willing to spend that kind of money.  Remember, nowhere was spending that kind of money on a seat mandated before this new rule.

The thing is, up until now, costs has never entered into the equasion.  Cost comes up all the time.  Like $100,000 SS cars or $8000 shocks, but its always dismissed.  This is the first time that costs have driven a preparation rule to this extent.  We should be promoting creative solutions to technical issues, not penalizing them.   The rules should punish those that cut corners at the expense of safety, not those that do it properly.  This rule has it all backwards.  That's what makes it a bad rule.

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

 Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

Its bad because it sets a dangerous preceedent.  This rule is more about limiting costs than safety.  I always thought that cost were the motivations behind the STS seat rule masquerading as safety.  Limiting the advantage that a competitor can gain from creative solutions to problems is counter to the sport and the SP catagory in particular.  Now that the precendent has been set, what's to stop them from setting weight limits on wheels or shocks.  That would certainly have that same effect. 

It doesn't set any more dangerous preceedent than not allowing cam swaps in SP.  The rules limit costs all the time.  That's the _point_ of the different categories, at least to me.

What stops them from setting weight limits on wheels or shocks is the same thing that always stops the SEB when the membership doesn't agree... Feedback.  If a change makes sense, it should be made.  Nobody really wants super expensive seats, they buy them because they don't want to give up an advantage to the other guy.

And I disagree that cost is what's driving this... I _do_ think its important to remove the incentive to purchase and mount a seat in a half-ass manner.  The only reason people do that is to save weight and/or money.  A weight limit removes some of that incentive.

I agree its not the same thing as having the god of all tech folks bless every instance of seat mounting personally, but to do something like that would require a much farther reaching effort that what you see here.  Where's the downside of removing the incentive in the meantime.

As for requiring GCR mounting, the GCR doesn't say a heck of a lot about it.  There are a couple rules about the headrest design/implementation, a mention of needing a backbrace (both, interestingly enough in the roll cage section in this 2006 copy of the GCR I could get to easily), a note that the seat shall be "firmly mounted to the structure of the car" (and what the heck does _that_ mean really?).  That's about it.

What makes the GCR rules work is that the scrutineer folks have the teeth & training to look at a mounting setup and say "no way".  We don't have anything like that sorta judgement call in tech right now, and _certainly_ don't have the training program to even move that way.  Most tech folks (and I speak as a former assistent chief of tech at nationals, regional solo chair, etc.) have no training whatsoever beyond "hey, you know about cars, right?"

You can't implement real safety wording in our current environment.  So removing the incentive is the best we can do right now.  If that changes, and there's a huge competitor outcry to spend stupid amounts of money on seats, then we can remove the weight limit.  But until then, I like this as a compromise.

Mark

jtmcinder:

actor:

Or, to quote a well known movie, "The Shoot Horses, Don't They?" *

*Please note:  No animals were hurt in the making of this post.

Maybe not, but the English language seems to have taken a hit.

- Jtoby

ps. good point, Andy, on the lack of feedback from SM; not enough attention is paid to inherited rules 

 

OMG!  I'm SOOO embarrassed!  I made a TYPO.  I left the "y" off of the first word.

 

Thank you SOOO much for finding this!  I swear, I'll NEVER do that again. 

 

Again, thank you pointing out my egregious error.  Say good night, Gracie. 

---

Bill Schenker
CalClub & S.D.R. #14 CSP 10AE Miata
Owner/Builder 2005-'07 CSP ProSolo Finale Champ./2007 National Champ. & runner up

 Howdy,

boxboy:

We have a rule going through that is chasing safety by mandating weight.  I don't like that solution, but that's just my opinion. 

As I've hopefully implied, I don't particularly like it either in the abstract.  However, I think it helps the situation some & I can't come up with anything better (that can actually be implemented).  Since I can't come up with anything better and I don't see any downside to this (unless saving money and/or buying a 5 lb barbell is considered a significant downside), I'll support it.

Mark

marka:

 It doesn't set any more dangerous preceedent than not allowing cam swaps in SP. 

I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. 

marka:

What stops them from setting weight limits on wheels or shocks is the same thing that always stops the SEB when the membership doesn't agree... Feedback.  If a change makes sense, it should be made.  Nobody really wants super expensive seats, they buy them because they don't want to give up an advantage to the other guy.

Common sense hopefully.  Nobody WANTS to spend any money at all but thinking you can legislate money out of the equasion is the same myopic, utopian fantasy land thinking that got us the problem in ST_ we have now.  Including this rule.

marka:

And I disagree that cost is what's driving this... I _do_ think its important to remove the incentive to purchase and mount a seat in a half-ass manner.  The only reason people do that is to save weight and/or money.  A weight limit removes some of that incentive.

I covered this in my previous post.  I garantee cost is what drove the orignial rule in STS.  If you listened to those guys when they were working on the original rule set, that was the PRIMARY issue on almost any subject.

 

Steve Hoelscher:

 We should be promoting creative solutions to technical issues, not penalizing them.   The rules should punish those that cut corners at the expense of safety, not those that do it properly.  This rule has it all backwards.  That's what makes it a bad rule.

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

Rules don't limit costs. Rules make it more complicated and more expensive to work the exception to the rule. Particularly in this case.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

I agree that you can't legislate stupidity out of the game or safety into the game with a weight rule.

Make an engineering standard or use a current existing one from another venue.

Adding weight does nothing to prevent a unsafe seat.

Freaks will just make a feather seat with lead placed in the correct place according to corner weight data and polar moment of inertia and CG blah, blah, blah..

 FM
 

 

George Doganis:

 

...the horse has already left the barn.  

--Andy

 

The fact is that the wrong, "fat" and "ugly" "horse" left the barn. The people responsible for letting it out of the barn should bring it back, put it on a diet and fix any lame legs it has.

George

 Daaaammmmnnn....who the h*ll bought that ugly 'ol horse in the first place?    :^)

 On a more serious note, I guess I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the interest in bringing in this rule.  What I'm hearing here is that the intent is to disallow "unsafe" seats which appears to mean seats that are not bolted down properly rather than "kart seats" per se.  Would a rule mandating proper attachment of seats be more appropriate in that case?

 Then there is the headrest issue........think Bill suggested adding a headrest then.....and I add appropriately attached.  Early cars without headrests and karts would require full seats also?  There appear to be a few holes here.

Do all the Super 7's have headrests (I'm thinking this may be the exception)?  Is most of D-Mod not affected by this?

 Reijo (who shares a seat in this controversy)

---

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

fastmike:

Adding weight does nothing to prevent a unsafe seat.

Freaks will just make a feather seat with lead placed in the correct place according to corner weight data and polar moment of inertia and CG blah, blah, blah..

 FM  

 

Did I just hear my name called?!

And to the point:  I can take MY seat, run a piece of gum from it to the OEM mounting points, and I'll be legal (after I make an appropriately high and safe seat back, as I DO think low kart seats can be dangerous) ; should be able to run a piece of string from my seat to the right rear portion of the trunk (lightest point on a Miata) and attach it to about 13lbs.  - will be legal there too.  Hell, and I'm giving away ALL my secrets here, I'll run that string through some hole in the unibody and mount that 13lbs. down low, under the trunk!!!

 

THIS RULE DOESN'T WORK! 

 

P.S.  D*mnit!  Riejo's got a newer pic. of my car in his avatar!!! 

---

Bill Schenker
CalClub & S.D.R. #14 CSP 10AE Miata
Owner/Builder 2005-'07 CSP ProSolo Finale Champ./2007 National Champ. & runner up

Damn, I thought the ST guys were bad, you guys take the cake! As has been said about 30 times already, the intent is to REMOVE INCENTIVE FOR POORLY MOUNTED, UNSAFE SEATS. I bolded it so it might sink in. Again, it's the INCENTIVE that is being removed. You might have a leg to stand on with the seatback height and really tall drivers. It hasn't been a problem in ST though. Trying to say this is a stupid rule because it doesn't make anyone's seat safer is retarded. That isn't the intent! So, you mount your seat with gum. Great, you'll get cracked in the head because you're a crummy engineer, but your seat will still weigh 20lbs so if Joe wants to keep up with the Joneses but actually has a brain, he'll realize he can mount his seat sturdily to the car and won't pay a penalty on weight. He won't have to spend $3k+ on 7lb, full size carbon fiber seats either, or risk driving his dual purpose car on the street with kart seats.

So you see, by removing the INCENTIVE for a kart seat velcroed to the floor, you get a side affect of safer seats. How much safer? Depends on the builder. At least there is no penalty for doing it right vs. doing a shortcut. And is this REALLY a big deal for you guys? How much do your seats weigh right now? If kart seats were banned, you'd have to buy a new seat anyhow. If you could only afford that $450 Momo Cup seat (15lbs) but others could buy the 7lb $1500/ea carbon fiber seats, would you be inclined to use thinner brackets, fewer reinforcements, and lighter hardware in an attempt to make up for the extra weight you have to carry? You wouldn't have to if everyone had to get there seats up to, say, 20lbs. There would be no incentive to cut corners and keep the weight down. Remember, this rule doesn't mandate safer seats, it removes the incentive for creating an unsafe seat. As such, the rule works. I would like to see a better way of defining the seatback height, but that's about it.

Nate - sad to see the naysayers and doomsdayers are in every category

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

solo-x:

That isn't the intent! So, you mount your seat with gum. Great, you'll get cracked in the head because you're a crummy engineer, but your seat will still weigh 20lbs so if Joe wants to keep up with the Joneses but actually has a brain, he'll realize he can mount his seat sturdily to the car and won't pay a penalty on weight. He won't have to spend $3k+ on 7lb, full size carbon fiber seats either, or risk driving his dual purpose car on the street with kart seats.

 

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.

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. 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

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.

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. 

With all due respect Steve, you are missing the point. The intent of the rule is to remove incentive for poorly mounted seats. A side effect would be safer mounted seats, limited only by how good of an engineer the person mounting the seat is. To mandate safer seat mounting would require sweeping changes with training of tech personnel and the tech process itself. Could it be done? I don't see why not, but it's not going to be easy and would probably require a ton more work then just re-engineering your seat. Imagine things like requiring seat back braces for non-FIA approved seats, or worse, requiring all seats to be FIA approved. Do you really want to have to replace your seat every couple of years because the FIA tag has expired? I don't.

Speaking of engineering, you're telling me that you're a good enough engineer to install your seat safely and have it weigh 11lbs, but you can't figure out how to install your seat so it is equally safe while having the added advantage of being able to utilize 9lbs of extra steel to do it with? Forgive me while bow in awe of your engineering prowess! I must say though, kudo's to you for not minding that your car could be 12+lbs lighter if you using some kart seats and velcro.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

Dealing with another part of this issue:  Kart seats.  Inherently unsafe some people are saying here it appears to me.  No headrest.  Not mounted properly.

 1.  I note that these same seats handle full-sized adults in karts at over 2.0 g's of acceleration/lateral force.  Why can this not be so in a car.  I have been co-driving Bill's Miata this year - all year - with a kart seat in it.  Is it mounted solidly?  It feels more solid to me than anything else I've sat in.  I've also driven karts and don't recall any issues with the seat flexing etc. (although I think I bruised my ribs and back during that bit of racing!!!).  I figure the kart seats were designed to hold full-sized people (or as big as can fit in them!  hahaha).  Go figure.

 2.  No headrest.  True, it feels strange to me too.  However are we in traffic?  Seat backs are designed for rear-end collisions.  What's the likelihood of that in a solo?  Perhaps if you spin and hit a pole backwards I suppose it is possible as even Bill mentioned.

For consideration perhaps we should reflect on what happens if you spin 180 deg.....then slide into a pole.  At typical solo speeds into a corner, how fast do you think you might be going in an SP car after you have spun it?....and covered the 50' or whatever into said fixed object?  Personally, I can't imagine the car would be going fast by that time....if it even manages to make it that far.

Bad course designs are another issue here I suppose and perhaps other factors not mentioned.  Having said that freak conditions can occur but I don't know that you should write rules and design courses for that.  Nobody can afford that.

For example from another field of engineering:  What kind of a house would have and what would it cost if it could weather any hurricane or earthquake without damage of any kind?  What about a car that could save occupants from 100 or 200 mph collisions?  Does it make sense?  Is that realistic?

3. A seat not mounted properly.  Not a good idea.  It could seriously slow you down if it works/breaks loose during a run at nationals and you lose some places.  Not a good thing at all.  Don't recommend it.  Just mount it properly.   :^)

 Cheers!

Reijo

---

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

Do you wear a neck brace while driving a miata with a kart seat in it?

I've been hit from behind in a kart that was nearly stationary by one that was going roughly 30mph. My back and neck hurt pretty bad for a couple of months after that. How many g's does one experience getting hit by something moving 30mph that weighs 450lbs? What if they are in a 2200lb car hurtling at 30mph towards a fixed object? How many g's do they experience in that impact? I'm asking because I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to think that the g's experienced in scenario 2 are substantially higher then those experienced in scenario 1.

So is your issue with the rule change that you don't see a reason to effectively ban kart seats, or is it because you think the dis-insentive to mount your kart seat with velcro is un-needed/poorly implemented/a red herring?

To clarify my postition a little more, I believe the weight minimum removes the incentive to mount your seat with velcro and the seat back height requirement is the safety improvement part of the rule.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

This whole discussion provides an interesting view, to an outsider to this issue, on the many varied thought processes and rational put forward to defend all positions.

Words like:
Intent.
Low cost, light and safe.
To costly to be light and safe.
Competitive advantage at the expense of safety, weight.
Incentives to be safe and ways to remain NOT safe and put ballast where it works.
And many more.

Our sport is inherently safe because of rule sets in place that prevent some foolish behavior.  We limit speeds, have requirements for distance from objects that can cause car/ human damage.
We prevent people from wearing shoulder harnesses in convertibles without roll structures.  All smart ideas and there are many more.  

We also do some dumb things like allowing harnesses in car with roofs of questionable roll strength.  I have done this one as have many/most?  Fortunately rollovers and other impacts are rare events.

However, to literally throw lead (ballast) at a problem, that is felt to be a safety concern, seems to be an agreeably outrageous solution no matter the intent.  But, clearly few agree. We know some will not change their seats and just ballast up no matter the rules intent, incentive….  Pick another word as these mean little.

Whether one wrote letters on this proposal or not is as meaningless as the safety intent, incentive value of this rule.

---

Tim R
#80 BS 2009 RX8

ReijoAS:

Dealing with another part of this issue:  Kart seats.  Inherently unsafe some people are saying here it appears to me.  No headrest.  Not mounted properly.

 1.  I note that these same seats handle full-sized adults in karts at over 2.0 g's of acceleration/lateral force.  Why can this not be so in a car...

 2.  No headrest...

solo-x:

Do you wear a neck brace while driving a miata with a kart seat in it?

Assuming a kart seat is adaquately mounted, short kart seats are not designed to have someone strapped into them inside a car. As minimal as it is, a tall racing seat that reaches the top of the shoulders and preferably the top of the head offers a larger amount of roll and impact protection. Look to sports racing cars for an example of this. They used to use VERY similar seats (until they went to formula style seats) that reached up over the shoulders even in a laydown configuration. A seperate headrest was attached to the rollbar.

And the karting neck brace, does nothing in an impact. It's strictly a brace to help you hold your head up during high-G movements. It's a comfort device, not a safety device.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

solo-x:

Do you wear a neck brace while driving a miata with a kart seat in it?

I've been hit from behind in a kart that was nearly stationary by one that was going roughly 30mph. My back and neck hurt pretty bad for a couple of months after that. How many g's does one experience getting hit by something moving 30mph that weighs 450lbs? Wh