SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

rnoll98:

The smart thing would have been to realize you can safely mount a sub-$500 FIA seat for under 20# with the manufacturers' hardware, and make an exception in the rules process to change it to 15# for this season so you don't have folks strapping weight to otherwise perfectly safe setups. It would have been just as effective at eliminating the kart seats, and you would've eliminated 90% of the resistance you're still getting on it (I'm pretty sure Steve would still be on it--gotta respect that). That's the simple solution.

My safely mounted passenger seat (used steel rails on either side, solidly mounted to both the floor and the (tubular steel frame) seat on either side came in at 18.7 lbs (I think it was) on a baby scale.

I think it took me a total of an hour to weld in a boxed reinforcement between the two rails that made my seat mount even stronger (more than safely mounted? :-) that took my seat weight to 20.3 lbs.  (Note, when I posted above about how the rule was insane and it should have been 19 lbs I was being sarcastic... :-)

My driver's seat, a Corbeau Forza on one of Corbeau's sliders, was something like 23 lbs. (I looked and said "over" so I didn't worry about the exact number).

Personally I like that the seat weight requirement is high enough that you can have a cheap seat mounted to a slider and not give up a ton of weight.  I think a slider driver seat makes the car much more user friendly for multiple or occasional drivers.

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

Compared to those, this rule makes a ton of sense and I completely support it.

Mark

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

Compared to those, this rule makes a ton of sense and I completely support it.

So SP should morph into SM or P?

Howdy,

Mike Shields:

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

Compared to those, this rule makes a ton of sense and I completely support it.

So SP should morph into SM or P?

-Mike

Do you think any of those things I mentioned are the primary "go faster" bits of SM or P?

Spherical suspension bearings, for example, are quite common (in fact I believe your BMW uses them in the factory lower control arm doesn't it?), tend to be easy to fabricate with, etc.  SM and P cars use them because of this (also because they work a little better), but having them doesn't mean your car will go as fast an SM or P car.  In P, the real change comes from relocating chasis pickup points and in SM its from custom spindles to do the same thing but spend more money.

A cam swap similarly isn't where the big power is getting made in the motor... That's happening with headwork & rotating assembly work.

An allowance to remove the (unusable) rear seat if you have a rollbar/cage is just common sense.  There's no way in hell that you'll remove as much weight as you're adding, and you're adding it higher up.

And yes, I wish SP would allow all these extremely common upgrades.

Mark

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best...

Totally agreed. Get the SEB to let SM not have to take THIS "stupid thing" and you'll lose this critic. We've written rules to get around all your other stuff, but have been drug along for the ride on this one. The fact that this rule is different for STS than SP/SM, and that nobody even thought to include P makes it really hard to back it up any sort of argument that it was motivated by safety. The slower cars need more safety (ST-25#). The faster cars need less (SP/SM-20#). The fastest cars don't need any. ;)

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best...

Totally agreed. Get the SEB to let SM not have to take THIS "stupid thing" and you'll lose this critic. We've written rules to get around all your other stuff, but have been drug along for the ride on this one. The fact that this rule is different for STS than SP/SM, and that nobody even thought to include P makes it really hard to back it up any sort of argument that it was motivated by safety. The slower cars need more safety (ST-25#). The faster cars need less (SP/SM-20#). The fastest cars don't need any. ;)

Well, its not like the SMAC can't put out for member comment that they want a lower / no minimum on the seat weight, right?  Or is the SEB stopping the SMAC from doing that?

The argument for safety still exists... P and M both have weight minimums that by and large can be fairly easily reached... You don't have competitors whoring out their grandmothers to lose a pound from the seat area in those classes.

That's not the case in ST/SP (no minimums at all) or SM (unrealistic minimums for many/most cars).

Again, to me this rule makes sense because it removes the competitive motivation for doing a crap seat/seat mount.  Other motivations still exist (laziness & stupidity being primary), but at least now someone doesn't have to choose between a lightweight unsafe setup vs. a heavier well engineered approach.  I also like that the rule helps to limit costs.

I agree with folks that say it'd be better to have Tech enforce safety, but we don't have a tech program or culture in place to support that and getting there will be a long process.  In the meantime at least now I can, as a competitor who wants a safe seat mount, have a decent setup without giving up an advantage to someone with a kart seat & a few sheet metal screws.

Plus, it really pisses off Steve H. which is always entertaining.  :-)

Mark

(and, FWIW, I say this as someone that had to redo their seat mount to meet the new minimum weight)

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

If SP is so screwed up why do you run there??? 

You complaints about SP astound me.   Every item you sighted has been part of SP since the beginning.  If you understood the wide range and types of OE bushings and how they operate you would realize that its impossible to write a bushing rule that eliminates offset bushings.  They are not "allowed"  they are not prohibited.  Same basic thing for airbags.  They are not mandated, there is no rule that allows them to be removed.  From the beginning SP did not permit internal engine mods or other non-OE driveline options.  That's part of the philosophy.  The value of the custom engine management is reduced because you can't make internal engine mods.  You chose to install a roll bar, deal with it.  Aftermarket turbos and NOS are also popular/common mods, using your thinking, those should be allowed.

  We have one group that keeps screaming to put the "street back in street prepared" and you want to throw away any vestages of "street".   You think those people might dissagree with you? You have SM, go run there.  That's what its for.

The seat rule is a stupid rule regardless of what catagory its in.  That its now part of SP simply raised its profile.  I ran in SP since its inception and may very well go back there again.  If and when I do, I would like it to retain the characteristics that made it a great catagory.  Also, I would like to stop this here so I don't have to deal with it when it gets to prepared in a couple more years. 

My fundamental problem with this rule is its philosophy.  It is an attempt to control costs in the name of safety when neither of those goals are achieved.  There is no sanctioning body in the world that has figured out a way to control costs in racing.  Why do we think our little program can?  The only method of controlling costs is rules stability. 

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best...

Totally agreed. Get the SEB to let SM not have to take THIS "stupid thing" and you'll lose this critic. We've written rules to get around all your other stuff, but have been drug along for the ride on this one. The fact that this rule is different for STS than SP/SM, and that nobody even thought to include P makes it really hard to back it up any sort of argument that it was motivated by safety. The slower cars need more safety (ST-25#). The faster cars need less (SP/SM-20#). The fastest cars don't need any. ;)

Well, its not like the SMAC can't put out for member comment that they want a lower / no minimum on the seat weight, right?  Or is the SEB stopping the SMAC from doing that?

You'd think, wouldn't you? No comment.

Hmm, when I got this seat mount weight thing going in ST a couple years ago, who knew what a stir it'd cause. 

I see it a bit like this - we have a board and a nail that needs to be driven into it.  Problem is, we only have one tool in our toolbox, and it's a wrench.  We have three options:

1. Do nothing.  For many, this would have been the preferred approach.

2. Go get a good hammer and pound it in right ("..any job worth doing...").  In this case, write an enforceable safety-based seat mounting rule, acquire whatever on-site equipment would be needed to validate its adherence, and train every needed person in the operation of that equipment.

3. Try to accomplish the task with the only tool at hand - pound in the nail with the wrench.  At our Solo events, the scale is the only mechanism we have in tech would be consistently available, repeatable in its metering, and easy-to-use enough for the lowest common demonitator of individual we have doing tech.  It is clearly the wrong tool for the job, but maybe that is better than nothing?  That is up for debate.

I personally don't think the solution holds up well at all outside the context of ST, where a lot of the kids are building "race cars" for the first time.  I think it is especially ridiculous in SM, where we can have a gajillion HP and carbon fiber everything, yet are bound to what, for a well-done SM car, is a seat mount of relative "boat anchor" proportions.  I find it unfortunate that this approach propagated outside of ST, a consequence I admittedly did not envision.

Did I mention how nice it is to run SS?  90+% of the performance of an SP or SM car, with none of these sorts of hassles. 

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

If SP is so screwed up why do you run there??? 

Because my car is uncompetitive in SM, but is quite competitive in ESP.  That doesn't mean I think the SP rules make sense.

You complaints about SP astound me.   Every item you sighted has been part of SP since the beginning.  If you understood the wide range and types of OE bushings and how they operate you would realize that its impossible to write a bushing rule that eliminates offset bushings.  They are not "allowed"  they are not prohibited.  Same basic thing for airbags.  They are not mandated, there is no rule that allows them to be removed.  From the beginning SP did not permit internal engine mods or other non-OE driveline options.  That's part of the philosophy.  The value of the custom engine management is reduced because you can't make internal engine mods.  You chose to install a roll bar, deal with it.  Aftermarket turbos and NOS are also popular/common mods, using your thinking, those should be allowed.

Well, if they've been part of SP from the beginning, then they must be ok, right?  Like the unlimited induction allowance?

Heaven forbid that we _change_ something in SP, right?

Isn't that your primary beef with the new seat rule?  Its a change from what we had 20 years ago, so it must be bad, right?

:-)

 

  We have one group that keeps screaming to put the "street back in street prepared" and you want to throw away any vestages of "street".   You think those people might dissagree with you? You have SM, go run there.  That's what its for.

I would, if my car was competitive there.  It isn't.  Sue me for wanting to run the car in a class its capable of winning in.

Lots of factory vehicles use spherical bearings for suspension joints from the factory (hello bmw).  Seems like they're pretty streetable there.  Seems like they're a hell of a lot more streetable than open individual air horns with no filters.  :-)

I'm quite sure people will disagree with me.  The difference between them disagreeing with me and me disagreeing with you is that I'm right and you're not.

:-)

The seat rule is a stupid rule regardless of what catagory its in.  That its now part of SP simply raised its profile.  I ran in SP since its inception and may very well go back there again.  If and when I do, I would like it to retain the characteristics that made it a great catagory.  Also, I would like to stop this here so I don't have to deal with it when it gets to prepared in a couple more years. 

My fundamental problem with this rule is its philosophy.  It is an attempt to control costs in the name of safety when neither of those goals are achieved.  There is no sanctioning body in the world that has figured out a way to control costs in racing.  Why do we think our little program can?  The only method of controlling costs is rules stability. 

Steve, that's horsecrap and you know it.  Certainly no sanctioning body has mandated a particular cost for a program, but they've certainly controlled costs in some manner.

Using your argument, everything should be legal in every class, since you can't control costs anyway.  F1 car in NASCAR?  May as well, can't control costs!  MotoGP bike in 600 Supersport racing?  Why not, we can't control the costs!

Under the new rule you'd be a total moron to go buy a $2k psycho lightweight seat.  Under the old rule you'd get some benefit.  Tell me how that doesn't help to control costs, using little words?

Mark

(I get it, you don't like the rule.  I do, and just as much as you don't. :-))

rnoll98:

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best...

Totally agreed. Get the SEB to let SM not have to take THIS "stupid thing" and you'll lose this critic. We've written rules to get around all your other stuff, but have been drug along for the ride on this one. The fact that this rule is different for STS than SP/SM, and that nobody even thought to include P makes it really hard to back it up any sort of argument that it was motivated by safety. The slower cars need more safety (ST-25#). The faster cars need less (SP/SM-20#). The fastest cars don't need any. ;)

P was considered.  But in P, you are typically required to have a roll bar which gives you a great place to attach the rear of the seatback.  In fact, most road race cars are built this way, rather than just a base mount.  Way safer.  So if you mandated OE attachment points, you might render such an attachment illegal.

As for the difference between ST and SP, the lower number was originally considered for ST.  But there was a secondary goal of eliminating the weight advantage of swapping out seats altogether.  The ST preamble states that the category embraces common street enthusiast mods.  Well, most "common street enthusiasts" swap the seats for cosmetic reasons or for better interface, not for weight savings.  Since the rule was going in anyway, the actual number used was upped to disincentivize some common seat swaps (Miata, CRX, Civic).  Such a tenet does not exist for SP, so that's where the discrepancy comes from between ST and SP.

--Andy

marka:

All the bitching on this rule astounds me.  There are _so_ many other stupid things in SP that make this seem silly at best... Offset bushings (essentially required to be custom) vs. aftermarket control arms (plentiful for most popular cars)?  Requiring non-metal bushings so you can't use the cheap/easy/common spherical bearings.  Requiring a passenger side airbag.  Requiring a rear seat, even though you have a rollbar that makes it unusable.  Allowing totally custom engine management but not allowing a simple cam swap.  Allowing any wheel/tire & diff, but not allowing any final drive gearing.  Allowing any spring setup, but only in the stock location, etc. etc. etc.

Compared to those, this rule makes a ton of sense and I completely support it.

Mark

I completely agree (with the exception of the idea of safety). I didn't expect anyone to find anything wrong with this rule. Yet here I am stuck with not being allowed to buy a readily  available camber kit for my car. But the guys with a strut style suspension can add camber plates. Let alone the other things you listed.

You hit the nail on the head sir! 

Andy Hollis:

P was considered.  But in P, you are typically required to have a roll bar which gives you a great place to attach the rear of the seatback.  In fact, most road race cars are built this way, rather than just a base mount.  Way safer.  So if you mandated OE attachment points, you might render such an attachment illegal.

Neat. Where in the rules does it keep a P car from having a kart seat duct taped to the floor? Why don't they need to be liberated from the shackles of their own ignorance?

By your same rationale, because SP and SM cars are mandated to keep the original seat mounting points (where P can modify the floor), they too have a "great place to attach" a seat, and we should just assume they're all going to use it, just like we're assuming all P guys are going to bolt to the roll bar, right? I'm no engineer, but I think I'd rather have the crash tested floor mount than be bolted to a roll bar that is going to allow no flex and transmit the entire load of a rear impact to my back.

Having a great place to mount a seat and using it are two different things, and a mandated weight doesn't bridge the gap between them.

rnoll98:

Andy Hollis:

P was considered.  But in P, you are typically required to have a roll bar which gives you a great place to attach the rear of the seatback.  In fact, most road race cars are built this way, rather than just a base mount.  Way safer.  So if you mandated OE attachment points, you might render such an attachment illegal.

Neat. Where in the rules does it keep a P car from having a kart seat duct taped to the floor? Why don't they need to be liberated from the shackles of their own ignorance?

Darwinism.

Part of the Great Plan to Eliminate Prepared. 

Dumb Prepared drivers kill themselves off.

--Andy 

PS: Seriously, P was not given much attention other than what I said, because the problem was much harder to solve there.  Basically on a par with specing roll bars and such.  So the easier problem was attended to.  Solving one was better than none.

PPS: Curious,  you said earlier that had the # been 15 pounds that it would have solved things fine.  So you are really squabling over five pounds per seat yes?   Quite a bit of vitriol for such a small thing, doncha think?

rnoll98:

10# would've gotten rid of the kart seats and solved your problem. 15# would've allowed any real, safe, seat, save maybe some $2k+ all CF exotic setup. 20# is bordering on insulting.

Forget Prepared. Look at D-E Mod.

You can build a "coupe" with NO roll bar or roll cage at all, and make the body out of the thinnest fiberglass possible. Then, you can do whatever you want with the seat as long as it doesn't cross the centerline of the car. 

Howdy,

rnoll98:

Andy Hollis:

P was considered.  But in P, you are typically required to have a roll bar which gives you a great place to attach the rear of the seatback.  In fact, most road race cars are built this way, rather than just a base mount.  Way safer.  So if you mandated OE attachment points, you might render such an attachment illegal.

Neat. Where in the rules does it keep a P car from having a kart seat duct taped to the floor? Why don't they need to be liberated from the shackles of their own ignorance?

By your same rationale, because SP and SM cars are mandated to keep the original seat mounting points (where P can modify the floor), they too have a "great place to attach" a seat, and we should just assume they're all going to use it, just like we're assuming all P guys are going to bolt to the roll bar, right? I'm no engineer, but I think I'd rather have the crash tested floor mount than be bolted to a roll bar that is going to allow no flex and transmit the entire load of a rear impact to my back.

Having a great place to mount a seat and using it are two different things, and a mandated weight doesn't bridge the gap between them.

Randy, remember the whole point of this is to not penalize the guy that does it right rather than to require it to be done right... As such, you take away any weight advantage and the guy that's doing it right doesn't get screwed and (maybe) the guy that woulda done it wrong does it right because he's not going to give anything up to do so.

P & M cars, in general, all run ballast already.  The seat mount is a decent place to have weight in a car.  Putting a weight limit on the seat mount for them isn't needed, because they already could 'afford' the weight of a good mount.

ST, SP, and SM either don't have minimum weights or don't have minimum weights they can easily hit.  As such, there's motivation to lose weight from a seat mount in those classes that just doesn't exist in P & M.

You guys keep looking at this rule and getting pissed off because it doesn't actually require a safe seat mount.  We all agree on that.  Get over it and recognize that the point of the rule is to let you have a safe seat mount _without being at a competitive disadvantage_.

Mark

Andy Hollis:

PS: Seriously, P was not given much attention other than what I said, because the problem was much harder to solve there.  Basically on a par with specing roll bars and such.  So the easier problem was attended to.  Solving one was better than none.

PPS: Curious,  you said earlier that had the # been 15 pounds that it would have solved things fine.  So you are really squabling over five pounds per seat yes?   Quite a bit of vitriol for such a small thing, doncha think?

re: PS: That's fair. I can appreciate that thought process.

re: PPS: When we're lobbying for things like replacement trunk lids to allow more of our cars to get closer to their minimum weight, this negates some of those efforts. Maybe the min weights are wrong, but again, that doesn't make this rule more right. Aside from that, I think the underlying insult that I referred to above is probably motivating folks against this more than the weight. It's a shame that a fairly small community like ours has to use rules like this to get people to be safe. I really think a softer approach would have been as effective, maybe more. You've actually motivated some folks (who possibly feel the same insult) to try to run the seat you're trying to eliminate, because the hole in the rule is that wide. Doesn't that say something?

Howdy Mark :)  

It's the cheap guys who build bad mounts, not the light guys. You can buy aluminum Sparco mounts that can't weigh more than a pound or so total. You'll pay about $260 to mount two seats per their website. As I referenced above, and someone provided a great example, the cheap guys are still going to hardware stores to buy materials to fab their own mounts. They're just now mounting heavier (and cheaper) seats. Find a company to offer $25 stamped aluminum seat mounts to autocrossers and publicize it a little, and you'll do more for safety than this rule ever will.