SCCAForums.com

rnoll98:

By the way, Bill is a poster child of how the rule would still work well if the min was 10 or 15#. It made him replace the kart seat with a "real" seat with a high back that is securely mounted to the car at the proper location. Success! Yet here we are talking about the meaningless piece of steel bolted to his floorboard, completely missing the fact that with our without the ballast, we may have saved Bill's life.

The good news is not that we saved Bill's life.  The good news is that Bill no longer has a performance advantage over someone who actually cares enough to properly engineer a race seat.  Whether that be the easy approach of purchasing a hi-quality FIA seat with application-specific mounting bracketry (the "gold card" approach) or be it something along the lines of a Kirkey and custom brute-force fabrication.  

*That* is the goal of 15.2.F ("20 lbs, seat back height, mounted to OE points", etc.).

The safety bit is in 3.3.3.B.2  ("securely and safely mounted")

The further down from 20 lbs you go, the less folks will be able to use the "gold card" approach w/o giving up a performance advantage.  They will be encouraged instead to use the fabrication approach, which may entail skills they don't have.  In fact, it will likely be more expensive then the gold card, pre-fab approach if they have to farm it out.  Or, more likely, they'll just do a crappy job of it and call it a day.  "Looks good to me!"

To me, this makes sense in SP.  If you want to push it further for SM, you'll just continue to move further down the road of custom fab.  Weren't you already concerned about the perception of difference between fully-built national SM/SM2 cars?  Participation issues and all?  I'd think you'd want to encourage an off-the-shelf solution.  Especially when you are arguing over 5 lbs.  This in a car that makes how much power?

--Andy

Howdy,

actor:

Solo-x, I don't know who you are, but knowing NOTHING of me or what my seats look like or how they are mounted, you are making some nasty accusations.  Making a "mockery of a sport" ?  Really?  You sure you want to stand by that when you have NO IDEA about what or how my seats are mounted?

For your edification, I'd love to attach pics. of my "fly swatter seats" and the ballast that's not "anywhere near the seats".  If some one would be so kind to show me how, I'll do it.

Bill, whose seats are these?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16962809@N05/sets/72157603821906527/

Mark

Hey!  No fair!  Those weren't complete!  The "headrests" were supposed to be drilled!

 Reijo

Since so many common, popular "race" seats are right around 15#, I don't see how lowering the weight won't encourage sketchy mounting again.  Even at 20# the incentive for poor mounting isn't necessarily removed, especially if you have a seat that's already near 20#.

Just to throw an idea out there, what if the min weight was changed to be, seat + 2lbs (or maybe 3lbs?), effectively setting a min weight for the mounts and hardware but not the seat.

If we also want to contain cost or weight, there could be a min ontop of that, say 15# total.  But I thought the point was really to try and encourage safer mounting...

Howdy,

Jojoo:

Hey, it fits within the rule.

If I put a stroker crankshaft in my car, but say that its really an underdrive pulley, I bet I'd be protested.

Just, you know, saying.

Mark

Andy Hollis:

rnoll98:

By the way, Bill is a poster child of how the rule would still work well if the min was 10 or 15#. It made him replace the kart seat with a "real" seat with a high back that is securely mounted to the car at the proper location. Success! Yet here we are talking about the meaningless piece of steel bolted to his floorboard, completely missing the fact that with our without the ballast, we may have saved Bill's life.

The good news is not that we saved Bill's life.  The good news is that Bill no longer has a performance advantage over someone who actually cares enough to properly engineer a race seat. 

Now I'm questioning the motivation at all for this rule. So safety was not a motivator at all in this?

Then the whole motivator for this rule, all this effort, was to save Joe-cheapo the same 5# you're attempting to belittle me for arguing over? The whole rule was written to attempt to bridge this cavernous void in SP between the front runners (with $10k motors and $5k coilovers) and the also rans, by forcing a min weight for seats? I can see the playing field levelling as we speak.

In that case, I'm going to start drafting my letter on min weights for wheels by size. I'm tired of paying $4k for two sets of wheels that save me maybe 3# per corner. I'd like to run steelies, and would like the SEB to support my cause by forcing everyone else to do the same. Considering we're talking thousands of dollars difference here, and only hundreds for seats, I'm expecting this proposal to be rubber stamped for the '09 season.

I think we need to step back. Can someone post, in plain English rather than rules-speak, what this rule is meant to do? If you could make everyone do something and not have liability, loophole, or anything else, what exactly were we trying to accomplish? I realize getting these translated to enforceable rules is tough, but I think we've lost sight of the intent/spirit here. I'll even take a first swing so everyone can laugh:

I want everyone to use a seat that will reasonably support their torso and head in a rear impact, where a kart seat might bend them in half. I want the seat to be mounted in a way that it won't snap off in an impact or rollover. I would like aftermarket seats to be as safe as stock seats. If that's not possible, I want them to be at least certified in some way (FIA or otherwise) and mounted as securely as stock seats, so that if a failure occurs, it happens to the certified seat and not the mounts. I also might explore a harness/lap belt requirement for aftermarket seats, but I'll keep the focus on seats for now.

Jojoo:

Hey, it fits within the rule.

Once again..."You can't legislate stupidity".

Eliminate incentive/advantage of unsafe mounting, that's the goal. 

If Bill wants to flaunt his lack of safety, let him. Darwinism will eventually take his type out of the gene pool.

--Andy

rnoll98:

Now I'm questioning the motivation at all for this rule. So safety was not a motivator at all in this?

Of course it was.  But not by directly specifying complete mounting procedures, which is practically impossible given all the car/seat applications involved.  Instead, it removes the incentive for pushing the limits in addition to requiring secure mounting (subjective to the Tech process).  Both parts were addressed.  Section 3 added the words on "secure mounting" and Section 15 added the restrictions on seat back height, weight, and mounting points. 

In short, the subjective goal of "safe mounting" was placed in Section 3, and several specific safety requirements (seat back height & OE mount points) were placed in Section 15.  The 20 lbs is the incentive piece, it is not the total deal.

I'm not sure what you aren't getting, Randy.  While you may not agree with the conclusion, the concept is really not rocket science. 

--Andy

Howdy,

rnoll98:

I want everyone to use a seat that will reasonably support their torso and head in a rear impact, where a kart seat might bend them in half. I want the seat to be mounted in a way that it won't snap off in an impact or rollover. I would like aftermarket seats to be as safe as stock seats. If that's not possible, I want them to be at least certified in some way (FIA or otherwise) and mounted as securely as stock seats, so that if a failure occurs, it happens to the certified seat and not the mounts.

That's a decent start.  I'll add a couple things that I personally want, whether or not I really think they should be rules...

1) I want support for side impacts as well as rear impacts.

2) I'd like better than stock rear impact support, particularly in the case of a car with a rollbar, to help prevent the driver from "submarining" under the harness bar/ diagonal.

3) I'd like to reduce or eliminate the competitive advantage of a $2k seat made from a lighter composite than fiberglass vs. a $500 (or cheaper) fiberglass seat that protect the driver equally well.

Mark

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

As an interim, and as I've suggested, lowering the weight to 10 or 15# ASAP will help keep folks from feeling the need to "trade-in" again when a better rule is put in place . The mount verbage still helps, the seatback verbage still helps. At 10 or 15# the rule is still a step in the right direction, but is delivered without the penalty and insult the first one carried to those who have taken the care to safely mount a sub-20# seat.

I'm gonna be pretty annoyed if I have to rework my seat again because a bunch of SMAC folks didn't realize that a change in SP would affect their class too. 

Good, then you'll understand how the folks with safely mounted sub-20# seats feel now. You mean, you too would go to all that trouble to rework the seat AGAIN if you could save 5#? ONLY 5#? ARE YOU MAD???  All that for 5#?? 

One way to stop this horrible annoyance from decending upon you innocent SP folks is to send a letter proposing SM be exempt from this rule. Good luck with that. And I wish the SMAC had the kind of power you're assuming above. Look through this thread, SM competitors are only a portion of the folks who dislike the rule, probably a minority. People from Stock, ST, SP, SM and Prepared are represented here. If folks that aren't even affected have taken the time to express their dislike, you can't seriously try and pit this on "a bunch of SMAC folks".

rnoll98:

Then the whole motivator for this rule, all this effort, was to save Joe-cheapo the same 5# you're attempting to belittle me for arguing over? The whole rule was written to attempt to bridge this cavernous void in SP between the front runners (with $10k motors and $5k coilovers) and the also rans, by forcing a min weight for seats? I can see the playing field levelling as we speak.

"Click"...."DING!"  The sound of the light going on over Randy's head.  Randy, this has been my position since this rule was first proposed. 

rnoll98:

In that case, I'm going to start drafting my letter on min weights for wheels by size. I'm tired of paying $4k for two sets of wheels that save me maybe 3# per corner. I'd like to run steelies, and would like the SEB to support my cause by forcing everyone else to do the same. Considering we're talking thousands of dollars difference here, and only hundreds for seats, I'm expecting this proposal to be rubber stamped for the '09 season.

This has been my fear and biggest objection to the seat rule.  The preceedent it sets! 

I am in complete agreement with you on the need for people to use safe seats.  I want to see that happen.  I don't want to see anyone hurt.  I don't want to see our insurance rates skyrocket because of stupidity.  My objection to this rule is it doesn't mandate safety, it mandages fairness in the name of safety.  The preceedent this rule sets, I fear, will lead to exactly that which you proposed above.  The line of thinking represented by this rule is a cancer that will destroy the sport.

marka:

Howdy,

rnoll98:

I want everyone to use a seat that will reasonably support their torso and head in a rear impact, where a kart seat might bend them in half. I want the seat to be mounted in a way that it won't snap off in an impact or rollover. I would like aftermarket seats to be as safe as stock seats. If that's not possible, I want them to be at least certified in some way (FIA or otherwise) and mounted as securely as stock seats, so that if a failure occurs, it happens to the certified seat and not the mounts.

That's a decent start.  I'll add a couple things that I personally want, whether or not I really think they should be rules...

1) I want support for side impacts as well as rear impacts.

2) I'd like better than stock rear impact support, particularly in the case of a car with a rollbar, to help prevent the driver from "submarining" under the harness bar/ diagonal.

3) I'd like to reduce or eliminate the competitive advantage of a $2k seat made from a lighter composite than fiberglass vs. a $500 (or cheaper) fiberglass seat that protect the driver equally well.

Mark

1) Safety

2) Safety

3) You want to legislate cost. C'mon Mark, you've been around the block enough times to know this doesn't work, even in stock class. Look at ST and "street tires". Look at shocks and wheels in Stock class. It doesn't work. That's a statement made by someone more naive than you, and you know it. I respect you too much to believe that one.

Steve Hoelscher:

The line of thinking represented by this rule is a cancer that will destroy the sport.

Steve Hoelscher, King of Exageration.

"Cancer"?  Oh, please.

"destroy the sport".  Yeah, sure.

We have many more serious issues that could destroy this sport.  #1 is the lack of sites. This "cancer" you speak of is nothing compared to that one.

--Andy

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

I'm gonna be pretty annoyed if I have to rework my seat again because a bunch of SMAC folks didn't realize that a change in SP would affect their class too. 

 

Good, then you'll understand how the folks with safely mounted sub-20# seats feel now. You mean, you too would go to all that trouble to rework the seat AGAIN if you could save 5#? ONLY 5#? ARE YOU MAD???  All that for 5#?? 

One way to stop this horrible annoyance from decending upon you innocent SP folks is to send a letter proposing SM be exempt from this rule. Good luck with that. And I wish the SMAC had the kind of power you're assuming above. Look through this thread, SM competitors are only a portion of the folks who dislike the rule, probably a minority. People from Stock, ST, SP, SM and Prepared are represented here. If folks that aren't even affected have taken the time to express their dislike, you can't seriously try and pit this on "a bunch of SMAC folks".

I can certainly put it on _some_ SMAC folks who talk about this rule changing "sneaking in on them" or whatever it was... Yeah, it was really subtle.  It was only published in fastrack, provided time to get feedback, then made into a rule when (presumably) feedback supported it.

If you guys had raised all these points _then_, perhaps I'd have a little more sympathy.  But with the exception of Steve H. (who you've at least gotta respect for following the process, even though he's wrong.  :-), I don't recall much hue and cry about it.

But hey, maybe I'm remembering wrong.

For the record, SEB/SMAC folks... I don't give a rats ass what you do in SM.  Any class that allows carbon fiber spindles but prevents me from re-drilling a chassis suspension mount point isn't about making sense anyway.  :-)

Mark

Andy Hollis:

[

"destroy the sport".  Yeah, sure.

Yep.  If the SEB beings legislating fairness/equality and punishing ingenuity, the sport will end up as something we won't recognize.  Not to mention something I won't want to be involved in. 

Destroy?  From my perspective, absolutely.

marka:

I don't give a rats ass what you do in SM.  Any class that allows carbon fiber spindles but prevents me from re-drilling a chassis suspension mount point isn't about making sense anyway.  :-)

[artie lange impersonation=on] WAH!!!! [impersonation off] 

Howdy,

rnoll98:

marka:

3) I'd like to reduce or eliminate the competitive advantage of a $2k seat made from a lighter composite than fiberglass vs. a $500 (or cheaper) fiberglass seat that protect the driver equally well.

Mark

3) You want to legislate cost. C'mon Mark, you've been around the block enough times to know this doesn't work, even in stock class. Look at ST and "street tires". Look at shocks and wheels in Stock class. It doesn't work. That's a statement made by someone more naive than you, and you know it. I respect you too much to believe that one.

You SM guys slay me.

Which is the more expensive drivetrain, built to equal levels.... An SP motor or an SM motor?  Which is more expensive to maintain?  To operate?

Which tire lasts longer... A spec Toyo RA-1 or a Hoosier A6?

I said "reduce" in that quote above for a reason.  Yes, an unobtanium seat, coupled with mounts that place more of the weight as low and as far back as possible (which still being reasonably called a seat or its mount), will have a _slight_ advantage over a less expensive seat that puts the weight higher up and more forward.

But it will be a slight advantage.

Wheels in stock class don't attempt to legislate cost.  If they did, they'd control weight, not size/offset.  Size/offset attempts to legislate the need for bodywork/streetability when not being autocrossed/making it easier to class cars.

Shocks in stock attempt it some, but they purposely hamstring themselves to try and please everyone, with the result that nobody is happy.

STS tires have worked so far to control costs, though as predicted that may be changing a little.  But when we have people running STS to save money compared to stock, that really ought to tell you something.

You certainly can't legislate what a goofball will spend trying to find an advantage.  But you sure as hell can limit the scope of that advantage if they manage to find it.  And you've been around the block long enough to have seen that too.

Mark