SCCAForums.com

subrew:

Wait.  So what was the problem with Bill's Seat?  It looks like a typical mass produced fixed back seat bolted down securely. What isn't "properly engineered" about that? 

[...]

The fact he had to add ballast based on a new minimum seat rule, doesn't mean his previous unballasted seat was unsafe.  The fact he did it in a humorous method, also doesn't make it unsafe.  Both his seat, and the ballast were secured safely.  The fact the little strap connecting the seat to the ballast was skimpy, doesn't make either unsafe.  It is simply violating the spirit of the new rule in some people's eyes.

That has nothing to do with safety.  Yet that is what you seem to be claiming.

I'm not Andy, but I'll go on record and say that I feel Bill's seat violates the letter of the rule.

His ballast plate & strap is not a seat or a seat mount.

So he's broken two rules... #1, his seat & mount is (presumably) too light.  #2 he's illegally mounted ballast in his car.

:-)

I don't have an opinion as to the safety of his seat and mount, since the pictures don't show it and its mounting well enough to say one way or the other.

Mark

marka:

I'm not Andy, but I'll go on record and say that I feel Bill's seat violates the letter of the rule.

His ballast plate & strap is not a seat or a seat mount.

Explain to me how its not a "mount".

---

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

subrew:

Andy Hollis:

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. 

--Andy 

I was talking about the flyswatter headrest kart seat that Mark Andy linked to, not the picture you copied.  I responded to one of the responders to Mark.

--Andy 

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

I'm not Andy, but I'll go on record and say that I feel Bill's seat violates the letter of the rule.

His ballast plate & strap is not a seat or a seat mount.

Explain to me how its not a "mount".

Explain to me how it contributes anything to the seat being safely and securely mounted to the car.

Mark

(edit:  alternatively, explain to me how the carpet in the car isn't part of the seat mount, yet that ballast plate is.)

marka:

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.

I'm sure your memory is just fine. How does any of this make the rule better?

Clinging to the fact that folks missed something in Fastrack doesn't justify the continued existence of the rule. It's pretty obvious nobody listened to Steve's letter that I'm sure had plenty of valid points. When that train left the staion, nothing was going to stop it. Our punishment is having to deal with it this year. If it's ever going to be changed, wouldn't it be better to announce that a revision is being worked on and put it in place in 2009? The longer we wait the more pain it will cause when corrected.

---

Randy Noll

Howdy,

rnoll98:

I'm sure your memory is just fine. How does any of this make the rule better?

Clinging to the fact that folks missed something in Fastrack doesn't justify the continued existence of the rule. It's pretty obvious nobody listened to Steve's letter that I'm sure had plenty of valid points. When that train left the staion, nothing was going to stop it. Our punishment is having to deal with it this year. If it's ever going to be changed, wouldn't it be better to announce that a revision is being worked on and put it in place in 2009? The longer we wait the more pain it will cause when corrected.

_I_  _LIKE_ the rule.

And what justifies its continued existence, beyond the clear fact that its 100% on the side of the gods, is that constantly tweaking rules sucks for everyone.  You missed this one.  Everyone will need to ensure their seat meets the rules this year.  Requiring them to re-visit this next year too is just more insult to injury (except for Bill, he can just unbolt his ballast plate since its not part of the seat or its mount anyway.  :-)

Now, if you can convince the SEB/BOD to issue an immedate retraction, you might have an argument.  But its already pretty late for that (national events have already started) and I think you've got a snowball's chance of getting them to do an immediate rule change for 5 lbs.

Mark

marka:

Explain to me how it contributes anything to the seat being safely and securely mounted to the car.

A mount attaches the seat to the floor.  It does.  The rule doesn't define the type of mount or its function.  Only that the seat be securely mounted. 

 

marka:

(edit:  alternatively, explain to me how the carpet in the car isn't part of the seat mount, yet that ballast plate is.)

Already did.  That's not a "balast plate" its a sandwich plate. 

So now the thickness and size of the sandwich plate is going to be challenged?  His plate is too strong??? 

Clearly, the problem you have with his application is that he found the flaws in the rule.  If the chunk of weight was bolted to the seat 1/8th of an inch away you would have been perfectly fine with it. 

He meets every aspect of the rule.  Its a safe seat, its securely mounted, it meets the minimum weight.  Yet there are people that are livid over the fact that the balast is 1/8 of an inch away from where they think it should be.  Give me an eff'ing break.  Like I said, its beyond silly.

If I ever needed an example of illogical thinking, your response to Randy that we should have to live with a bad rule because fixing it would be an undue burden.  Huh?  If you screw up, you fix it.

---

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

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

Explain to me how it contributes anything to the seat being safely and securely mounted to the car.

A mount attaches the seat to the floor.  It does.  The rule doesn't define the type of mount or its function.  Only that the seat be securely mounted. 

And what does that ballast plate and its strap contribute to the security of the seat mounting system?

 

marka:

(edit:  alternatively, explain to me how the carpet in the car isn't part of the seat mount, yet that ballast plate is.)

Already did.  That's not a "balast plate" its a sandwich plate. 

You're missing my point.  Your (illogical, because you don't like the rule) reading of the rules would make the carpet just as much a part of the seat mount as that ballast plate. 

 

So now the thickness and size of the sandwich plate is going to be challenged?  His plate is too strong??? 

Clearly, the problem you have with his application is that he found the flaws in the rule.  If the chunk of weight was bolted to the seat 1/8th of an inch away you would have been perfectly fine with it. 

That's correct.  I'd have been fine with it if the ballast plate had been securely mounted to the seat or its mount.  It'd have met the letter of the rule.

Like a lot of things in autox, meeting the letter of the rule is what you need to do, it doesn't have to make a lot of sense.  Sorta like a '93 Cobra R being able to remove the rear seat, but I can't in a camaro.

 

He meets every aspect of the rule.  Its a safe seat, its securely mounted, it meets the minimum weight.  Yet there are people that are livid over the fact that the balast is 1/8 of an inch away from where they think it should be.  Give me an eff'ing break.  Like I said, its beyond silly.

There's something beyond silly here, certainly.  I'm not beyond livid btw, I just think the rules are being broken. 

 

If I ever needed an example of illogical thinking, your response to Randy that we should have to live with a bad rule because fixing it would be an undue burden.  Huh?  If you screw up, you fix it.

Oh!  Ok.  Well then I respectfully request we fix the following before we worry about 5 lbs difference on the seat.

*) inconsistencies between ST* rules regarding brakes & suspension allowances vs. SP.  ST*'s make more sense to me, so SP should just adopt them.

*) Allowing individual runner intake manifolds where none existed from the factory.

*) Allowing bushings of any material except metal... Even though spherical bearings work better, are just as streetable, and are much more easily obtained.

*) Allowing removal of the driver's side airbag but not the passenger side.

*) Allowing subframe connectors & torque arms, but not allowing the torque arm to be mounted to the subframe connectors.

*) Having a subframe connector rule that, if read to the letter of the rule, disallows all subframe connectors.

After we get through those (after all, they've been in place longer and therefore are more in need of being addressed), we can revisit the seat rule.

Mark

marka:

Oh!  Ok.  Well then I respectfully request we fix the following before we worry about 5 lbs difference on the seat.

*) inconsistencies between ST* rules regarding brakes & suspension allowances vs. SP.  ST*'s make more sense to me, so SP should just adopt them.

*) Allowing individual runner intake manifolds where none existed from the factory.

*) Allowing bushings of any material except metal... Even though spherical bearings work better, are just as streetable, and are much more easily obtained.

*) Allowing removal of the driver's side airbag but not the passenger side.

*) Allowing subframe connectors & torque arms, but not allowing the torque arm to be mounted to the subframe connectors.

*) Having a subframe connector rule that, if read to the letter of the rule, disallows all subframe connectors.

After we get through those (after all, they've been in place longer and therefore are more in need of being addressed), we can revisit the seat rule.

Mark

"Of course! How selfish of me. Let's do all the things that YOU want to do."   --Ace Ventura

I'm on your wagon Mark, lead us onward! They all sound reasonable to me. The brake part has baffled me for a long time.

There have been letters written regarding immediate change/consideration of the seat rule. No go just yet, but if it makes you feel any better, people are pushing via official channels rather than just crying on eachothers' shoulders here.

---

Randy Noll

 Exactly right. Racers have ALWAYS sacrificed safety for winning. It's a sad fact. Only when rules have mandated safety have racers included them.

You can add on that list for SP "Open ECU's". Because that's what it is but it's still written for carbureted cars. 

 

Oh and add the adjustable camber arms for double wishbone suspensions as well.  

 

rnoll98:

There have been letters written regarding immediate change/consideration of the seat rule. No go just yet, but if it makes you feel any better, people are pushing via official channels rather than just crying on eachothers' shoulders here.

Where have these letters been sent? Maybe to the SMAC for a SM change? They haven't made it to the SPAC. Since April of '07 we've received very (very,very) few letters on this subject and nothing new for quite a while.

EWCMR2:

rnoll98:

There have been letters written regarding immediate change/consideration of the seat rule. No go just yet, but if it makes you feel any better, people are pushing via official channels rather than just crying on eachothers' shoulders here.

Where have these letters been sent? Maybe to the SMAC for a SM change? They haven't made it to the SPAC. Since April of '07 we've received very (very,very) few letters on this subject and nothing new for quite a while.

I was copied on one on 4/30 that went to the SEB. It's probably in the spam box. I'll refrain from the conspiracy theory comments :)

I'll hit you up on email about other items.

---

Randy Noll

marka:

Explain to me how it contributes anything to the seat being safely and securely mounted to the car.

He doesn't have to.  As protestor, you have to prove it doesn't.  And that is going to be tougher than you think.  Define a "mount" and then prove this isn't a mount.  It attaches the seat to the floor.  That's a "mount".  The rule says nothing about the "safety and security" of the mount(s).

A mount attaches the seat to the floor.  It does.  The rule doesn't define the type of mount or its function.  Only that the seat be securely mounted. 

marka:

And what does that ballast plate and its strap contribute to the security of the seat mounting system?

 

As I have said, its not a "balast plate", its a "sandwich plate", until you prove its not.

marka:

(edit:  alternatively, explain to me how the carpet in the car isn't part of the seat mount, yet that ballast plate is.)

Carpet is the OE upholstry that covers the floor.  It has its own function. 

Already did.  That's not a "balast plate" its a sandwich plate. 

marka:

That's correct.  I'd have been fine with it if the ballast plate had been securely mounted to the seat or its mount.  It'd have met the letter of the rule.

Like a lot of things in autox, meeting the letter of the rule is what you need to do, it doesn't have to make a lot of sense.  Sorta like a '93 Cobra R being able to remove the rear seat, but I can't in a camaro.

 

Mark, it meets the letter of the rule as is.  Why are you so upset that its 1/8th of an inch away from the seat.  It meets EVERY intent of the rule NOW.

The more you post the more clear it is you don't understand the rules or how they work.  The '93 Cobra R isn't "able to remove the rear seat", it never had one.  Show me a Camaro that didn't come a rear seat, that's on the same line as yours, and you can up/backdate to that config. 

---

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

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

marka:

Explain to me how it contributes anything to the seat being safely and securely mounted to the car.

He doesn't have to.  As protestor, you have to prove it doesn't.  And that is going to be tougher than you think.  Define a "mount" and then prove this isn't a mount.  It attaches the seat to the floor.  That's a "mount".  The rule says nothing about the "safety and security" of the mount(s).

A mount attaches the seat to the floor.  It does.  The rule doesn't define the type of mount or its function.  Only that the seat be securely mounted. 

Show me another seat mount, anywhere in the history of cars, that's as flexible as that one is (when its not being adjusted).

Its not a mount Steve, no matter how much you say it is because you don't like the rule.

Mark

(off to knife edge & polish my crank... Oooops!  I mean "underdrive pulley".  :-)

The wire that pulls the slide adjusters is slack when not in use.  Do all parts of a seat mount need to have tension at all times?

I'm one of the people that this rule is aimed at.  I had a plastic kart seat directly mounted to the floor (total weight under 10#) so I've been watching the thread with interest.  It's not that I didn't have the resources to do better, it's that I didn't need to do better.  It was an autocross only car and my legs don't grow or shrink.  Having the seat be secure and the car safe is the job of Tech.  The seat in question above is safe, so why is there an effort to make it illegal?  Seriously guys.  14 pages of "what ifs" and weight mandates when it should only take a responsible tech worker a couple of minutes to verify that a seat is secure and then spot check it every couple of events.  

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

marka:

Show me another seat mount, anywhere in the history of cars, that's as flexible as that one is (when its not being adjusted).

Its not a mount Steve, no matter how much you say it is because you don't like the rule.

Again....(sigh).... I don't have to prove anything.  The burden is born by the protestor.  You have to prove its NOT part of the seat or mount.  It doesn't matter what my opinion of the rule is.  Note too: all seat mounts flex and as Rob noted, not everything to do with a mount has to be rigid.

One of the reasons I don't like the rule is its poorly written and therefore causes these kind of enforcement issues.  You like the rule but hate the results.  Why?  Because its poorly executed. 

Answer this question for me because I really don't understand your problem with Bill's seat/mount:  Bill has a safe seat, securely mounted.  It meets the weight requirement.  So what's the problem?

 

---

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

Well, Bill's kart seat was also certainly securely bolted to the floor - no problems with that.  I never saw any indication of looseness or otherwise with that seat.  Note that karts pull in excess of 2.0 g's in corners so I believe they are plenty sturdy enough for our use in that regard.

 A kart seat does not have a high back so there is danger if you slide backwards into a solid object and I can understand that concern. 

 Now, thinking outside the "box", what do kart drivers do?  They travel much faster and with less protection around them than we do at solo events.  Why do they not have high-backed seats?

 The thought occurred to me that kart drivers are required to wear neck collars! 

Maybe this could have been a solution to the kart seats?  That is, requiring the wearing of neck collars for anyone driving with a kart seat (or how about anyone without a headrest - like early '60's or before cars which did not have one).

 Anyhow, there's my latest thoughts on the issue.

 Perhaps the easiest fix is to simply "fix" the weight requirement (do away with it or reduce it say to 15-ish lbs since we know all car seats are heavier than that.....for now...until someone comes up with a material-based seat...or require a SAE, FIA whatever certified seat and just forget the weight issue which may have seemed like a good idea at first) and I think this whole issue will go away as someone else posted.

What would happen if someone molded a "seat" into a car?  E.g. built up a kevlar or fibreglass maybe with foam molded into the space where a seat would go.....making it a part of the body?

 Have a good weekend!

 Reijo

---

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

Steve, could you please clarify why you think Bill's interpretation of the rule is fine but your own amazing engineering prowess couldn't figure out how to legally mount a seat in a car where the seats don't bolt in but has welded in seat tracks/brackets from the factory? You can't interpret the rule one way to say this car can't install a seat legally and then interpret it another way to say a "sandwich plate" (wtf? doesn't look like any "sandwich plate" I've seen and certainly doesn't serve any purpose towards improving the stength of the seat mount!) mounted anywhere in the car, provided it's "attached" to the seat, is legal. So, which is it? Or are you being intentionally obtuse because stomping your feet and pouting isn't an acceptable way for adults to throw temper tantrums?

Be careful what you wish for. This rule isn't going away near as I can tell, but clarifications can backfire. I foresee verbage in the rule that seat mounts can't serve any other purpose and that they must be directly below the seating surface. I also forsee verbage clarifying what constitutes the mounting hardware and whether ballast can be attached to the seat. I can also see clarification on the intent of the rule. Keep pushing. It'll happen. And you'll be even more upset when it does. And all because you ultimately either a) don't like the rule or b) think that ingenuity with seat mounting bracketry is a huge draw for SP/SM and this rule alienates anyone who likes to engineer. Or, I guess there is the black helicopter option c) the SEB is secretly trying to destroy SP and SM to make room for ?????

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR