SCCAForums.com

Steve Hoelscher:

Andy Hollis:

*If* Solo were to have licensed Tech inspectors, with standard criteria, and logbooks to record the results, safety could indeed be policed effectively.  When will that program be announced? 

 

Why are seats handled differently than seat belts, harnesses, fuel cells, roll cages, etc... etc... etc.... 

Am I to assume that our current tech proceedure is fine for these items but not seats?  

Actually, seats are very similar to roll cages, in that not every Tech inspector can be expected to understand the intricacies of cage construction from scratch.  So there are specs in the allowance section that when followed will typically result in a cage that is "safe".  Similarly, not every Tech inspector can be expected to understand where the sturdiest parts of a OE body section are to mount a seat to, or what is considered a "safe" head restraint height, etc.  So there are some objective specs in the actual allowance. 

Personally, I think the harness allowances are also places where we could benefit from some additional objective restrictions.  I've seen some mountings that were nowhere near as effective as the OE belts & attaching points. 

 

why is it the responsibility of fellow competitors to protest unsafe seats?

I never said it was.

But it's no different than a fellow competitor noticing that someone's roll cage is made of disguised exhaust tubing.  If Tech missed it, you'd be sure to see a protest on that one.  Sure, that's an extreme example to make the point.  But you can imagine lesser versions of the same thing.

Aren't we having the exact same discussion that we had this time last year?  With complaints from the same four people, no less?  One of whom does not even compete in the category?  Same points, same counter-points.

--Andy 

solo-x:

1. The weight limit is not there to make the seat safe. It is there so you don't pay a penalty by installing a seat safely.

You don't "pay a penalty" for installing a seat safely.  Any more than you do by installing a harness safely, or a cage, or a fuel cell, or any other thing on the car.  Why are seats treated differently than any of these items? 

 

solo-x:

 Some cars can mount very light seats safely. Others can't. The weight limit helps level the playing field a tiny bit. The rule also doesn't force you to buy a very expensive carbon/kevlar seat if your car doesn't easily allow lightweight mounting options, so its also a cost reducing measure.

There all dozens of similar issues that are unique to individual cars.  Why are seats a special case?  And why the hell is there a "cost reducing measure" on a seat?  What's next?  Are we going to start making rules that wheels have to weigh 20 lbs each?  After all, there are cars that can't fit small, light wheels and they are expensive.  We should be "leveling the playing field" here too then.   What about car's that are on a line by themselves and therefore can't up/backdate to lighter weight option groups or trim packages?   Oh, and some cars can't be lowered as much as others.  So lets set a minimum ride height to level the playing field there too.   And what about those damned Porsche GT3s and the new Lotus that are so expensive?  How are we going to legislate cost control when those cars cost $100K+?  And I really can't afford to spend $8000 on a set of shocks, so those should be banned.  In the name of "cost control" after all.  Not to mention, no vendor makes the trick $8000 shocks for some cars so that even levels the playing field more. 

solo-x:

2. Tech can check for a safely installed seat that meets the seat back height requirement, similar to how they make sure open seater cars meet the roll bar requirements. Fellow competitors would have to file a protest if they thought your seat were underweight.

No, according to Andy, the tech guy's aren't qualified.  Apparantly they are qualified to determine the safety of roll bars, seat belts, fuel cells, tires, wheel bearings, brakes and every other thing on a car that could be related to safety, but not the seat.  If we are going to set a weight minimum for seats/mounts, why not roll bars, fuel cells, harnesses and everything else.  If that's what's necessary to ensure the safety of seats and keep everything so nice and fair, then why not weight all of that stuff too?

---

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

Andy Hollis:

  One of whom does not even compete in the category? 

Andy, am I not to be concerned with the safety of my fellow competitors?  The good of the sport?  The club in general? 

I also see this as a very dangerous precedent.  And it seems to be making its way up the preparation catagory ladder.  That makes me nervous.  I want it stopped and/or reversed before I have to deal with this crap in Prepared.

I have seen the SEB issue a number of short sighted safety edicts (some without every being issued as a proposal, just a mandate with no discussion) that in some instances had the exact opposite effect.  The no shoulder harness mandate in "targa" roofed cars is such as example.   So when the SEB passes a stupid rule, I am going to call them on it.  This is a stupid rule that sets a bad precedent on at least two fronts.  The SEB deserves to catch some flack over it.

Incidentally, if the tech inspection process is deficient, why not improve it so it is capable of doing this job and the others that are obviously not being done adequately.  Why not use this as an opportunity to improve tech?   Then we can also address the issues of seat belt/harness mounting along with the other issues. We license safety stewards, why not tech inspectors?  At least the SEB could have written an adequate guideline for seat installation/mounting that could have served competitors as an instaltion guide and inspectors in tech.

 

---

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

Steve Hoelscher:

Incidentally, if the tech inspection process is deficient, why not improve it so it is capable of doing this job and the others that are obviously not being done adequately.  Why not use this as an opportunity to improve tech?   Then we can also address the issues of seat belt/harness mounting along with the other issues. We license safety stewards, why not tech inspectors?  At least the SEB could have written an adequate guideline for seat installation/mounting that could have served competitors as an instaltion guide and inspectors in tech.

 

Some of that is already happening.  There was a class/test given at the convention for certifying solo tech inspectors.  Obviously, it is just a trial program at this point, but maybe it will take off.  I agree that education is always a good thing.  That said, I suspect that trying to make something like this fly as a requirement for every SCCA-sanctioned solo event in the country (as it is for Safety Stewards) will meet with significant resistance at the regional level. 

As for writing a guide, sounds like a good idea.  It will surely take a bunch of research to do it well, though.  You up for taking a crack at it?  For the betterment of the sport and your fellow competitors? Before rules mandates hit the P category?   

--Andy
 

This was all done in the name of safety, right? So why didn't they just mandate material thickness for seat mounting rather than min weights. Kind of like lug nut engagement. It is simple to see if you have enough thread engagement just like it would be easy to see material thickness and mounting quality. The min. weight rules don't address potential mounting problems IMO.

Chris

Yah, what chris said.

Whats a 60lbs seat have to do with saftey.  NOTHING.  Stating a minimum back hight, mounting hardware to be used in typical installations and specifiy the seats need to be seats intended for automotive use.  Defending a poorly written rule isnt the solution here.  Saying tech isnt up to par isnt going to fix it.  Making me remove my seat so you can weight it wont help either. 

I have heard more poorly thought out things but their typically from the US Governement not private citizens.

Why not use the GCR seat rules.

thats a 60lbs seat have to do with saftey.  NOTHING.  Stating a minimum back hight, mounting hardware to be used in typical installations and specifiy the seats need to be seats intended for automotive use. 

 

 Not saying that is can't be done, but by doing this you would probably outlaw a ton of OEM seats.   Oops.  Gotta make sure they guy with a CAI has to go home becuase he put Integra seats in his Civic and they don't meet the rule. :(

turbozmike:

Why not use the GCR seat rules.

No required roll cage to brace to for one thing. 

I'll save someone from typing it:  FIA/SFI seats aren't a good thing either unless you want to outlaw every cheaper Sparco. every Corbeau. most Kirkey, all Ultrashield, etc.  DO we really want to require $800 seats for solo?

Once again I am not condoning or defending the current rule, just trying to point out that this rule isn't as simple as some would think....

DaveW

 

 

47CP:

Once again I am not condoning or defending the current rule, just trying to point out that this rule isn't as simple as some would think....

 

I agree, but the SEB simply pulled this rule from ST.  The ST rule was clearly written as a cost limiter, not a safety measure.  Now it is being brought into SP under the guise of a safety measure, which is clearly isn't.  This is what has brought on the objections.  Its a cost control measure, which no-one asked for, being passed off as safety. 

As a safety measure it fails misserably.  It sets no real guidelines, no standards (other than weight) and can be beaten on any number of points.  Not that I or anyone else would deliberately set out to beat a safety rule but a substandard seat/install could not be effectively policed by the existing rule.  The other issue is a perfectly safe seat/install could be determined to not comply with the rule.  Which could probably be overturned on appeal but how does that help?

Every other safety issue in the rule book has been addressed directly.  Why not this one?

---

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

Steve Hoelscher:

There all dozens of similar issues that are unique to individual cars.  Why are seats a special case?  And why the hell is there a "cost reducing measure" on a seat?  What's next?  Are we going to start making rules that wheels have to weigh 20 lbs each?  After all, there are cars that can't fit small, light wheels and they are expensive.  We should be "leveling the playing field" here too then.   What about car's that are on a line by themselves and therefore can't up/backdate to lighter weight option groups or trim packages?   Oh, and some cars can't be lowered as much as others.  So lets set a minimum ride height to level the playing field there too.   And what about those damned Porsche GT3s and the new Lotus that are so expensive?  How are we going to legislate cost control when those cars cost $100K+?  And I really can't afford to spend $8000 on a set of shocks, so those should be banned.  In the name of "cost control" after all.  Not to mention, no vendor makes the trick $8000 shocks for some cars so that even levels the playing field more. 

"Meh, I've got 20lbs to work with. I'm going to mount my seat using this welded, 1/8" thick angle iron instead of bolting together that 1/8" flat aluminum stock..."

Wheels are a bad counter example. The rule book says the wheel must be made from some type of metal. No paper thin, carbon fiber wheels. Shocks are a bad example too, since we can't modify suspension pickup points. That and we're already talking about an entire assembly that might weigh 3lbs. Not a pair of seats that one car might be able to use that weigh 8lbs total versus another car who's safely mounted seats weigh 44lbs total. Going so light on wheels to compromise safety compromises performance too. Same with shocks. How could a better rule be written without subjecting competitors to an even more subjective metric, rendering all inexpensive non FIA/SFI approved seats illegal or requiring specialized training of tech inspectors? The current rule, while not perfect, accomplishes that. The safety requirements are the seat back height. The weight requirement makes it so you have sufficient material at your disposal that you HAVE to use. Now, its still up to you to mount the seat safely, and tech can basically only say a seat is unsafe if it doesn't have a high enough seat back. However, you claim you mounted your seat safely with the old rule. Why can't you mount your seat safely now using more material? If a minimal mounting is safe, how in the hell can an over built mounting be unsafe?

The same morons adding flyswatters to their seats and strapping a 10lb bar bell weight to it are the same morons this rule is written for. The guys who do the bare effin minimum to meet the letter of the rule without a car to the safety. If these guys really cared about safety, then they would build a safe seat within the same rules.

On one hand you complain that we shouldn't be creating rules as a cost cutting measure. On the other hand you complain that its going to cost money to meet the new rule. So which is it? Are we controlling costs or not?
 

Lets stop tossing out straw men and red herrings. A heavier, properly mounted seat is no less safe then a lighter properly mounted seat. Tech inspectors can measure seat back height just like they can measure roll bar height. Reworking your seat mounting to add 10lbs can be done in the blink of an eye, safely, for less then $15. How do I know? I had to do it when I was in STS and they changed the rule from 15lbs to 25lbs including hardware. I was at 18lbs with my old seat mounting. I reworked the mounting to be stronger (it wasn't a slouch before either) and accidently ended up at 29lbs. I welded in a couple pieces of 1/8" 1 1/2x1 1/2 angle iron and steel side mounts instead of my aluminum side mounts. viola, plenty of extra weight and a seat worthy of protecting you from nuclear fallout. Protesting someone who's seat you suspect is too light is easier then protesting them for illegal engine modifications and doesn't require impound pulling seats to weigh them. We should probably put in a bond so cars that don't have bolt holes to mount their seats and end up welding them in don't have to pay to have the seat cut out then welded back in.

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

solo-x:

The same morons adding flyswatters to their seats and strapping a 10lb bar bell weight to it are the same morons this rule is written for. The guys who do the bare effin minimum to meet the letter of the rule without a car to the safety. If these guys really cared about safety, then they would build a safe seat within the same rules.

OK, say Andy's Miata show up in tech with his go-kart seat mounted on a piece of masonite which is bolted to the factory mounts, fitted with a fly swatter head rest and a 15 lbs weight zip tied to the seat back. It meets the letter of the rule..  Its still unsafe.  So the tech guy or safety steward says its unsafe, you can't run until you have a proper seat that is safely mounted. 

Explain to me how a 20 lbs minimum has any effect on this?  If the seat is safe, its safe.  If the tech inspector can call him on it, he can call him on it.  It doesn't matter what it weights.  Therefore, the minimum weight requirement obviously isn't about safety, its about whiners.   This rule punishes innovation and effort.  We don't class cars based on cost, we aren't trying to control costs on shocks, wheels, tires or much of anywhere else.  So why seats?  Its so that somebody can't save 6 lbs by spending the money to buy a high dollar seat.  Proper mounts would weight the same regardless of the weight of the seat.  So the difference is in the cost of the seat.  The whiners complain that they can't afford to buy that $1000 Momo that weighs 9lbs instead of their 15 lbs $129 Ultrashield. 

The rule is also poorly written from a safety standpoint.  The mounting requirements are fundamentally flawed as is the headrest requirement.  Not to mention that most OE seats would be illegal if judged by the standards of the existing rule.

 

---

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

47CP:

thats a 60lbs seat have to do with saftey.  NOTHING.  Stating a minimum back hight, mounting hardware to be used in typical installations and specifiy the seats need to be seats intended for automotive use. 

 

 Not saying that is can't be done, but by doing this you would probably outlaw a ton of OEM seats.   Oops.  Gotta make sure they guy with a CAI has to go home becuase he put Integra seats in his Civic and they don't meet the rule. :(

turbozmike:

Why not use the GCR seat rules.

No required roll cage to brace to for one thing. 

I'll save someone from typing it:  FIA/SFI seats aren't a good thing either unless you want to outlaw every cheaper Sparco. every Corbeau. most Kirkey, all Ultrashield, etc.  DO we really want to require $800 seats for solo?

Once again I am not condoning or defending the current rule, just trying to point out that this rule isn't as simple as some would think....

DaveW

 

 

 

My 14# FIA rated Momo Start was just under $250, shipped to my door.  And the brackets and hardware I built for my 1972 Fiat 128 road racer passed NASA and SCCA tech inspections.  It was under weight based on the new Solo rules.  Riddle me that. 

Chris H. 

subrew:

My 14# FIA rated Momo Start was just under $250, shipped to my door.  And the brackets and hardware I built for my 1972 Fiat 128 road racer passed NASA and SCCA tech inspections.  It was under weight based on the new Solo rules.  Riddle me that. 

Chris H. 

I'm not condoning or supporting the current rule.  It is what it is. 

I also have not done extensive research on every seat available, but it would appear that majority of what is seen in current cars is of the Kirkey, US, Corbeau, Sparco non FIA rated units.  My point was that "make them use FIA seats" might fix the problem, but would cause a lot of competitors to have to throw away what they have now. 

IIRC, the GCR does not require FIA either, does it?  I thought if it wasn't certified, it had to have a seat back brace.  Where do you put that in a category that doesn't require a roll bar/cage?

I think that if we attempt to write a rule to cover every possible contingency that .00000000001% of the competitors will attempt, we will soon have a 200 page book on seat mounting that punishes the other 99.99999999999%.

DaveW

Midiv Drunk Monkey

Not official

 

 

 

47CP:

subrew:

My 14# FIA rated Momo Start was just under $250, shipped to my door.  And the brackets and hardware I built for my 1972 Fiat 128 road racer passed NASA and SCCA tech inspections.  It was under weight based on the new Solo rules.  Riddle me that. 

Chris H. 

I'm not condoning or supporting the current rule.  It is what it is. 

I also have not done extensive research on every seat available, but it would appear that majority of what is seen in current cars is of the Kirkey, US, Corbeau, Sparco non FIA rated units.  My point was that "make them use FIA seats" might fix the problem, but would cause a lot of competitors to have to throw away what they have now...

And the current rule didn't require competitors to throw away what they had?
 

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

And the current rule didn't require competitors to throw away what they had?

OK, how does having to add weight to the seat mount become the same as throwing out a perfectly good Ultrashield Pro Road Race seat become the same thing?  That is just silly....

I'm not defending the weight rule (or condoning it) but that argument is nuts.

Yes, I know that "some" people had to throw out thier perfectly good piece of *** kart seats to meet the new rule.  Or spend an afternoon cutting up tin cans to make thier piece of *** seat legal.  And despite my opinion that those piece of *** seats are pieces of *** that should have never been used in the first place, the change still screwed them.  I understand that.  But, my point is that it affected a lot less people than banning non FIA seats would becuase the majority of competitors use more standard seats.

DaveW

Obviously not official.

 

 

 

My B-Mod Lotus-7 has much less "seat" than any Kart seat, and it doesn't come close to a really decent Kart seat. And I would call it a POS.

All those POS kart seats are still legal in Prepared. Sometimes still without rollbars in the coupes.

I'm with Steve. Ditch the weight limit. Make it a tech item. Require a metal frame and use of all original integral nuts, but not welded on tracks or studs. Require that the headrest either be integral to the metal frame, or an OEM (but not necessarily to that model) adjustable headrest.
 

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

47CP:

And the current rule didn't require competitors to throw away what they had?

OK, how does having to add weight to the seat mount become the same as throwing out a perfectly good Ultrashield Pro Road Race seat become the same thing?  That is just silly....

Maybe that person spent $800 on a 10-12# seat last year, and now has to add ballast so it can weigh the same as the $300 seat he could've bought. That's just as bad as throwing away a $500 non-FIA seat, no? In either case, you can sell the old seat to buy the new one. Both cases are silly if the seat was already securely mounted.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

47CP:

And the current rule didn't require competitors to throw away what they had?

OK, how does having to add weight to the seat mount become the same as throwing out a perfectly good Ultrashield Pro Road Race seat become the same thing?  That is just silly....

Maybe that person spent $800 on a 10-12# seat last year, and now has to add ballast so it can weigh the same as the $300 seat he could've bought. That's just as bad as throwing away a $500 non-FIA seat, no? In either case, you