SCCAForums.com

Steve Hoelscher:

From Bill's post I assume he had on OE seat from an Elise in his Miata.  That raises an interesting question; is the OE Elise seat legal in an Elise?  If so, then why is that seat not legal in any other car?  And if so, why does the Elise get to run with lighter seats?  Was the only reason the seat was protested was the strap came off?  Its that not a silly protest?

Come on Steve. Really? You've been at this game long enough. Some cars have certain advantages and handicaps that other cars do not. The Elise happens to have an advantage in that its stock seats are lighter then the SP minimum. However, they are only legal at that weight in the Elise. I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

If you want to see a bunch of ways nearly every rule for a class can have the intent beat while meeting the letter, go wade through ST. Not saying that the way the rule written can't be improved, but the ones complaining sure haven't offered an alternate way of writing the rule.

Here is the challenge. Write a rule that doesn't penalize someone for safely mounting an affordable seat without requiring an outside regulation that would render the majority of the affordable seats on the market illegal. Along with that, try to mandate some reasonable sense of safety that can be enforced with our current Tech Inspector level of training. Currently a minimum weight, seat back height, and attachment points are trying to accomplish just that. Is it perfect? No, but finding ways to meet the letter while completely ignoring the intent is more detrimental to this sport then this rule is.

Nate - will never envy the job members of the SEB/AC's volunteer for 

solo-x:

Come on Steve. Really? You've been at this game long enough. Some cars have certain advantages and handicaps that other cars do not. The Elise happens to have an advantage in that its stock seats are lighter then the SP minimum. However, they are only legal at that weight in the Elise. I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

Geez.... you missed the point entirely.  This rule is about equality, not safety.  Its not fair that some people can aford ultra-light seats.  So then my extension, its not fair that one car gets to run with lighter seats than any other. 

The most important point is that the protest process and committee is not suited to policing safety.  Tech is.

If the reason the problem is tech, fix tech.  I posted a simple draft of an effective seat rule already. 

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

Geez.... you missed the point entirely.

[...] 

The most important point is that the protest process and committee is not suited to policing safety.  Tech is.

Yeah, someone's missing the point of the rule, for sure.  :-)

Mark

Why can't SP people run Elise seats if not stock?
They seem to be "safe enough" in SP Loti.

The real solution is to require FIA seats if stock ones are replaced, Leave the minimum weight thing if not FIA or stock if you really think that is helping with safety.

FM

The supposed worry seems to be the mounting methods employed. I don't think seat standards are being scrutinized (or focused on as much) in this rule change. Although I doubt that my circa 1975 aluminum lawnchair strapped to a 20lb. steel plate would survive a protest.......

Fastmike:

Why can't SP people run Elise seats if not stock?
They seem to be "safe enough" in SP Loti.

The real solution is to require FIA seats if stock ones are replaced, Leave the minimum weight thing if not FIA or stock if you really think that is helping with safety.

FM

 

Steve Hoelscher:

From Bill's post I assume he had on OE seat from an Elise in his Miata.  That raises an interesting question; is the OE Elise seat legal in an Elise?  If so, then why is that seat not legal in any other car?  And if so, why does the Elise get to run with lighter seats?  Was the only reason the seat was protested was the strap came off?  Its that not a silly protest?

Not that this thread is very useful anymore, but you're getting off-track and clearly don't remember the rule...  The SP seat restrictions are only for seats that have been replaced.  So stock seats are fine in the vehicles they come in (in those positions).  Not sure if this supersedes update/backdate though...  The Elise seat is legal in any other car, it just must weight 20lbs including the mounting hardware in those situations.

"The driver and front passenger seats may be replaced, with the
following restrictions: The seating surface must be fully upholstered.
The top of the seat, or an attached headrest, may not be
below the center of the driver’s head. The seat, including mounting
hardware, must weigh at least 20 pounds and must be attached
using the standard body mounting holes/studs. Additional
mounting points may be added. Cars may have no fewer
than the standard number of seats. The seat tracks are considered
part of the seat and may be substituted. Alternate seat
tracks may serve no other purpose. The standard seat belts may
be removed to facilitate the installation of alternate restraints
complying with safety requirements."

actor:

Yes, it is needed; of course, a complete re-think/re-write would be even better. 

If things move quickly this could still get changed for next year. How about everyone that had the time to make this an 11 page thread write up your "ideal, everyone will like it" seat rule and post it. Then we can all mix&match the best ones into a good proposal to send to the SEB/SPAC.

For the SM people that seem to be fine with the rule but not the 20lb min, write a letter to the SMAC suggesting a "better" weight.  The SMAC could copy the current rule and change the 20lbs to xxlbs or xlbs in a few seconds!  

Its not fair that some people can aford ultra-light seats.

Your saying ultra-light seats are expensive.

The light weight seat I ran last year was 5 lbs with the braket which I made myself. The seat cost almost nothing. From an old MG made of fiberglass with leather cover.

If anyone used that excuse. That's pretty lame.

Patrick Lipsinic:

The light weight seat I ran last year was 5 lbs with the braket which I made myself. The seat cost almost nothing. From an old MG made of fiberglass with leather cover.

Sounds like a very safe seat.  If its good enough for an old MG, it must easily meet today's standards for safety, right? <sarcasm off>

You have demonstrated the poster child for what the rule hoped to do away with.  Curious, what do you use now, Pat?

--Andy
 

spaf:

Not that this thread is very useful anymore, but you're getting off-track and clearly don't remember the rule...  The SP seat restrictions are only for seats that have been replaced.  So stock seats are fine in the vehicles they come in (in those positions).  

Jason.... ever heard of a rhetorical question?  Of course I know the OE seat is legal, OE parts typically are.  I was using that question to make a point.  The point that this rule, intended to ensure equality, actually permitted one car to run a lighter seat than any other. 

Charlie Davis:

actor:

CHRISFP78:

actor:

rnoll98:

 So far I've seen one half-asser mock the rule, get protested, and have the protest denied. Why? Because the protest was probably valid for an unsafe seat, but the rule doesn't have a leg to stand on so the committee couldn't uphold it. What was done? I believe the protestee was encouraged to find a better seat solution. This could've been done anyways without the rest of us ballasting up.

 

I hope you're not talking about me, Randy.  There's nothing half-assed about my seats or how they're mounted.  They are rock solid, yet only weighed 18 lbs.(interestingly, the pax seat is oem - from an Elise), so I had to add 2lbs. of ballast to make them "Safe". 

I was protested on the fact that the strap attaching the ballast to the seat came loose (the ballast was still mounted to the floor, behind the seat rock-solid) on the driver's side.  The jerk (yes, it's very safe for me to call him that) that protested me lost the protest, and the PC asked that the SEB clarify the rule (they also said I must make the attachment of the ballast to the seat stronger - no problem; I'm ditching my present ballast for a much more elegant solution [thanks Scott F.!]). 

Interestingly enough, a member of the SEB WAS on the PC (all this happened @ the NorPac/S.F.R./SoPac Divisional last weekend in Albany, CA)  How's THAT for irony?!

 

Bill Schenker

"Safe @ Any Weight"

Personally, I am glad there was a protest at the event. It gives legitimacy to our series if somone in 7th place is going to protest you. Sorry it had to be you Bill. It also put in motion a clarification that is needed IMO.

Chris

Yes, it is needed; of course, a complete re-think/re-write would be even better. 

And yeah, it wasn't much fun spending 3 hrs., getting the seats and ballast weighed, missing lunch and being late for my work assignment (Safety, no less! ) 'cause of this nut-job, but if it is for the greater good...

Bill, I think your characterization of the protestor as a "Jerk" and a "Nut job" is unfair.  The protest was well founded, and while your seat met the letter of the law, the PC determined that it did not meet the spirit or intent of the rule.  He never conducted himself in any manner other than genuine and never brought personality into the issue.  I do hope the SEB re-writes the rule.  I think having an SEB member on the PC was fortunate and I hope that he is able to convey what we all want to the rest of the SEB.     

 

I think my comments are VERY accurate;

1. The protester has a history of throwing paper at your local  events while not being in compliance himself (yes, I checked with Mazda; the placement of his non-oem washer bottle allowing him to use a strut tower brace is mounted in a non-standard placement - illegal.)

2. How is it that the protestee never looked at my car, yet made a bee-line to the bottom of my seat?  Makes you wonder, no? 

3. Why didn't he talk to me first, like all gentlemen in our sport do?  Hell, @ the ProSoloFinale I've talked to people saying please fix "X" by the end of the week (Nationals).

4. "Valid"? There was NO performance advantage to the placement of my ballast; there was NO safety hazard to the placement of the ballast or the "detachment" of it. The rule, as written, does NOT specify what method must be used to meet the 20lbs. min. weight. Actually, the ballast was technically attached to it's mounting point ('though definitely loose)  until the grid person, at the instruction of the protester, pulled it loose. The protestee's comment to me when I asked him, "are you really going to protest this?" was, "You national types should know better."  Yeah, a real nice attitude.

5. Despite your explaining that his 'sense of humor is just that way' regarding his posts on the Bay Area message board, the guy already had a bee in his butt about me and my car before I ever got to the event.

Charlie, I accepted the ruling of the PC, but that doesn't make it the final and only word, nor does it excuse the actions and attitude of the protester.
 

Respectfully,
 

Bill

Sounds like a messed up protest process. Sorry you had to endure that Bill. Why is grid messing with your stuff? At what point did they do that? But remember, we are mostly policed by ourselves.

If we are serious about safety, make a "real" rule about what grade and size bolts to use(usually visible), how big of a plate to use(easily measureable) to mount the seat if not oem mounts and a minimum spec on brackets and seat(also measureable). Stamp/sticker all this stuff ONCE and leave it alone after that.

All that said, a well mounted seat,in some rare cases, can be less safe in an accident.

FM(probably totalled and rolled more cars than most on this board).

solo-x:

Yeah, a picture of the protested seat would be nice. What I've heard was that the seat "ballast" wasn't anywhere near the seat, just had something (a piece of screen was it?) "attaching" it to the seat. Tortured interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. Completely missing the intent of the rule? I'd say so. Go ahead, dislike the rule.  But don't make a mockery of a sport, the SPAC and your competitors. Flyswatters with a sock over them for the seat back? Yep, meets the letter. I know I wouldn't call the guy protesting that crap any names though.

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

Andy Hollis:

Patrick Lipsinic:

The light weight seat I ran last year was 5 lbs with the braket which I made myself. The seat cost almost nothing. From an old MG made of fiberglass with leather cover.

Sounds like a very safe seat.  If its good enough for an old MG, it must easily meet today's standards for safety, right? <sarcasm off>

--Andy
 

Is that what the rule is intended to do, bring up the seat safety level for all cars to today's standard?  If so, why stop at only the seat?  Why not eliminate the air bag removal?  Can't ud/bd ABS.  etc.  

This whole things smells of typical beaurocratic overreaction, based on a few people's stupidity.  I.e. using totally inappropriate seats and mounting methods. 

Oh, and Andy...you might want to lay off the stabs at Pat and his 5# seat.  Unless you enjoy being labeled as a hypocrite?
 

subrew:

Is that what the rule is intended to do, bring up the seat safety level for all cars to today's standard?  If so, why stop at only the seat?  Why not eliminate the air bag removal?  Can't ud/bd ABS.  etc.  

Can't resist taking a swipe at me again, eh Chris?

As has been stated over and over in this thread, the goal was to eliminate the incentive/advantage to do unsafe backyard engineering.  Actually trying to legislate safe seats for all applications would take a specification process even more specific than what we currently have for roll bars. 

 

This whole things smells of typical beaurocratic overreaction, based on a few people's stupidity.  I.e. using totally inappropriate seats and mounting methods. 

Oh, and Andy...you might want to lay off the stabs at Pat and his 5# seat.  Unless you enjoy being labeled as a hypocrite?

Hypocrite, eh?

When I first put a kart seat in my Miata, I was expecting that to be a one-year thing.  No SEB in their right mind could allow that, I thought.  Well, it lasted for six years!  And I was one of the folks who helped get it fixed.  During that six years, more and more of these things started to show up.  And not just kart seats, but other crappy seats and even decent seats with lousy homemade aluminum mountings.  As National competitors installed them, regional guys imitated, usually with less quality.

The final straw for me was the aforementioned Packwood rollover and subsequent investigation of what could have easily been a loss-of-life situation had not the competitor installed a harness bar to mount his video camera. You may consider that "beaurocratic overreaction, based on a few people's stupidity", but I consider it "responsibility to the sport".  Just because sh*t doesn't happen often, does not mean mean it does not happen.  Seeing all the incident reports each year gave me a clear view of just how much sh*t does happen in our sport.  I suspect that most folks would be surprised at the amount.

That said, now that I am no longer on the SEB, I don't really care what SP does.  I doubt I'll ever go back there.  And the more that category pushes towards custom fabrication, the more folks will decide that ST (real off-the-shelf bolt-on stuff and streetable cars) is where its at.

--Andy 

actor:

solo-x:

Yeah, a picture of the protested seat would be nice. What I've heard was that the seat "ballast" wasn't anywhere near the seat, just had something (a piece of screen was it?) "attaching" it to the seat. Tortured interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. Completely missing the intent of the rule? I'd say so. Go ahead, dislike the rule.  But don't make a mockery of a sport, the SPAC and your competitors. Flyswatters with a sock over them for the seat back? Yep, meets the letter. I know I wouldn't call the guy protesting that crap any names though.

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

Upload them to a site that allows you to direct link pictures in message boards. Then post either the link or use the "insert image" tree icon in the message composition window. You could also create an album here on sccaforums and direct people there. Failing all that, email them to me at whip113 at hotmail dot com and I'll get them up.

Bill, I'd love to be wrong. I'm telling you what the rumors are. If the rumors are true, I stand by my previous post. For the record, the flyswatter bit is in reference to some one else's seat. I haven't heard that about yours.

Speaking generically, a flywswatter seat back with a sock on it would meet the letter of the rule. Ballast bolted in the trunk and attached to the seat with a wire would also meet the letter of the rule. Doing either of these things are, IMO, a mockery of the sport and an insult to your competition. This is not the first rule that could easily have the letter met but murder the intent. IMO, rules are two parts, the letter, and the intent. Sometimes you can meet the letter and miss the intent, other times you can meet the intent and miss the letter. Flat out ignoring one or the other is an excellent way to make yourself protest bait. If you choose to do this either because you think the rule is dumb or whatever and you get protested, don't go online and call the guy protesting you names. You brought it on yourself.

Speaking generically, a flywswatter seat back with a sock on it would meet the letter of the rule.

I hate to step back into this thread, but a flyswatter with a sock on it will not pass National or Pro Tech in 2008 and does not follow the rules as the entire seat is not securely mounted.   I urge competitors to not try to make that point as they may make a long trip somewhere and not be able to run or have to do a bunch of work to make the seat legal.

No matter if anything should or will be done with the rule in the future, the above is how the current rule will be enforced by tech in 2008.

DaveW

Midiv Drunk Monkey

Thanks to Marka, I figured out how to attach photos.

Solo-x: Rumors?  Really?  You're going to make assertions based on rumors?  O.K., how's this: I heard a rumor that you and all the others that think this rule is peachy-keen are really from the planet Volton and you have 3 heads but no brains in them.  I shall continue to operate under that assumption until it's proven otherwise.

 Anyway, here are the pics.

1st pic. are the components of the ballast (removed, as thanks to Scott Frasier I have a better method of attaching ballast - pax seat done, drivers seat next.) 

There, tear me apart. 

 
Bill 

EDIT:  Opps, looks like I can only attach 1 pic. at a time., so I'll make 3 more pots w/3 more pics.