SCCAForums.com

solo-x:

I've got an idea. For christ's sake, just ballast your seat up in a manner that is clearly acceptable and stop trying to "beat" the rule to "prove" the rule should be changed. It isn't that hard. Especially for guys that are such good engineers that they can safely mount a seat in there car with only 5lbs of material including the seat. Problem solved!

 

You need to pull your head out of the Solo 2 world, and realize how retarded this rule is.

The fact a SCCA GCR legal, and NASA Roadrace legal FIA seat weighing 14# with proper mounting hardware needs to be "ballasted up" to weigh 20# for Solo use, proves this new rule has NOTHING to do with safety.

The fact the rule was written, is because certain people wanted to prove a point.   

Chris H. 

 

TedV:

Patrick Washburn:

 EDIT:  OK...I'll cave in and agree that the rule should be modified to read "using factory bolts/studs, or slide rails...."  There.

 since the slide rails are weighed as part of the seat, I'm thinking my VW seat will weigh in about 1900 lbs, give or take 150 lbs. 

There...problem solved.  Next?  ;)

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

subrew:

You need to pull your head out of the Solo 2 world, and realize how retarded this rule is.

The fact a SCCA GCR legal, and NASA Roadrace legal FIA seat weighing 14# with proper mounting hardware needs to be "ballasted up" to weigh 20# for Solo use, proves this new rule has NOTHING to do with safety.

The fact the rule was written, is because certain people wanted to prove a point.   

Chris H.

Sorry, you quoted me and you're wrong so I'm stepping back in for a second. 

RTFRB again. Cars prepped to IT specifications can run in their appropriate SP class. No mixing of prep rules. We don't write rules for other sanctioning bodies, so anyone crossing over will know that some changes may be needed and either their car won't fall into any IT class and they won't be able to run SP and fall into a P class or they'll meet IT classing and fall under the IT -> SP clause. In either case, its a non-issue and certainly not a reason for "how retarded this rule is".

And how many times does it need to be said? The 20lb limit ISN'T THE SAFETY PART OF THE RULE! If you want to argue safety, argue the seat back height and requirement for using OEM mount points. Further, road racing has a inspection process including log books for the cars and certified tech inspectors. You sure you want to implement that for Solo? Are you going to pay for it?

---

Nate Whipple
NER
188/88 DSP ITR

solo-x:

And how many times does it need to be said? The 20lb limit ISN'T THE SAFETY PART OF THE RULE!

 Welcome to our side of the arguement.  Component minimum weight specifications have no place in SP let alone SM.  It has been passed off that having a minimum weight would increase the safety of the seat and is therefore nessasary.  It isn't.  Add on the fact that the rule is so poorly written that it's nearly impossible to not get protested on and it just pisses me off.  I don't care what weight limit is specified, as the car I drive is already over 20lbs.  I'm against specifying a min weight for any component.  And if this rule continues to stand, the precedent it sets is going to spread through the rest of the SP rules like cancer.  Ruin the ST class in the name of being fair if you want but leave SP alone.

Marshall Grice:

Add on the fact that the rule is so poorly written that it's nearly impossible to not get protested on and it just pisses me off. 

What is so hard about getting a seat that mets the rules and making/purchasing a mounting system that attaches it to the vehicle using the factory locations... then making sure it weights 20 lbs?  For 99% of the cars produced there is no issue, for a few cars there seems to be an issue because of welded in sliders...

---

Jason Frank
Bridgestone / datatoys.com / Redshift Motorsports STS Civic Si

TeamUndercoatRacing.com

solo-x:

And how many times does it need to be said? The 20lb limit ISN'T THE SAFETY PART OF THE RULE!

That's not true. It's touted as removing incentive for unSAFE mounts. You guys can't bob and weave in and out of your reasoning as it suits the direction of the discussion. Regardless, I think there's a simple solution:

 

We need to split the baby, break the rule in half.

Rule #1 The "Safety" Rule: Stock mounting points, seat back height, "securely mounted".

Rule #2 The "Fairness" Rule: 20# minimum for seats.

The problem is everything was jumbled together like a bad piece of Washington legislation, so the whole thing is getting praised or bashed. Let the membership weigh in on each rule separately. Let SM independently determine to accept/reject #2, or come up with their own number.

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

Regardless, I think there's a simple solution:

We need to split the baby, break the rule in half.

Rule #1 The "Safety" Rule: Stock mounting points, seat back height, "securely mounted".

Rule #2 The "Fairness" Rule: 20# minimum for seats.

The problem is everything was jumbled together like a bad piece of Washington legislation, so the whole thing is getting praised or bashed. Let the membership weigh in on each rule separately. Let SM independently determine to accept/reject #2, or come up with their own number.

That sounds like a good idea, Randy!

 Does anyone disagree with #1?  I don't (keeping in mind that no rule will ever be perfect ... forever).

 Do we need #2?  Well, personally I don't think so.  Notably, I can see where people could possibly have thought that it would be a good idea in that kart seats, for example, weigh very little and that I understand how it might be assumed that most aftermarket seats may weigh around 20 lbs or so.

Unfortunately, as chance would have it, there are stock seats under 20 lbs (Lotus, possibly others?) never mind the aftermarket.  Whoops.  Let's admit an error in judgment happened  no biggie, no need to point fingers (doesn't do any good other than causing people to dig their respective heels - anyone else notice that?).  S*it happens in life. 

No big deal.

Just fix it (by deleting the 20 lbs part ...  After all, it just complicates things anyway for tech inspection having to remove a seat and hardware to weigh them etc.).

Consider these words of wisdom I once heard from a carpenter:  "A good carpenter is not one who does not make mistakes.  A good one is one who fixes his mistakes." 

Last step - move on.   :^)

Cheers!

 Reijo

---

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

I think that actually could work out pretty well. I also don't think there needs to be a weight requirement once you separate the rules, though admittedly it doesn't matter for my choice of seat, but I don't like the precedent.

I would also adjust the seatback height ruling.  It is explicitly unfair for those of us of a larger stature.  The seatback height thing seems to have been added to prevent the use of kart seats, but no one would question my safety in the stock seats in just about any car. I imagine I'm close to or exceeding the seat back height requirement only because I use the stock seats from another car, even though I'd be just as safe/unsafe in my stock seats.  I'm no less safe than if I were riding in those stock seats in the car they came in.  They are certainly normal-height adult-size car seats still - I just happen to be tall and can't really afford to go get custom made seats or something.

If it's decided that people who's heads are too far higher than their seats need some extra safety margin, I'd prefer to see it dealt more directly.  If someone knows a way I can make a typical car seat safer for me, I'd be open to ideas - I just don't really know any.

-N

 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

I would also adjust the seatback height ruling.  It is explicitly unfair for those of us of a larger stature.  The seatback height thing seems to have been added to prevent the use of kart seats, but no one would question my safety in the stock seats in just about any car.

Not quite.

Seat height, actually head rest height, is a really big deal with the Fed for safety reasons.  Its wasn't just to eliminate kart seats (or old-school buckets, or whatever).

We did a bunch of research on seat height availability for race seats and we found plenty of height can be bought.  In fact one very common manufacturer (I forget which but could find out if you really need to know) does custom heights for very little extra cash (like $50 more).  It is really not unfair.

--Andy 

Yes, but as I said, if the rule is about safety, it would apply to stock seats too.  I use the stock seats from an STi instead of the seats my car came with - they aren't any taller or shorter than the stock ones.

 All I'm saying is that a ruling about allowed modifications shouldn't be mixed with safety, as it is here. If tall people are allowed to autocross in stock road vehicles, I don't see why it should be different in my case.  It's just not consistent.

-N     
 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

Yes, but as I said, if the rule is about safety, it would apply to stock seats too.  I use the stock seats from an STi instead of the seats my car came with - they aren't any taller or shorter than the stock ones.

Can the head rest from the STi seat be adjusted to hit you ear-level (above the neck)?  I'll bet it can.

--Andy 

It's not an adjustable head rest.  I suspect that I'm in/out of legal range depending on the angle of the seatback.  As I said, I wholly suspect that no one would question the legality of my seat - I'm clearly not pushing the limits of the rules with it.  But, I know I'm at least close to the limit and would rather the rules weren't written the way they were because of that.

-N 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

Howdy,

I'll support removing the weight minimum in the rule as soon as I'm allowed to:

1) remove my rear seat like other cars in my class can.

2) change camshafts.

3) run spherical bearings instead of stupid rubber/plastic bushings.

I think this is easily supportable, since you apparently can't control costs anyway.

:-)

Mark

(Here's the precedent I don't want to set.... The one where a bunch of whiny f*cks don't pay attention to rule proposals that affect them, wait until after the member feedback process is done & the new rule is created, then clamor like spoiled children wanting it "fixed"... Even though it says exactly what was proposed and they ignored.)

What if a tall(long torso) person runs a Lotus with the stock seat in SP and his or her head is past the seat top?

Whoops 35X!

FM(Are my Solsti seats in stock high enough?/6-1'1/2"?)

Fastmike:

What if a tall(long torso) person runs a Lotus with the stock seat in SP and his or her head is past the seat top?

Whoops 35X!

FM(Are my Solsti seats in stock high enough?/6-1'1/2"?)

Stock seats are always legal.  It is only when you substitute via the rules allowance that there are restrictions.

If it is good enough for the Feds, it is good enough for us.

--Andy

 

Fastmike:

What if a tall(long torso) person runs a Lotus with the stock seat in SP and his or her head is past the seat top?

Whoops 35X!

FM(Are my Solsti seats in stock high enough?/6-1'1/2"?)

 I'm 6' 4.5" and the stock solstice seat are tall enough (not taking into account that stock seats in the original car are o.k.)

The Sparco Evo I installed is also plenty tall enough for me, although I have a more favorable body proportion than most for my height.

---

Alex Jones
2007 A-Street Prepared GXP
www.CrazyMonkeyRacing.com

because 285's were not enough...

Man that car looks cool on those wheels and tires!
Too bad I don't think my car has a chance in CSP.

FM

marka:

Howdy,

I'll support removing the weight minimum in the rule as soon as I'm allowed to:

1) remove my rear seat like other cars in my class can.

Mark. The "other cars" have an update/backdate opportunity to remove the rear seat. Did GM sell Camarobirds without rear seats? No. Did Chrysler/Mitsubishi sell DSMs without rear seats? No. Ahh, but Ford *did* sell Mustangs without rear seats. This isn't a marque-specific allowance in the rules. This is update/backdate. Chastise GM for not selling a rear-seat-delete Camarobird.

As for the rest of this? All I'm saying is "be careful what you wish for". What was wished for was progression between ST rules that were created in a vacuum and plopped down in between Stock and SP, and the existing, long-established SP rules. What was wished for was some way of dealing with the kart-seat/electric conduit mount issue. Put the two together and this is the result.

Don't like it? Write a letter to seb@scca.com with your reasoned argument and suggested alternatives.

And Mark, the rod ends/camber kit/adjustable control arms/etc.? More stuff ST created in a vacuum.

---

AutoJim
ESP #65 '99 Mustang Cobra

Howdy,

AutoJim:

Mark. The "other cars" have an update/backdate opportunity to remove the rear seat. Did GM sell Camarobirds without rear seats? No. Did Chrysler/Mitsubishi sell DSMs without rear seats? No. Ahh, but Ford *did* sell Mustangs without rear seats. This isn't a marque-specific allowance in the rules. This is update/backdate. Chastise GM for not selling a rear-seat-delete Camarobird.

I know Jim.  Its just annoying that I've got to have a completely useless rear seat in my car.  :-)

How about allowing rear seat removal if a (legal) rollbar is installed? 

 

As for the rest of this? All I'm saying is "be careful what you wish for". What was wished for was progression between ST rules that were created in a vacuum and plopped down in between Stock and SP, and the existing, long-established SP rules. What was wished for was some way of dealing with the kart-seat/electric conduit mount issue. Put the two together and this is the result.

Don't like it? Write a letter to seb@scca.com with your reasoned argument and suggested alternatives.

And Mark, the rod ends/camber kit/adjustable control arms/etc.? More stuff ST created in a vacuum.

Rod ends & adjustable control arms just make sense compared to offset bushings.  Offset bushings are stupid and the only reason they exist at all is to work around rules that don't allow alternate arms.

Spherical bearings for suspension components just make too much sense.

Prepared went through the "long established" bit recently too... The only thing that survived was archaic wheel penalties (which, amusingly, people bitched about because SP created the "no wheel penalty" thing in a vacumn... :-)

"Long established" doesn't mean "correct"

Mark

marka:

I know Jim.  Its just annoying that I've got to have a completely useless rear seat in my car.  :-)

A completely useless rear seat.  How about that completely useless right seat, or carpet, or door panels, head liner....etc...

marka:

Rod ends & adjustable control arms just make sense compared to offset bushings.  Offset bushings are stupid and the only reason they exist at all is to work around rules that don't allow alternate arms.

The problem with allowing "adjustable" control arms is that lets in complete custom fabricated control arms.  OK Mark, I will support an allowance for custom control arms but they have to weigh 20 lbs each.  That eliminates the incentrive for some ignorant jerk to make an ultra-light control arm out of coathanger wire.  He still can make an unsafe control arm out of coathanger wire but he has to bolt a hunk of balast to it so it makes weight.  After all, we can't mandate safety but we can eliminate the incentive.  We have to be fair to the guy that does it right and makes a safe, heavy control arm and can't afford the expensive materials to make a safe AND light control arm.  After all, fairness is the primary goal of our Brave New Rule Book.

And I will support you removing your rear seat but you have to carry balast, where the seat was located, equal to at least 150% of the weight of the seat you removed.  We have to be fair now don't ya know.

marka:

 

Spherical bearings for suspension components just make too much sense.

Mark, as I said previously, the more you post on this subject, the more obvious it is you don't understand how and why the rules are what they are and what effect the proposals you make would have.

 

---

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