Proposal to SCCA Club Racing Board of Directors

Hey, do you have a problem with something on your vehicle? Post the problem here someone may just have the answer for you.

Moderators: Rich Rock, Mazdahead

Post Reply
dspgti
Novice
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
PHA Permanent Number: 7
Current Racecar: ITC Rabbit, G/Prod Rabbit, H/Prod Scirocco, GTL Rabbit, TR4, Formula SAE
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Proposal to SCCA Club Racing Board of Directors

Post by dspgti »

The following is a partial copy of my comments to the SCCA Board of directors.


While I realize that SCCA and its participating regions need to promote events and retain drivers by encouraging easy entry, I feel strongly that there are areas of concern for safety and competitive equality. At least for now my major concern is for the GCR classed cars. In the area of safety the GCR allows extensive chassis lightening in GT and Production classes. Currently time trial rules require only GT1 and open GT and open Production cars to have a full roll cage. Time Trial competitors are allowed to remove all bumpers and reinforcements, gut doors including side impact beams, replace steel with composites or light alloys, and remove and lighten structures that weaken the integrity and reduce crash protection. Furthermore, GT and Production rules allow extensive performance modifications and sticky slicks that drastically increase its speed potential. While they go a long way to increase handling, nothing actually stops the race car from leaving the road surface. Not having a full cage is ludicrous in these classes when considering the potential for impact in a hillclimb or track trial.

Time Trials also allow IT and Showroom Stock cars to race without cages. Although these classes don’t allow the lightening factors, the allowable performance modifications propel the cars beyond manufacturers intended performance and speed. Then there’s ITE. While National does not recognize the ITE class, regional allowance has brought out some significant performance vehicles that threaten the survivability of any driver in a major impact without a full GCR specification Roll Cage.

But let’s not forget about the competitive advantages. No one will argue that there is not that much weight disadvantage with the weight of additional tubes. But it’s not just the weight, it’s the location. Fifty pounds over the head of the driver or the majority of tubes required to complete a full cage will be above the center of gravity magnifying its weight disadvantage.

The cost is also a competitive advantage. Many will argue against full cages due to cost. We all run on limited budgets. Those that are able to avoid the expense of a full cage have additional funds to spend on performance modifications instead.

The Proposal

All GCR class race cars competing in Level 3 and 4 Time Trials are required to conform to all rules of the GCR for their classes.

Exceptions: Showroom Stock, allow roll bars in place of cages. These are truly street driven cars and not modified beyond manufacturers design.

Production and GT: Full fire suppression not required. Fuel cells required but allow 3 years to comply as long as rear bumpers and all structure from the fuel tank back is in place.

Thes are my own personal views but will not totaly dominate the future rules suggestion committe. Please see seperate thread to be posted soon.
Last edited by dspgti on Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dspgti
Novice
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
PHA Permanent Number: 7
Current Racecar: ITC Rabbit, G/Prod Rabbit, H/Prod Scirocco, GTL Rabbit, TR4, Formula SAE
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: Proposal to SCCA Club Racing Board of Directors

Post by dspgti »

I can not express enough my disappointment with the lack of input to my proposal. I can only guess that most could care less about rules governing the GCR class race cars. Fortunity, I had some intelligent conversations with a few concerned individuals. I have made the following changes to my letter to the National Board Of Directors:

While I realize that SCCA and its participating regions need to promote events and retain drivers by encouraging easy entry, I feel strongly that there are areas of concern for safety and competitive equality. At least for now my major concern is for the GCR classed cars.

Proposal idea #1

In the area of safety the GCR allows extensive chassis lightening in GT and Production classes. Currently time trial rules require only GT1 and open GT and open Production cars to have a full roll cage. Time Trial competitors are allowed to remove all bumpers and reinforcements, gut doors including side impact beams, replace steel with composites or light alloys, and remove and lighten structures that weaken the integrity and reduce crash protection. Furthermore, GT and Production rules allow extensive performance modifications and sticky slicks that drastically increase its speed potential. While they go a long way to increase handling, nothing actually stops the race car from leaving the road surface. Not having a full cage is ludicrous in these classes when considering the potential for impact in a Level 4 Hillclimb.

I propose to require all GCR classed GT and Production cars to meet the GCR roll cage requirements in a Level 4 event.


Proposal idea #2

Time Trials also allows Improved Touring, American Sedan, Touring, Super Touring and other highly modified classes along with Showroom Stock cars to race without cages. Although these classes don’t allow the all the lightening factors as GT and Production, the allowable performance modifications propel the cars beyond manufacturers intended performance and speed. Then there’s ITE. While National does not recognize the ITE class, Regional allowance has brought out some significant performance vehicles that threaten the survivability of any driver in a major impact without a full GCR specification Roll Cage.

But let’s not forget about the competitive advantages. No one will argue that there is not that much weight disadvantage with the weight of additional tubes. But it’s not just the weight, it’s the location. Fifty pounds over the head of the driver or the majority of tubes required to complete a full cage will be above the center of gravity magnifying its weight disadvantage.

The cost is also a competitive advantage. Many will argue against full cages due to cost. We all run on limited budgets. Those that are able to avoid the expense of a full cage have additional funds to spend on performance modifications instead. Besides, most or all of the discussed vehicles have a corresponding SOLO II class that requires only a roll bar. Why shouldn't they run there against similarly prepared cars?

I propose to require ALL GCR classed cars to meet the specified class roll cage requirements at Level 3 and Level 4 events.

Proposal idea #3

Since Showroom Stock classed cars are often driven on the street and the TT rules don’t provide a SOLO II alternative, perhaps an exemption for them would be practical.

I propose to exempt only Showroom Stock GCR classed cars from the full roll cage requirements and allow roll bars meeting the TT specification.


Last chance for input,
Dave Y.
FV95
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:17 am
PHA Permanent Number: 95
Current Racecar: Vector FV, BMW R100R, 914-2.0
Location: Carlisle
Contact:

Re: Proposal to SCCA Club Racing Board of Directors

Post by FV95 »

Dave, I wrote my reply about safety & speed on the previous thread before I read your proposal. For what it is worth, I fully support your proposal.
John Pitman
Post Reply