46 replies to this topic

[pfrichardson]

...are up:

http://www.scca.com/.../cars-and-rules

[Johnny D]

Not Recommended

SM
1. #18342 (Ralph Provitz) Allow Turn Signal Removal in the 94-97 1.8
Thank you for your letter. The CRB does not recommend this change.

 

Recommended for 2016
SM
1. #18779 (Tom Berndt) Exhaust Manifold Repair for 1.8 NA
Thank you for your letter regarding exhaust manifold repair for the 1.8L NA cars. If approved by the Board of Directors, the CRB recommends this become effective 6/1/16.

Repairs are permitted as follows:
Insert between the two paragraphs of 9.1.7.C.l.1
1.8L (1994-1997): A bead of weld or braze may be added to the outside of the exhaust manifold inlet and outlet mounting flanges for the purposes of repair only. No material may be removed. No coatings are permitted on the exterior or interior of the manifold. Heat wraps may not be used.

 

Taken care of
SM
1. #18403 (Jim Drago) Hoosier H20 Tire
Thank you for your letter. The CRB and SCCA Staff are open to discussions with Hoosier about options for rain tires for SM and such a discussion is in the works.

Tech Bulletin
Spec Miata
1. #18994 (Jason Kohler) Clarification of 9.1.7.C.3.h Regarding De-Powering Steering Racks
In GCR section 9.1.7.C.3.h., make the following changes:
"Manual or power steering racks may be used. Power steering racks may be converted to manual by removing all power steering components  and the 2-piece pinion shaft may be welded. Removal of power steering components is allowed."

[Greg Amy]

It's baaaack....

 

Technical Bulletin, Letter #18687, effective 4/1/16:

"Upon expiration of FIA certification, FIA seats may be used but must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing."

 

http://forum.specmia...31;t=000228;p=0

[Chris Ashcraft]

I will be ordering a new seat, i will never drill holes in seat that the manufacturer has not tested.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I will be ordering a new seat, i will never drill holes in seat that the manufacturer has not tested.

I have a FIA seat and installed a seat back brace per NASA and never drilled any holes in the seat. It is mounted firmly on the roll bar and is firm against the seat back with no holes needed.

[FTodaro]

I will be ordering a new seat, i will never drill holes in seat that the manufacturer has not tested.

Before you do, i would write a letter to the CRB suggesting they change the language because as it stands it is make a bigger problem then is solves and if i have read these posts correctly, the fact that they changes the standards does not make  your used seat any less safe after so many years of manufacture. spending a 1000,00 on a seat when the old one is just as safe as a new one sounds like wasted money.

[Mark McCallister]

The 2013 FIA doc says:

 

7. Seat life:

The usable life of an FIA homologated seat will be 5 years from the  year of manufacture. For example, a seat manufactured on 1 January 2014 will be “Not valid after 2019”; likewise, a seat manufactured on 31 December 2014 will be “Not valid after 2019”.

An extension of up to 2 further years may be authorised where the seat has been returned to the manufacturer for re-validation. Extensions will be indicated by an additional label affixed to the seat identifying the date on which the seat eligibility ceases, and validated by the manufacturer's quality inspection stamp.

 

If we're going to go by the FIA doc and say they're all expired and unusable, then fine.  If we're not and it's up to me to inspect fully (see Danny's example in the other thread), then fine.  To me, "firmly attach" means mechanical fastener or perhaps industrial adhesive, neither of which I'm going to put in contact with a composite seat unless directed by the manufacturer.  I understand this back brace thing is a bone thrown to reduce the number of people who need to replace their expired seats, but unless endorsed by a manufacturer I think it's a bad idea, as it endorses armchair engineering that may create a dangerous situation where it did not previously exist.

 

Here is the FIA standard:

 8855-1999_Competition_seat_0.pdf   174.26KB   7 downloads

[Johnny D]

We've have this debate before.
 
Here's the April tech bulletin.
http://cdn.growasset....pdf?1457364282

3. #18687 (Charles Tanck) Proper Interpretation of Section 9.3.41. Seats
In GCR section 9.3.41, add the following language:
"The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral sup- port. Seats that have been homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999, or seats that have been certified to FIA. Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure. Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated seats assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car. The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 or No. 40 (lateral, bottom, etc.). Passenger seat back–if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place. Upon expiration of FIA certification, FIA seats may be used but must have the seat back firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing."

[Johnny D]

For the record.

My RaceTech expired.

It was pointed out to me that it was flexing in a video before it expired.

I added the back brace.

I like it better now and haven't had a problem for over a season.

Thou I haven't crashed to test it.

J~

[wheel]

Without the recent clarification of the rule, a tech person could have made an issue of your seat, even with a back brace.  Although this was never the intent, the CRB felt it would be in everyone's best interest to remove any doubt by adding the clarification.

[Greg Amy]

Without the recent clarification of the rule, a tech person could have made an issue of your seat, even with a back brace.  Although this was never the intent, the CRB felt it would be in everyone's best interest to remove any doubt by adding the clarification.

 

So then why didn't we "clarify" it to the SCCA-blessed, long-time, and widely-accepted practice that the homologated use of FIA-certified seats is not date-limited?

 

If the whole point of this was an explicit clarification, then the SCCA should have asked internally instead of acting unilaterally. As a Nationally-licensed scrutineer, and someone involved in this process of FIA seat allowances from its beginning, I am well aware that this issue has been on the table since 2001. This question has been asked and answered up the SCCA chain many times for a decade-and-a-half, and the answer has always been "we do not enforce the dates on FIA seats."

 

Numerous members and scrutineers have asked this explicit question in the past, both publicly and privately, and the answer from Technical Services has always been "we do not enforce the dates on FIA seats."

 

Even more formally, this issue came up to the CRB in 2010 in letter #855. It was "recommended" by the CRB but was subsequently rejected by the BoD, likely with the response "we do not enforce the dates on FIA seats."

 

And yet, despite all this formal, informal, and acceptable practice over the last decade-and-a-half of use with FIA seats (with, as far as I know, ZERO casualties due to failures of FIA seats that exceeded five years' use without braces), the CRB has, in one stroke, changed the regulations in the GCR to give the membership all of one week (after formal publication of  Fastrack) to replaced engineered safety solutions with ad hoc-designed and -installed seat back braces on FIA-tested, -homologated, and -certified seats.

 

A "clarification"? Seriously?

 

Finally, I question the basis of the clarification. Note that the reg (GCR 9.3.41) reads "Seats that have been homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standards 8855-1999, or seats that have been certified to FIA Standard 8862-2009 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure." (My emphasis). This verbiage was clear and intentional when written in 2001. Its intent was to ensure that the construction and installation of the seat was done to a standard, that it was not someone bending up some aluminum and covering it in sofa cushions. But more importantly, that verbiage on the 8855-1999 intentionally avoided the word "certified", as it was recognized at the time that FIA "certification" ended after 5 years. The SCCA, in its wisdom, wanted to encourage engineered and tested safety solutions, and discourage ad hoc engineering of such systems - such as adding a back brace to an FIA-tested composite seat.

 

Therefore, the regs as written for the 8855-1999 seats are already "clear": if your seat was homologated to that standard, and it is mounted in accordance with that homologation, then there is no date limit on use of that seat without a "seat back brace". It is truly unfortunate that the SCCA subsequently added the 8862-2009 language in a poor and less-thought-out manner (edit: although one can easily argue that the past-tense words "have been certified" rather than present-tense "are certified" represent sufficient position for not limiting dates on FIA seats).

 

All that said, this is a rules change, not a "clarification", and it's one that will make safety worse. And it is in direct contrast to past accepted practices, and is being done with almost zero notification to the membership.

 

Shame on us.

 

GregA

 

Edit: one other point. If the reason for "clarifying" was a concern regarding how a "tech person could have made an issue of your seat, even with a back brace" then I refer you to the GCR definition of "firmly attached" and its guidance on how these back braces should be engineered and installed.

 

Edit 2: Note that disregarding certification date on safety equipment is not without precedent in the SCCA. For example, SFI certification date on window nets is ignored (GCR 9.3.54) and we allow SFI harnesses to exceed two years (GCR 9.3.19).

[Bench Racer]

Interesting info for specific racetech seats and their DISCLAIMER fair warning.

 

http://racetech-usa....kit?search=boss

 

Click on Downloads for install instructions.

[Greg Amy]

For the record.

My RaceTech expired.

It was pointed out to me that it was flexing in a video before it expired.

I added the back brace.

I like it better now and haven't had a problem for over a season.

Thou I haven't crashed to test it.

J~

It was flexing when it was brand new; it's designed to do that. That's how it works to dampen the forces transmitted into the seat -- and thus into your upper torso. Or as one engineer noted to me when we discussed these seat back braces back in 2001:

 

"Our seat are made to absorb inertia away from your body. If you mount any part of the seat other than the base to the structure of your car you eliminate that safety feature."

 

You made your seat the equivalent of a locked shock absorber (or a bottomed-out suspension).

[Johnny D]

Bla, bla bla, it's been debated before. And you're free to continue.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

You're not the 1st to say this.

We also get people that want to rewrite the rule book every season too, just saying.

 

Don't like it. Buy new.

Ok with it, mount it the best you can to the rules and have it checked.

Of course the MFG, supplier is going to cover their ass.

 

Most people know flexing over time leads to failure at some point. Just saying.

I wasn't getting the feedback I wanted. I didn't want to sway as I was racing.

J~

[FTodaro]

I would agree that this new language changes the RULE as i understand how it was interpreted. SCCA never required bracing. So now if it is required folks have to decide if they want to risk attaching a composite seat to a back Brace or replace the seat. I would hope that we have a chance to debate how it should be done if it needs to be done and some time to implement it.

 

I also agree with the concerns in the 2010 post, that modifying a seat in a way that the MFG has not tested or approved, goes against common sense.

[Johnny D]

So here's a debate.
http://mazdaracers.c...olutions/page-3
I assume Frank is going with Wheels quote #44, which may be countintuitive to what Wheel/rule just said.

J~

[Greg Amy]

Bla, bla bla, it's been debated before. And you're free to continue.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

Just got this back from a manufacturer of my seat, in response for my request for instructions on how to safely mount a seat back brace:

 

Hi Greg,

Thank you for contacting *******, we do not test our seats with back braces and so we do not recommend using them with our seats. Our fiberglass or Carbon seats are made to have flex in them, which absorb energy. this flex in the seat does not translate well into a back brace which can result into serious damage of the seat and or driver. We recommend going with a seat that is within the 5 year of the manufacture date and if you have any questions please let me know.

Thank you,

*****

 

Enjoy your strokes, dood.

[Johnny D]

This is just like I said.

 

"If" you are in the "I will not do anything that the MFG doesn't test or recommended" camp.

Then when It expires, you go get a another.

 

Correct Dude ??

 

If you are in the "It's expired but I'm ok...."

Then that leads you down a few other roads.

"I will not drill holes"

I will but only with MTG hardware.

I'll use a back brace but not drill.

I will use a back brace and drill.

 

Follow?

J~

[Rob Burgoon]

Without the recent clarification of the rule, a tech person could have made an issue of your seat, even with a back brace.  Although this was never the intent, the CRB felt it would be in everyone's best interest to remove any doubt by adding the clarification.

 

We channeling the EPA now?

[tom1977]

Good to know us 1.8 NA guys may be able to repair our exhaust manifolds soon, wording should include repairs on exterior of collector portion of manifold...where they typically crack!  Oh, and fix the tabs that break off too!